Egerton wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Well, IATA deals with averages. This implies that the required return on shareholders funds from say IAG at 15% will result in a much higher than the quoted 10% of the cost of running an airline.

Again, what you wrote makes no sense.

When you wrote "We like to talk about efficiency and operations but one third of the cost of a flight is paying for the airframe" that was an average. When I wrote "The IATA says that buying and financing the airframe is 10% the cost of running and airline." that was also an average.

When I wrote that the airframe acquisition costs are 10% of the airlines, I was writing about costs. If you want to mark up all costs (labor, fuel, etc) by some percentage to allow for a profit that's fine. But it will not effect their relative levels. It will still be 10% of the now marked up costs.

Again, you wrote that " but one third of the cost of a flight is paying for the airframe" but the IATA says its 10%. I'll believe them.

Please be kind enough to read this again, perhaps noting WHO SAID WHAT?

Indeed.
@kitplane, you are correct. I overestimated the acquisition cost by a fair bit. Nevertheless, it can easily be the second largest amount of the airlines' cost. You cannot simply disregard the list price and the necessary financing deals as an important factor for an aircraft sale. The higher the (percieved) risk for the bank is, the more the airline will have to pay. A 2% higher lease or loan cost can outweigh a 1% fuel burn advantage.

Mortyman wrote:

List of busiest passenger air routes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... air_routes

That is really cruel, bringing facts into a discussion, but never mind, in the US we have alternative facts

grbauc wrote:

Book PE or J seats lol. Economy on most airlines is not good just better on some then others at best. Just buy PE seat and your crying will cease. : )

The crying stops but the wallet bleeds, causing the crying to resume.

Not a cats chance in hell is the way I would describe selling 380's to the US for all the very good reasons mentioned above.They had already stopped buying VLA's by the time the A380 came along anyway.
Just the reverse.I think JL did one hell of a fine job selling the A380.Cant think of one seriously potential client he didn't get.It was the overall numbers that let the aircraft down not the breadth of distribution.

DDR wrote:

No. There is no business case for the A380 (great aircraft btw) in the US. I think everyone who has any knowledge of the airline industry would have to admit that the US has more flights than any other nation. Certain German posters will never admit this, but whatever. The A380 is simply too large for US carriers.

For other airlines (EK, LH, AF) the A380 is a great aircraft. Problem is, there aren't enough airlines that can use the aircraft.

Like the Concorde, the A380 is a niche aircraft. It's time has come to an end.

A380 Great for One hub airlines from Large countries but not going to work for multi hub airlines Like The US has..

Chemist wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Chemist wrote:

In the end of course, Boeing went with the 787 which supported their fragmented model ......

In my opinion the B787 isn't the point-to-point game changer yet. The vast majority of the flights are hub-to-hub or hub-to-spoke. It's primarily used as a replacement for older planes (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) or to fill up the demand of the upcoming markets (Africa, Middle East and Asia).

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that Airbus envisioned a much stronger "concentration" model of larger aircraft, and Boeing envisioned a more "dispersed" model of numerous routes of lower capacity. And it seems that the latter situation is becoming much stronger in the market, rather than the former.

US carriers all competing via the same inefficient frequency model have no viable transfer mode to larger AC.
Anybody replacing frequency by capacity will lose market share first. The way competition is run in the US
any deviation from the established model opens all kinds of attack vectors.

Then, how many seatmiles do A380 provide in the global market and how many do 787 provide?
The P2halfwayHub2P model allows to concentrate demand for alll remote destinations into one rotation.
Much better utilization. a 787 provides ~half of an A380s capacity. But P2P only demands 1/Nth of an A380
capacity per connection ( with N the number of remote destinations.)

Has there been any update to the number stated in this press article?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/2 ... reak_even/

A380s work best if you run with just one really big hub, more and more airlines run multiple hubs. If you look at airlines who still are prime targets for A380s, the list is limited:

ME3, JAL and ANA, BA, KE, SIA and imho the bigger Chinese Airlines could run a small number too.

VV wrote:

Has there been any update to the number stated in this press article?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/2 ... reak_even/

Breakeven for the A380 is pretty much a fantasy number at this point because production only hit porjected rates for maybe a year or two tops. Slower production has led to per frame losses which mean paying back the development cost didn’t happen on any of those frames.

To break even on program cost they would first have to make a profit on a per frame produced basis which was done for a few dozen planes rather than several hundred.

Mortyman wrote:

List of busiest passenger air routes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... air_routes

I'm not even sure it's just down to demand. LHR-JFK and LHR-DXB both have about 3million passengers/year in 2016 from your link and are a similar distance ~7hours. One of them is mostly A380s, the other is a huge number of flights on different planes with the largest being a BA 747. A US carrier could probably have made the A380 work TPAC out of LAX or SFO, but it would be max 10 frames so easier to increase frequency with smaller planes.

Re: bigjku in comment #273

If I understand well the comment #273 then the A380 is still at the bottom of the "hole" and the slope became slightly positive in 2015 when Airbus said the program "breakeven" on per unit basis.

The deliveries in 2015 was 27 units. I have to conclude that in 2016 the slope is still positive because there were 28 deliveries that year.

However, in 2017 the number of deliveries dropped below 20 units. It is then possible the slope is negative again.
It is unclear if the delivery number can go up above 18 units in 2018 and beyond. If the comment #273 is correct then starting in 2017 the program started to lose money again.

I cannot believe the fate of the program now depends on Emirates' order only. In order to save the program it needs more than Emirates.

So, the possible Emirates' order does not seem to change the overall situation and it would only delay the inevitable.

I am pretty sure clever people here understand that stopping the production of an aircraft also induces costs. For example, the decommissioning of production tools and infrastructure has a cost. People have to be reallocated and it incurs costs. A specific organization for the support of the aircraft must be setup as a "legacy" program. It is not even sure that the A380 buildings in Toulouse belong to Airbus. If it is not the case then even if the production stops, the lease have to be paid or terminated or amended with possible penalties.

I do not know exactly what kind of things need to be done when you stop the production of an aircraft.

Now, it seems keeping the production open at a low rate generates loss. Most probably some suppliers are also concerned by the low production rate. It is likely suppliers also bear part of the loss seen at program level.

Is there an "optimum" in term of loss to manage? I mean, it is possible there is a kind of compromise with lowest loss possible between expediting the delivery of the remaining backlog and maintaining the production system open, hoping a miracle would happen.

It is certainly a difficult decision to take.

seahawk wrote:

A380s work best if you run with just one really big hub, more and more airlines run multiple hubs. If you look at airlines who still are prime targets for A380s, the list is limited:

ME3, JAL and ANA, BA, KE, SIA and imho the bigger Chinese Airlines could run a small number too.

I agree in principle, but would like to detail that BA should include IB, Chinese airlines should explicitly include CX, ME3 should be extended to include TK and AF and LH belong on that list as well. And if the A380 was a US product at least 2 of the US3 would be flying it too.

Singapore and the Emirates seem ready to pay the price of new planes. Both are characterized is having one large hub. Other airlines using the 380 seem to have hinted that new planes are too expensive for their operations. Also both of those airlines have some of the earlier lemon models, and want primo planes.

As beautiful as the airplane is, I really hope they don't start phasing them out that soon like the A340s at a young age.

WIederling wrote:

Chemist wrote:

marcelh wrote:

In my opinion the B787 isn't the point-to-point game changer yet. The vast majority of the flights are hub-to-hub or hub-to-spoke. It's primarily used as a replacement for older planes (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) or to fill up the demand of the upcoming markets (Africa, Middle East and Asia).

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that Airbus envisioned a much stronger "concentration" model of larger aircraft, and Boeing envisioned a more "dispersed" model of numerous routes of lower capacity. And it seems that the latter situation is becoming much stronger in the market, rather than the former.

US carriers all competing via the same inefficient frequency model have no viable transfer mode to larger AC.
Anybody replacing frequency by capacity will lose market share first. The way competition is run in the US
any deviation from the established model opens all kinds of attack vectors.

Then, how many seatmiles do A380 provide in the global market and how many do 787 provide?
The P2halfwayHub2P model allows to concentrate demand for alll remote destinations into one rotation.
Much better utilization. a 787 provides ~half of an A380s capacity. But P2P only demands 1/Nth of an A380
capacity per connection ( with N the number of remote destinations.)

That's all fine and nice, but clearly Airbus' projections were more wrong than Boeing's.

marcelh wrote:

Chemist wrote:

In the end of course, Boeing went with the 787 which supported their fragmented model ......

In my opinion the B787 isn't the point-to-point game changer yet. The vast majority of the flights are hub-to-hub or hub-to-spoke. It's primarily used as a replacement for older planes (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) or to fill up the demand of the upcoming markets (Africa, Middle East and Asia).

I disagree. The 787 has made a lot of city pairs possible that were not before. I grant that they are hub to point but Airbus bet much on the A-380 and the future being megahub to megahub. There have been a lot of routes opened that were closed before and more will come.

It really doesn't matter whether 787 enabled or Twin Otter, there are 10,000 new city pairs since 1996 based on the data.

VLAs and consolidators didn't achieve their goal even though a handful of Super Hubs get the lion share of attention. The market is fragmented.

The biggest problem I have with the Leahy, Berger, Lupidus et all - is the short sighted belief that the only solution to congested airports was their solution - a VLA aircraft that was profitable when filled but had limited route flexibility due to it's size and airport infrastructure realities.

The fact is the average seating has increased across the board, in narrow bodies and mid-sized wide bodies that are delivered by the 100's every month. VLA was not the ONLY answer to the problem. To some degree Airbus invented the problem to justify the solution.

JayBCNLON wrote:

And if the A380 was a US product at least 2 of the US3 would be flying it too.

For realz? Who to where? None of the US3 flies even a 747 any more. 2 only bought 77Ws in the last few years. Implying that there's a xenophobic bias in the US against the A380 is absurd.

SC430 wrote:

The biggest problem I have with the Leahy, Berger, Lupidus et all - is the short sighted belief that the only solution to congested airports was their solution - a VLA aircraft that was profitable when filled but had limited route flexibility due to it's size and airport infrastructure realities.

I'd reverse that. Blighted idea to think that P2P fixes all.
The available A380 and 787 have added comparable number of seat.
in a 10 H 10 arrangement you'd need 1/10th the capacity of an A380 to do the P2P thing.
A318 all the way
how many P2H2P connections has Emirates added to the market?

WIederling wrote:

SC430 wrote:

The biggest problem I have with the Leahy, Berger, Lupidus et all - is the short sighted belief that the only solution to congested airports was their solution - a VLA aircraft that was profitable when filled but had limited route flexibility due to it's size and airport infrastructure realities.

I'd reverse that. Blighted idea to think that P2P fixes all.
The available A380 and 787 have added comparable number of seat.
in a 10 H 10 arrangement you'd need 1/10th the capacity of an A380 to do the P2P thing.
A318 all the way
how many P2H2P connections has Emirates added to the market?

I didn't even mention P2P in my post - why are you? My point was that growth in air travel will be largely handled by the increase in the average seating in ALL aircraft.

SC430 wrote:

VLA was not the ONLY answer to the problem. To some degree Airbus invented the problem to justify the solution.

Exactly.
Airport congestion is a matter of short-haul narrowbody ops;
there are dozens of solutions to that problem before you start flying A380's domestically.
For A380's to become the congestion solution, we'd need a fantastical level of traffic.
At that level it's cheaper to build new airports than to force everyone to fly a big, heavy VLA.

Airbus was looking for a reason to build a VLA and would not let sense get in the way.
Airbus's continued adherence to the congestion rationale for A380's can't be taken seriously.

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

The whole P2P thing was just MSM-speak for the real phenomenon: market fragmentation (the term Boeing actually used).
Fragmentation has occurred in leaps across the Pacific, where most TPAC pax once transited via Tokyo/Seoul.

Matt6461 wrote:

The whole P2P thing was just MSM-speak for the real phenomenon: market fragmentation (the term Boeing actually used).

So Randy is not Boeing

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archiv ... f_p2p.html

Matt6461 wrote:

Airport congestion is a matter of short-haul narrowbody ops;
there are dozens of solutions to that problem before you start flying A380's domestically.
For A380's to become the congestion solution, we'd need a fantastical level of traffic.
At that level it's cheaper to build new airports than to force everyone to fly a big, heavy VLA.

Laughable. Do you have any idea of what an airport costs at all ?
And the compounded building & running costs of all those you suggest be built ?
Do you have any idea of the cost to the environment & quality of life to neighbouring suburbs ?
Do you really think cities will embrace London's inefficient model of multiplying airports ?
In fact, do you have any sound economic training at all ?
I don't know how much you fly, but during banks all airlines want to be in, just about every world class airport is congested, I get delayed quite often from CDG, FRA, JFK, BKK, PVG because of traffic... and I avoid LHR or any London airport for that matter if I don't need to be in London.

That said, I agree with your two first lines, but short haul is not the sole problem : BA & LH particularly keep inefficient NB frequencies to keep their slots. In the end, consumers are payings for these inefficiencies, every economist will tell you that new MoMs are long time due ( like the A300 & 767 ), and what is valid for the MoM is also valid for the WB.

Emirates will cease to exist without A-388. What are you talking about?
I got absolutely addicted to the 380th.
I fly to from IAD to DME via DXB. When I am not in haste. I prefer to spend a day or two in Dubai before going to Moscow, or Bangkok.
I think there are many people who will abandon EK if they turn down the deal.

I'll be interested to see if size over frequency comes into play in years to come given 2017 reports of upper atmosphere greenhouse gases being much higher than anticipated ? I'd imagine there will be less 'ten a day' sevices and more scope for filling big planes on a lot of routes. Although perhaps less so in the US where global warming has apparently been debunked by Trump as a nasty fake news event.

DWC wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Airport congestion is a matter of short-haul narrowbody ops;
there are dozens of solutions to that problem before you start flying A380's domestically.
For A380's to become the congestion solution, we'd need a fantastical level of traffic.
At that level it's cheaper to build new airports than to force everyone to fly a big, heavy VLA.

Laughable. Do you have any idea of what an airport costs at all ? And the compounded running costs of all those you suggest be built ?
Do you have any idea of the cost to the environment & quality of life to neighbouring suburbs ?
Do you really think cities will embrace London's inefficient model of multiplying airports ?
In fact, do you have any sound economic training at all ?
I don't know how much you fly, but during banks all airlines want to be in, just about every world class airport is congested, I get delayed quite often from CDG, FRA, JFK, BKK, PVG because of traffic... and I avoid LHR or any London airport for that matter if I don't need to be in London.

That said, I agree with your two first lines, but short haul is not the sole problem : BA & LH particularly keep inefficient NB frequencies to keep their slots. In the end, consumers are payings for these inefficiencies, every economist will tell you that new MoMs are long time due ( like the A300 & 767 ), and what is valid for the MoM is also valid for the WB.

Lots of cities have multiple airports. LCCs are growing in 2nd and 3rd tier area airport.
Sure there is "noise pollution" but airports are central pillars in economic development, communities love them.
I wouldn't be so quick to ask "if you have any sound economic training" when the reality is the market (airlines and flying population) have made it clear, frequency and with as few stops as possible is what they want.

LHR is the one the largest O/D Airports in the world, with smaller planes and alliances, you can very easily avoid it for transfers. BA wants more O/D. Hence so few A380s.

Your username is DWC. A brand new airport being built... to handle traffic growth... yet they have / will have most A380s...

DWC wrote:

Laughable. Do you have any idea of what an airport costs at all ?
And the compounded building & running costs of all those you suggest be built ?
Do you have any idea of the cost to the environment & quality of life to neighbouring suburbs ?
Do you really think cities will embrace London's inefficient model of multiplying airports ?
In fact, do you have any sound economic training at all ?
I don't know how much you fly, but during banks all airlines want to be in, just about every world class airport is congested, I get delayed quite often from CDG, FRA, JFK, BKK, PVG because of traffic... and I avoid LHR or any London airport for that matter if I don't need to be in London.

Excellent set of questions maybe you should look into.

What percentage of LHR or DXB movements are VLAs???
What % of the revenue do they bring to Heathrow holdings or Dubai Airports?
ORD just about has done with Code F gate, rumor is no takers. How many $Millions flushed down the toilet.

When STC went on a media circuit claiming VLA is the way to go, I bet every airline CEO studied this option. Even current A380 operators like QF on record saying two 787 make more money.

VV wrote:

Re: bigjku in comment #273

If I understand well the comment #273 then the A380 is still at the bottom of the "hole" and the slope became slightly positive in 2015 when Airbus said the program "breakeven" on per unit basis.

The deliveries in 2015 was 27 units. I have to conclude that in 2016 the slope is still positive because there were 28 deliveries that year.

However, in 2017 the number of deliveries dropped below 20 units. It is then possible the slope is negative again.
It is unclear if the delivery number can go up above 18 units in 2018 and beyond. If the comment #273 is correct then starting in 2017 the program started to lose money again.

I would question if it really goes negative again. The 747-8 line kicked out 9 aircraft in 2016 and 12 last year. Yes, more of the tooling is paid off for Boeing but that is mainly due to tools that carried over. Is Boeing doing something different that lets them have a positive gross margin yet Airbus does not?

MatthewDB wrote:

VV wrote:

Re: bigjku in comment #273

If I understand well the comment #273 then the A380 is still at the bottom of the "hole" and the slope became slightly positive in 2015 when Airbus said the program "breakeven" on per unit basis.

The deliveries in 2015 was 27 units. I have to conclude that in 2016 the slope is still positive because there were 28 deliveries that year.

However, in 2017 the number of deliveries dropped below 20 units. It is then possible the slope is negative again.
It is unclear if the delivery number can go up above 18 units in 2018 and beyond. If the comment #273 is correct then starting in 2017 the program started to lose money again.

I would question if it really goes negative again. The 747-8 line kicked out 9 aircraft in 2016 and 12 last year. Yes, more of the tooling is paid off for Boeing but that is mainly due to tools that carried over. Is Boeing doing something different that lets them have a positive gross margin yet Airbus does not?

Who says Boeing has a positive gross margin on the 748? They might do a bit better on freighters as for some functions they may have a bit more leverage but I don’t think they make squat on this either.

Both programs are likely money losers.

For the sake of my Boeing stock, I pray EK orders a batch of A380 before the new management at Airbus pulls the plug. A bit greedy, I know... but oh well

airzona11 wrote:

Lots of cities have multiple airports. LCCs are growing in 2nd and 3rd tier area airport.
Sure there is "noise pollution" but airports are central pillars in economic development, communities love them.

LHR is the one the largest O/D Airports in the world, with smaller planes and alliances, you can very easily avoid it for transfers. BA wants more O/D. Hence so few A380s.

Your username is DWC. A brand new airport being built... to handle traffic growth... yet they have / will have most A380s...

1. Actually communities not all love them, there is a reason why there are night curfews or projects being turned down : Notre-Dame des Landes for one. Also airports are meant to be shut down when replaced, like IST or BER, were it not for the Kolossal Fiasko the Germans have made themselves. Speaking of western Europe, all is done to actually NOT build new airports, even if admitedly they have shown to be economic instigators, I would not call LCC regional economic pillars the way CDG or FRA are.
2. It has been discussed here how BA factitiously schedules small NBs unnecessarily to keep their slots & preventing new entrants or current ones from expanding. BA is also a comparatively large A380 operator, 3rd fleet ex-aequo with Lufty, and actually looking for more at cheap price. You also seem to forget their HUGE 747, 767, 777 & 787 WB fleet, which also accounts for a lesser number of A380 they could also fly, particularly to JFK if only their terminal there could handle it.
3. I indeed use DWC as a username as probably the biggest bet yet on a hub & spoke model, perhaps secretly aiming at integrating AUH. But you are wrong again in thinking they would handle only A380 : EK fleet not only has 777s aplenty, but will soon incorporate 787, plus FlyDubai's 737s and all other models that would be flying into DXB, of which umpteen A320s
So I am sad to see that even basic economic facts are not taking into account when discussing knowledgeable points.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Even current A380 operators like QF on record saying two 787 make more money.

The QF quote is cute. Two 787's, on one route that would support a single A380 - very much doubt two would be more profitable than one. Two routes, where neither could support an A380, those two 787 would definitely make more dollars.

Apologies for sounding like a broken record (that dates me), but Corsia in some shape or form, means 2020 is the year on which all future aviation-related carbon calculations will be based. Media, accountancy firms, airlines, specialists and others, are helpfully highlighting ways to circumvent, frustrate and evade possible targets, controls, reporting and penalties, which rest assured will greatly assist in creating a robust framework.

If the future is where EK/QF style JV's are more commonplace, but with aircraft, revenue, cost and carbon sharing based on loads and load contribution, for example landing fees and passenger arrival / departure fees based initially on the airline's, and further down the track, specific carbon performance of that flight, could bigger and fewer be best?

Ironic, that at a time when fuel, due to low prices, is as far from top of mind, that's it's been in the last couple of decades, emission rewards and penalties are likely to bring it sharply back into focus.

DWC wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Lots of cities have multiple airports. LCCs are growing in 2nd and 3rd tier area airport.
Sure there is "noise pollution" but airports are central pillars in economic development, communities love them.

LHR is the one the largest O/D Airports in the world, with smaller planes and alliances, you can very easily avoid it for transfers. BA wants more O/D. Hence so few A380s.

Your username is DWC. A brand new airport being built... to handle traffic growth... yet they have / will have most A380s...

1. Actually communities not all love them, there is a reason why there are night curfews or projects being turned down : Notre-Dame des Landes for one. Also airports are meant to be shut down when replaced, like IST or BER, were it not for the Kolossal Fiasko the Germans have made themselves. Speaking of western Europe, all is done to actually NOT build new airports, even if admitedly they have shown to be economic instigators, I would not call LCC regional economic pillars the way CDG or FRA are.
2. It has been discussed here how BA factitiously schedules small NBs unnecessarily to keep their slots & preventing new entrants or current ones from expanding. BA is also a comparatively large A380 operator, 3rd fleet ex-aequo with Lufty, and actually looking for more at cheap price. You also seem to forget their HUGE 747, 767, 777 & 787 WB fleet, which also accounts for a lesser number of A380 they could also fly, particularly to JFK if only their terminal there could handle it.
3. I indeed use DWC as a username as probably the biggest bet yet on a hub & spoke model, perhaps secretly aiming at integrating AUH. But you are wrong again in thinking they would handle only A380 : EK fleet not only has 777s aplenty, but will soon incorporate 787, plus FlyDubai's 737s and all other models that would be flying into DXB, of which umpteen A320s
So I am sad to see that even basic economic facts are not taking into account when discussing knowledgeable points.

You don't mention anything about economics, let alone "basic economics" in your post. So please spare me the sympathy.

1- Why are none of the airline based on Europe major operators if what you are saying is such a big reason for A380s/VLAs. Those LCC pillars are the only thing that is growing in Western Europe (both independent brands and brands within legacies = both with no VLAs.)
2-What point are you making? BA's fleet is 4% A380s. LHR is the best example of where there should be all VLAs/A380s and 4% of their fleet is all. All of those other planes you talk about are not VLAs. Because the market (Demand) want more frequency, with means smaller birds (Supply).
3- DXB has the most about of A380s in the world. If DWC it will too. But again you are making my point, they can only have so many, VLA only works with single long haul hubs.

Jayafe wrote:

DDR wrote:

I think everyone who has any knowledge of the airline industry would have to admit that the US has more flights than any other nation.

Peer pressure? Quotation needed, but I am guessing your are going to find yourself in a very ridiculous place when checking the data...
PS: I’m not German

I don't understand, I have often read in the media that the US has the largest commercial aviation market in terms of passengers flown. Here is one such article:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou ... ngers.html

What does the data you refer to show?

DWC wrote:

That said, I agree with your two first lines, but short haul is not the sole problem

If you agree that short haul (plus slot-gaming) is the real congestion driver, then you've conceded the point:
If congestion is a matter of short haul ops then the A380 is not a solution unless and until shorthaul regularly demands 800+ seats/flight.
Only in that world - a world in which traffic is ~6x current levels - would it make sense to use the A380 as a shorthaul default option.
And only in that world - again we have ~6x current traffic - does it begin to make sense to massively invest in new airfields.
Perhaps you didn't follow the hypothetical all the way through.

The world has a lot of airport congestion already but very little demand for A380's.
Airlines based at congested hubs like HKG, HND, and the entire US eschew the A380.
The congestion rationale for the A380 is a joke.

As for your quips about economic literacy, again you need reminding to make your points and let their merits carry them (if they do).

Is short haul the congestion driver really depends of how you define "congestion":

It it's related to runway capacity, yes short haul is the driver.

If it's related to passengers flows associated to time preferences and constraints it's a bit more complex: many long haul markets are limited by one or two preferred schedules per day. When you have 50 feeding flights coming in with let say 10 pax each who want to reach Singapore in the evening then you have some traffic congestion issues only a large aircraft can solve. Of course you can give up this demand but you lower the demand for your entire network and therefore you may end up increasing your overall fleet seat cost and decrease the economies of scale. You also open the market to more competitors.

So Airbus is not correct when saying the A380 is to solve infrastructure issues but it does solve some congestion issues. Airbus as a European company is too much in the "global solving". They may be right in theory on what's good for the environment etc. but most of their customers are private businesses who only think about short term profits.

Bald1983 wrote:

I disagree. The 787 has made a lot of city pairs possible that were not before.

There are new routes because first the market is growing, there is more deregulation, and fuel price went down. The big question is did the 787 accelerated that trend and the answer is probably no. Yes it has opened routes, like other aircraft types, but many of these routes have been dropped as well and these are not making the headlines. The 787 may be a preferred aircraft to open routes but these routes would have opened anyway.

The MoM will do more against slot congestion than the A380 ever could.

seahawk wrote:

The MoM will do more against slot congestion than the A380 ever could.

If it replaces 2 Embraer flying side by side I think its market will be limited.

DWC wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Airport congestion is a matter of short-haul narrowbody ops;
there are dozens of solutions to that problem before you start flying A380's domestically.
For A380's to become the congestion solution, we'd need a fantastical level of traffic.
At that level it's cheaper to build new airports than to force everyone to fly a big, heavy VLA.

Laughable. Do you have any idea of what an airport costs at all ?
And the compounded building & running costs of all those you suggest be built ?
Do you have any idea of the cost to the environment & quality of life to neighbouring suburbs ?
Do you really think cities will embrace London's inefficient model of multiplying airports ?
.

Cities in Asia Pacific with multiple airports:
Tokyo
Osaka (3 - Kansai/ Itami/ Kobe)
Seoul
Shanghai
Taipei
Jakarta
Bangkok
PRD (Pearl River Delta - HK, Zhuhai/ CAN/ Macau/ Shenzhen all in a footprint smaller than LHR/LGW/STN/LTN)
Melbourne
Kuala Lumpur
Arguably Manila (CLK is closer to MNL than NRT is to TYO)
Beijing (opening 2019)
Sydney just announced will build one (2026 opening)

Frankly, it is only India that isn't building multiple airports - even though there has been discussion that BOM needs a second.

In the end you need more than one airport if possible, as otherwise the landside connection will be a big problem.

DDR wrote:

No. There is no business case for the A380 (great aircraft btw) in the US. I think everyone who has any knowledge of the airline industry would have to admit that the US has more flights than any other nation. Certain German posters will never admit this, but whatever. The A380 is simply too large for US carriers.

For other airlines (EK, LH, AF) the A380 is a great aircraft. Problem is, there aren't enough airlines that can use the aircraft.

Like the Concorde, the A380 is a niche aircraft. It's time has come to an end.

Exactly. Boeing's market forecast was spot on when it cancelled it's superjumbo in 1997. The Daily Mail announced : United States aeroplane maker Boeing has confirmed it is ditching plans for a double-deck jumbo jet, handing the European Airbus A380 victory in the market." Boeing forecast a market for a much smaller market one that did not justify billions to develop a brand new plane.

While few airlines have ordered it. It was really EK that essentially saved the entire program. Had there been no EK the program would have been cancelled long ago. As it is now both EK and Airbus understand the risk is too great to pour billions more into the project for just one customer. EK doesn't want the risk and neither does Airbus I suspect.

I remember that somewhere around the beginning of the decade, most A380 operators used to send their A380's to NRT.
AF, LH, etc used to operate A380's as well.
But then came the big one in Fukushima which caused a temporary traffic drop and also the new runway at HND. Then the ME3 started operating their flights into NRT at first and then to HND as well, some with A380.
What this example shows us, is that it's quite random and it's difficult to define a pattern. Some events are bad for the A380's market, some are good.

While point to point routes have increased, as mentioned a few posts ago by someone, this can be thanked to cheap fuel. Airbus made A380 projections at record oil prices, so they weren't wrong, just based on the parameters available at the time. If anything, it was nuts for Boeing to promote the B787 as a point to point aircraft given those parameters.
Airbus also built a U.S. assembly plant at a record high Euro as a weigh of hedging from the ever increasing currency, but they bet wrong there too. However, the Mobile plant has potentially contributed to winning big orders from U.S. airlines that they wouldn't have won otherwise.
You win some, you lose some.

Today a lot of people are saying that the A380 is useless. But in 10 years the parameters can change again and then everyone is going to wonder why Airbus shut the line down so prematurely.
That's what happened to the B757. Boeing could have kept the B757 line open, MAXed it and it would have been a huge success by now.

Development costs are one thing, the costs of keeping an unpopular model in production is another thing, but the worst one is lost opportunity costs.
In 10 years the market parameters could be so different that Airbus would not be able to keep up with demand for A380's.

I also wonder if it isn't cheaper to build white tail airframes without all the systems and engines to keep production rates higher and install systems only once a sale is made.
It has the huge benefit of reducing the time to market which currently is about 5+ years on new widebody orders. Need a new A380 due to a spike in demand? It'll be ready in 4 months, sir.

Perhaps it is fitting if this ill conceived programme end with an almighty own goal!
Airbus have effectively spent $20bn creating a specialist aircraft 'just' for Emirates.It has built them an airline empire that no one can copy.
An airline that lies at the heart of their whole countries business basis.
Then...
They start throwing their toys out of the Pram and demanding more! More that can never be given.
Silly billy.Try thinking.
But perhaps a fitting end.

Waterbomber wrote:

I remember that somewhere around the beginning of the decade, most A380 operators used to send their A380's to NRT.
AF, LH, etc used to operate A380's as well.
But then came the big one in Fukushima which caused a temporary traffic drop and also the new runway at HND. Then the ME3 started operating their flights into NRT at first and then to HND as well, some with A380.
What this example shows us, is that it's quite random and it's difficult to define a pattern. Some events are bad for the A380's market, some are good.

While point to point routes have increased, as mentioned a few posts ago by someone, this can be thanked to cheap fuel. Airbus made A380 projections at record oil prices, so they weren't wrong, just based on the parameters available at the time. If anything, it was nuts for Boeing to promote the B787 as a point to point aircraft given those parameters.
Airbus also built a U.S. assembly plant at a record high Euro as a weigh of hedging from the ever increasing currency, but they bet wrong there too. However, the Mobile plant has potentially contributed to winning big orders from U.S. airlines that they wouldn't have won otherwise.
You win some, you lose some.

Today a lot of people are saying that the A380 is useless. But in 10 years the parameters can change again and then everyone is going to wonder why Airbus shut the line down so prematurely.
That's what happened to the B757. Boeing could have kept the B757 line open, MAXed it and it would have been a huge success by now.

Well said.

douwd20 wrote:

DDR wrote:

No. There is no business case for the A380 (great aircraft btw) in the US. I think everyone who has any knowledge of the airline industry would have to admit that the US has more flights than any other nation. Certain German posters will never admit this, but whatever. The A380 is simply too large for US carriers.

For other airlines (EK, LH, AF) the A380 is a great aircraft. Problem is, there aren't enough airlines that can use the aircraft.

Like the Concorde, the A380 is a niche aircraft. It's time has come to an end.

Exactly. Boeing's market forecast was spot on when it cancelled it's superjumbo in 1997. The Daily Mail announced : United States aeroplane maker Boeing has confirmed it is ditching plans for a double-deck jumbo jet, handing the European Airbus A380 victory in the market." Boeing forecast a market for a much smaller market one that did not justify billions to develop a brand new plane.

While few airlines have ordered it. It was really EK that essentially saved the entire program. Had there been no EK the program would have been cancelled long ago. As it is now both EK and Airbus understand the risk is too great to pour billions more into the project for just one customer. EK doesn't want the risk and neither does Airbus I suspect.

And than Boeing did build the 747-8 a bigger, stretched 747. Must have had completely trusted there own market analysis.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airlines prefer frequency. Having smaller aircraft flights every few hours has many benefits over one big aircraft doing one flight per day.

This is the wrong view imho.
They don't "prefer" they are forced.

Airlines in the US have been raised in a bottle.
There is no viable path towards larger units.
The first airline that swaps over to larger units will loose market share
and opens itself up to selective rule changes for a larger type.

It shows that "the market fixes anything towards efficiency" is an oxymoron.
See why animals don't have wheels. no viable evolutionary path.

WIederling wrote:

This is the wrong view imho.
They don't "prefer" they are forced.

It is the customers demanding multiple daily options to fit their schedule. So the airlines are being forced. This is why the A300 didn't get a NEO and airlines keeping increasing frequency by adding more narrow bodies.

The world market is much bigger now. Lets say hypothetically that 12 daily flights would see all customers being satisfied with various flight options throughout the day. If a route was so thick that it had 20 daily 737's or A320 flights then this could be upgauged to 12 MOM flights while still leaving the paying passengers completely happy.

These routes represent a very large fleet of narrowbody aircraft. So lots of gates made available.

Planesmart wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Even current A380 operators like QF on record saying two 787 make more money.

The QF quote is cute. Two 787's, on one route that would support a single A380 - very much doubt two would be more profitable than one. Two routes, where neither could support an A380, those two 787 would definitely make more dollars....

I don't know the context of QF CEO's statement. This is similar to SQ's one-off comment about never making a profit on ULH routes in 9 years with no details or further explanation.

Emirates by over advertising A380 cabin comfort created a problem of its own. Now they cannot have a mix of A380 and 77W to the same station with the same paxex. Educated passengers always A380 and they don't have the money to redo all 77Ws with new cabins.

seahawk wrote:

The MoM will do more against slot congestion than the A380 ever could.

The A380 has been flying for +10 years. The MoM is currently a draw in a napkin.