TranscendZac wrote:

I hope they convert these cancellations into the A350-1000. Would work well to replace some of their A346.

For all we know, that could have already happened.

They are in discussions for more a35k....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-446556/

TranscendZac wrote:

I hope they convert these cancellations into the A350-1000. Would work well to replace some of their A346.

I could definitely see that happening. Would do well on Just about all their routes, especially bigger ones like New York and LA. Heck, even A339, given the average length of VS flights.

Well well well you never can tell, hoping for some A35K or A339

Any money VS had tied up on the A380 was probably applied to something else years ago. If there was money that would be applied to a new order that order probably would have occurred with the cancellation rather than having the money float around in no mans accounting land in the interim. That doesn’t mean that VS won’t order more A350s at some point of course.

Revelation wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

IAG have been on the record several times wanting more A380's.

I'm on the record wanting a Tesla X but am not willing to pay the asking price, even though I have money in the bank and could readily get loans to cover the cost.

Guess me and WW have something in common (we want something) and Tesla and Airbus also have something in common (they're not getting our business).

You drive 12 Tesla X's ???

ap305 wrote:

They are in discussions for more a35k....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-446556/

If they decided to order more A35Ks, that would definitely allow VS to have a decent number of both LHR-based birds with more premium seats for their busiest routes, and LGW/MAN-based birds for leisure/Caribbean routes. It would be very nice for Airbus to get a follow-on order by VS.

acreinholz wrote:

Does anyone else feel bad for the A380 project? Such a marvelous bird...

No, I don't feel badly at all

PW100 wrote:

You drive 12 Tesla X's ???

You don't ???

Too bad, I had visions of an entire lineup of Upper Class massage stations on board, and happy patrons all getting relaxed while enroute.

Jayafe wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

In Y many would say the 767 has best experience

You mean in 1990?

767 with its 2-3-2 configuration is still the best for Y (assuming the cabin was updated like on Delta with IFE etc)
777 - 3-4-3
787- 3-3-3
330 - 2-4-3
350 - 3-3-3

Chemist wrote:

Too bad, I had visions of an entire lineup of Upper Class massage stations on board, and happy patrons all getting relaxed while enroute.

Well considering that VS abandoned the onboard Masseurs a few years ago I don't share the same vision.

Revelation wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

IAG have been on the record several times wanting more A380's.

I'm on the record wanting a Tesla X but am not willing to pay the asking price, even though I have money in the bank and could readily get loans to cover the cost.

Guess me and WW have something in common (we want something) and Tesla and Airbus also have something in common (they're not getting our business).

I think it's very likely we'll see a 380 order from IAG. Of all airlines BA won't take the capacity hit from the downsize of loads of 747 routes, out of the most slot contained airport in the world. WW is using the media to leverage negotiating power, they arguably NEED more A380s, they just want the right price.

Cunard wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Too bad, I had visions of an entire lineup of Upper Class massage stations on board, and happy patrons all getting relaxed while enroute.

Well considering that VS abandoned the onboard Masseurs a few years ago I don't share the same vision.

Why did they do that? Perhaps Steve Wynn was a VS customer?

I was actually wondering the other day when were they going to get their first A380!

Sad to see the order go, but nevertheless it makes sense I guess.

UAEflyer wrote:

So by this cancellation , the flying disco and spa is cancelled....

1980 has finally arrived

ap305 wrote:

They are in discussions for more a35k....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-446556/

Interesting when you compare to https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/compa ... its-fleet/ which says:

The UK carrier’s order book is effectively complete, the CEO said, with 12 A350s set for delivery from early next year through to 2021, by which point it will have 44 aircraft.

It also gives us the CEO's input on why they kept the order on the books for so long:

Kreeger said previously that rolling over the super-jumbo commitment each year was useful in encouraging regular talks with Airbus that helped seal terms for the purchase of the A350s and smaller A330s.

Hopefully Team Leahy put the meals on their expense account!

And a frank admission that the A380 order really never made sense:

CEO Craig Kreeger said that England-based Virgin is happy with its relationship with Airbus, from which it recently agreed to buy the latest A350 twin-jet model, but that the four-engined, 550-seat A380 was "never really likely to make sense" for the company.

"It was not a particularly difficult call to make," Kreeger said in an interview in London as Virgin revealed a new economy-class product. "It was nice having it as an option in case the world changed in a way that it made sense, but I had not seen a real opportunity for us to acquire those airplanes."

They could order 6 748

Revelation wrote:

PW100 wrote:

You drive 12 Tesla X's ???

You don't ???

Wanted to buy a used one, but then found out somebody shot it to Mars . . .

On a more serious note, I still believe your comparison is flawed.

SC430 wrote:

acreinholz wrote:

Does anyone else feel bad for the A380 project? Such a marvelous bird...

Big yes, marvelous - not particularly. Both the 787 and A350 were much more innovative and ground breaking. Materials and processes from both of these programs will be adapted to future designs, A380 not so much. In fact I would say the original 747 having been built 40 years before the A380 was a true marvel.

I'm not so sure. I think theres a good chance using FMLs like GLARE (but using carbon instead of glass) may be the preferred choice going forward.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

What took them so long?

Fax machine was broken .....

Hahaha, almost spilled my coffee!

I would say the postal service is on strike.

Really sad to see this, but the writing is on the wall quite some time ago. Back in 2000, airline market is really different than what it is today.

For better or worse, A380 has a good production run (subjective to each view). Such a marvellous piece of engineering! Everytime I see one take off, I will be in awe!

Revelation wrote:

PW100 wrote:

You drive 12 Tesla X's ???

You don't ???

Of course not.

I have my private hyperloop project, electric cars are so 2017.

Keith2004 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

In Y many would say the 767 has best experience

You mean in 1990?

767 with its 2-3-2 configuration is still the best for Y (assuming the cabin was updated like on Delta with IFE etc)
777 - 3-4-3
787- 3-3-3
330 - 2-4-3
350 - 3-3-3

I'm assuming you mean 2-4-2 for the A330.

The A330 is about as good as anyone will get to the 767 seating. And it is awesome having a "love seat" on the A330 and the 4 in the middle as an option for families.

SC430 wrote:

IslandRob wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

Firming up of the latest EK order. Notice that every A380 cancellation over the past years was reported in Airbus' orders spreadsheet at the same time an A380 order was booked...

When EK firms up their 16 options, we'll probably see a cancellation of the Amedeo A380 'order', or the UFO order (formerly Hong Kong Airlines).

If Amedeo and Qantas follow the lead of Virgin Atlantic in canceling their A380s, could that result in a net loss for whale jet orders for 2018 despite EK's recent lifeline order? -ir

Amedeo isn't really an order.

Shhhh! Don't tell Airbus that (although they actually already know it, like everybody else, but we all just pretend). -ir

Someone83 wrote:

Wonder if either the depositum is lost or goes towards other Airbus aircraft?

Is expectable that those deposits will go toward other Airbuses which they already ordered (notabily the A350-1000XWB).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already expected that move by VS (of cancelling the order for the A380) since they ordered the A35K in 2015.
With the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350XWB in the fleet, the replacement of their Airbus A340-300s (by the 789, I think), Airbus A340-600s and Boeing 747-400s (by the A35K, but I'd also want to see VS ordering the A350-900XWB) is already ensured, thus rendering the A380 as unnecessary. As the potential Airbus A330-300 replacement, I think is likely that they could order the A330-900neo, but the Boeing 787-10 would also fit their needs.

Does anyone remember when these aircraft were originally ordered? Seems so long ago!

9252fly wrote:

Does anyone remember when these aircraft were originally ordered? Seems so long ago!

From Flightglobal:

The carrier had been among the first A380 customers, originally signing for the Rolls-Royce Trent 900-powered jets in 2001.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-446556/

SelseyBill wrote:

xxcr wrote:

Honestly the A380 program was dead from the start! the only airline that's able to make it work is EK.

What a completely ridiculous comment.

The A380 story is a long, long way from being over yet. I know the A380 is the central catalyst for a lot of prejudiced transatlantic opinion; but from a passenger perspective; IMO; the A380 is the best travelling experience in the skies.

or Singapore or Qantas or BA.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

Fax machine was broken .....

If you know VS's IT systems, it wasn't broken, they just bought the cheapest one they could find, it happened to have different connects than everything else in the office and required a very expensive plug to convert it to something that will now work 50% of the time.

Perhaps the stockholder that owns 49% of VS had something to do with this decision???? Branson no longer pulls all the strings at VS.

Having aircraft on the order books for 17 years must be some sort of record !
Great shame that VS won't, as expected, not take up the A380's. I'm sure they would have filled them no problem at peak times but the trouble is the rest of the time they'd be simply too big.

TC957 wrote:

Having aircraft on the order books for 17 years must be some sort of record !
Great shame that VS won't, as expected, not take up the A380's. I'm sure they would have filled them no problem at peak times but the trouble is the rest of the time they'd be simply too big.

Something many of us realized 17 or more years ago, sigh.

gatibosgru wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

You mean in 1990?

767 with its 2-3-2 configuration is still the best for Y (assuming the cabin was updated like on Delta with IFE etc)
777 - 3-4-3
787- 3-3-3
330 - 2-4-3
350 - 3-3-3

I'm assuming you mean 2-4-2 for the A330.

The A330 is about as good as anyone will get to the 767 seating. And it is awesome having a "love seat" on the A330 and the 4 in the middle as an option for families.

Yup meant 2-4-2, it is definitely the runner up to the 767 configuration in Y

phantom5777 wrote:

Perhaps the stockholder that owns 49% of VS had something to do with this decision???? Branson no longer pulls all the strings at VS.

The VS A380 order was dead long before DL came into the picture. Once Bermuda II was killed any realistic hope for the order was over.

xdlx wrote:

They could order 6 748

They better hurry before the 747-8i supply chain breaks apart since there are zero planes in the backlog and the last delivery was last summer.

Now they are not spending all that money how about a revamp of Upper Class, looking awfully tired now.

readytotaxi wrote:

Now they are not spending all that money how about a revamp of Upper Class, looking awfully tired now.

Because it's a dense configuration that works really well for them. They market it as a more affordable business class and a lot of companies book staff in Upper Class for that very reason, easier to justify expenditure wise. It's not like VS has any major business class competition is it with BA's awfully dated config.

jetwet1 wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

Fax machine was broken .....

If you know VS's IT systems, it wasn't broken, they just bought the cheapest one they could find, it happened to have different connects than everything else in the office and required a very expensive plug to convert it to something that will now work 50% of the time.

I was being sarcastic!

rbavfan wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

xxcr wrote:

Honestly the A380 program was dead from the start! the only airline that's able to make it work is EK.

What a completely ridiculous comment.

The A380 story is a long, long way from being over yet. I know the A380 is the central catalyst for a lot of prejudiced transatlantic opinion; but from a passenger perspective; IMO; the A380 is the best travelling experience in the skies.

or Singapore or Qantas or BA.

SQ and BA, definitely. But QF.. I wouldn't think so.

Strato2 wrote:

xdlx wrote:

They could order 6 748

They better hurry before the 747-8i supply chain breaks apart since there are zero planes in the backlog and the last delivery was last summer.

Didn't they just get a big order from UPS?

I think as long as they are cranking out cargo versions the 747-8 supply chain will be fine

Keith2004 wrote:

I think as long as they are cranking out cargo versions the 747-8 supply chain will be fine

Boeing and the 767 line disagree...

This cancelation was expected since...forever? The only thing now is that if this cancelation had occurred before the EK order of last month, Anet would have been (again) a huge "the A380 is doomed and we knew it since the 80´s", now with the new order, it is not great news but there are other airlines who will cancel their laughable orders.

A380 the aircraft that refuses to die... LOL

TRB

Polot wrote:

phantom5777 wrote:

Perhaps the stockholder that owns 49% of VS had something to do with this decision???? Branson no longer pulls all the strings at VS.

The VS A380 order was dead long before DL came into the picture. Once Bermuda II was killed any realistic hope for the order was over.

Is it just me who thinks the decision to cancel now was partly down to Airbus saying to VS “You’ve deferred several times now, do you still want these: yes or no?” so they can plan future production slots without contending with the proverbial can being kicked further down the road?

Either way, it’s a shame it’s been cancelled once and for all, but not unexpected either given developments over time.

It’ll be interesting to see if they end up ordering more A350-1000’s. That will be a great aircraft for VS and I wonder if this is down to having one eye on what to do with the A330 fleet when their leases are up in the first half of the next decade. In any case, VS have been a good customer of Airbus in recent years with the numerous A330 and A350 orders.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Is it just me who thinks the decision to cancel now was partly down to Airbus saying to VS “You’ve deferred several times now, do you still want these: yes or no?” so they can plan future production slots without contending with the proverbial can being kicked further down the road?

There's a regular poster here who has been saying for some time that both Airbus and Boeing have been getting tougher on airlines switching types and deferring without cost to the airline. One thing is certain, the order can only have been removed from the books if both Airbus and VS agreed to it.

scbriml wrote:

There's a regular poster here who has been saying for some time that both Airbus and Boeing have been getting tougher on airlines switching types and deferring without cost to the airline.

Most definitely, alongside a push (more from Boeing, as I understand, but probably because Airbus had never let it get so far out of hand) to reduce the number of variable options available to airlines when configuring a frame.

With some of these older orders though I get the impression it's not so simple, mainly because the contracts date to "simpler" times (if I may :p ) and relate to aircraft models that haven't had the most straightforward of development and introduction histories. It's probably safest to assume that after all these years each different airline is going to have ended up a totally unique contractual position, though yeah eventually if nothing else the manufacturers are going to run out of patience and start demanding a level of certainty.

QF's remaining A380 orders are going to be similarly difficult to pull apart from the outside - obviously they have taken delivery of the first tranche, but they received significant upfront compensation from Airbus for the delays. We don't know exactly though how much flexibility, if any, was traded away for that and then the additional deferments. Perhaps they're now in the position where it'll be "take the planes or lose the money", or perhaps they're clinging on in the hope they can take a few new-builds in a couple more years to rotate some of the older birds out, or perhaps Airbus will allow them to transfer the deposits to a new order (sweetening the deal for the A350 as a Project Sunrise contender), or perhaps the deposits have already been transferred to existing JQ orders.

I have to say it is a good decision IMHO. I will acknowledge that I find the A380 to be the ugliest looking bird in commercial aviation, so I am not sad to see the order finally dead. Inside the A380 the cabins are amazingly quiet and if one is lucky enough to be in F Class the roominess of TG, SQ etc is amazing. But I am a visual person and the ugliness of the aircraft detracts from the experience. Airbus has a great product in the A350 line which is both a great looking aircraft and I assume pretty fine in the premium cabins. I wish Virgin Atlantic and Airbus the best!

Does anyone think that it is a good idea for OEMs and customers to put a time limit on orders? Maybe all agreements (with aircraft not delivered) older than 8-10 years should be cancelled as they have expired...

flee wrote:

Does anyone think that it is a good idea for OEMs and customers to put a time limit on orders? Maybe all agreements (with aircraft not delivered) older than 8-10 years should be cancelled as they have expired...

Unfortunately it's often not quite so simple where legally binding contracts are involved.

For example, in cases where an airline has gone bust, its creditors (and often courts) are involved - India's Kingfisher comes to mind. IIRC, Airbus couldn't cancel those orders until an Indian court had decided who actually owned the contract.