User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:53 pm

The business case for the A380 was solid. Market prediction solid, launch customers solid for the size of the plane.
 
VV
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think both expected to make money, but neither did.


So far neither did.
It was said since day one that the market is too small for two. So, when Boeing decided to launch the 747-8 the game was to see who resists better.

Basically the scenarios are:
  1. Both of them continue to bleed and the one who bleeds the most will suffer, or
  2. One dies and the survivor generates a little bit of money.

The question here is which one will die first.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:35 pm

The 748 won´t sell as a pax version regardless of the A380 due to the 779 and the A380 will never be freighter.

In the end everybody predicted the VLA market too positive. All 3 engine makers invested in the A380 and Boeing invested into the 748.
 
VV
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:44 pm

seahawk wrote:
The 748 won´t sell as a pax version regardless of the A380 due to the 779 and the A380 will never be freighter.


The following is pure science fiction, but since people here like bedtime stories, I will tell it anyway.

Let's say Boeing launches a twin-aisle NMA with an engine that is more efficient than the GEnx-2B, albeit with a lower available take-off thrust.

Let's imagine an unlikely scenario where Boeing decides to put these NMA engines on the 747-8, but with much lower MTOW and thus with much reduced range, say of 6,000 nm instead of 8,000 nm,

It is obvious the 747-8 with smaller engines is only possible if and only if the A380 production is phased out.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:00 pm

Not sure I totally agree.
748.
They have neatly got rid of the 3 white tails (2 to fly 1 for technology testing)to the gov't which also allowed Trump to show he got a discount.
I believe it is correct to say the Boeing themselves have said that the 'i' is now finished for production.
However their sales of the cargo version have been impressive imho.Furthermore they appear to be maintaining the 0.5 pcm rate.One imagines that they are doing this with the hope/expectations of further sales down the line.It is the only game in town for a dedicated heavy lifter.It may go on for ages -hard to tell.
380.
Hmmmm.I think they will get the Emirates order as it makes business sense for Emirates.They want/need to keep their market share as this forces everybody else to purchase smaller aircraft.Giving them exclusivity with the '380 factor'.Its a powerful weapon particularly in y class.Its damn nearly if not actually Y+ for the price of Y.
But I think that's it otherwise.
In fact they have been (imho) somewhat perverse.Their latest 380 plus was a joke.Are they really telling us that a blended winglets can't be produced that don't require the complete retwisting (again) of the existing wing?Wasnt necessay for 737,757,767,320,321 - or 330 bw's so why here?? Don't buy that.Simply they are not spending another cent on the aircraft.Tells you all you need to know I fear.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9066
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:01 pm

So what would be the market demand that would encourage Boeing to invest in a lower range 748i with all the hated grandfather clauses?
On the airline front, who would purchase a 4 engine larger frame to fly 5k miles when they can use a twin A330, A333, A350, B787-XX, B777 any variant including second hand frames, etc etc etc?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9066
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:04 pm

Ah. I reread your post, you appear to be saying that if the A380 goes out of production it will create this market segment that Boeing would then customize the 748i to fit, I respectfully disagree as I do not hold on to the premise that Boeing or Airbus only build a/c to counter what the other does.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:42 pm

Apart from that is the 779 already to close too the 748i and no engine (in the next 15 years) will be able to make the quad 747 beat the 779 in economics.
 
VV
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:46 pm

par13del wrote:
Ah. I reread your post, you appear to be saying that if the A380 goes out of production it will create this market segment that Boeing would then customize the 748i to fit, I respectfully disagree as I do not hold on to the premise that Boeing or Airbus only build a/c to counter what the other does.


There is no market creation at all. and your last sentence does not make any bloody sens at all since I already mentioned that such an engine option is only possible if the A380 is phased out.

Think about what I wrote calmly. If you have access to OAG or DIIO or other database, dump the traffic of A380 in the full year 2017 then count the number of A380 flights that are above 6,000 nm. Or more precisely, find out how big is the market for a 550 seater medium range aircraft that already exists out there.

From industrial perspective, it means GE can drop the GEnx-2B or keep it on offer for freighter or other special applications.

From airframe perspective, there is very little to do except the pylons and the plumbing. Perhaps there could be some gauging optimization to reduce weight like landing gear or wing skin thickness, but that's not a big deal.

Yeah, finally I found a reason why Airbus would stubbornly keep the A380 alive even at loss.

I will stop with this bedtime story here. I leave you all to think about it thoroughly. You can even post a new thread, "Can Boeing put the NMA's engine on the 747-8?".,
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing is and was not making money on producing the 747-8. Far from getting a return on development, they had also to write off part of the early production cost deferrals and declare a loss on that program.

And based on Boeing's own reporting, there are more write-off's (or miracles) required.
 
VV
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:39 pm

Planesmart wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing is and was not making money on producing the 747-8. Far from getting a return on development, they had also to write off part of the early production cost deferrals and declare a loss on that program.

And based on Boeing's own reporting, there are more write-off's (or miracles) required.


I think that's the thing. Boeing already recognized parts of the loss in their operating results.

In reality Boeing is doing just fine on free cash flow that I estimated would exceed ten billion dollars for the full year 2017. It is not a surprise their stock is now above US$ 300 per share.

Anyway, the thread is about the A380 possible phase out. Now I understand why Airbus would stubbornly maintain the A380 production. The one who survives will start to make money after the other's dismissal.

Basically both of them will continue to bleed.or one must give up and leaves the door wide open for the other to make profit. That's not a comfortable situation.

In this situation, the one with a lot of blood (read: money) can sustain the injury longer.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:46 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Their current plan is much better than that.

Regional - 787-10
Medium Haul (Thick) - A380
Medium Haul (Thin) - 787-10
Long Haul (Thick) - A380
Long Haul (Thin) - 777-9
Ultra Long Haul - 777-8.


Better in what sense?

STC's own statements
787-10 suits 83% of our missions = Current fleet is good for 17%
Economy class is deeply discounted.= We never made money on Y
Premium yields are bad.= We stopped making money on J and F.

Financial report data.
77% network average load factor, = We are wasting Billions of ASKMs, we have too much capacity ie., too big planes.

Unconfirmed rumors
Prolonged frame downtime for mx.- We have too many planes.

Connect the dots, you will see the big picture.

Bad math.

The 787-19 could do 87% of missions. As per what you quoted, thick routes will be A380s or 779s.

Since EK was wise enough to do sale/leaseback on terms favorable to them, they will cycle out the current fleet within 15 years, so t have an advantage in exchanging the fleet.

QR is really hurting.
EY will become a shell of itself.

EK isn't making as much money, but since their annual reports correlate with anecdotal evidence, I'm inclined to give them a pass

Compare this to the government subsidized airlines that have poor numbers or no numbers:. QR, EY, and AI ( and I would start adding the Chinese airlines).

We've seen EK adapt before.

I'm very curious on what befalls the A380.

I'm also curious if ET/EK join up.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:51 pm

parapente wrote:
Would they do it all again?
Perversely I think the answer is yes.
Clearly their loss is nothing like Airbus'.They have stayed in the VLA market until the 779 (justish).Sold over 100 a/c.
The project kicked the 380 out of the cargo market for ever.
But most of all it's presence kept Airbus pricing low for the 380 AND...
If Airbus had those extra 100 sales we would not even be having this discussion,it's future right now would be fine.
Oh and they got a new Presidental fleet to boot!
So imho yes they would.

I doubt Boeing would do it again. Perhaps yes if the same people and culture was in place.
Boeing played Airbus spoiler with the 748, counting on the 787 and 737 to rake in the profits.
748 pricing and T&C's were used to constrain A380 pricing.
Now Airbus returns the complement, with 777X pricing and T&C's nowhere near viable, sustainable levels, although Boeing appears to have inflicted most of the harm to themselves. Deep discounts and soft T&C's mean well over half the first decade's sales have been contracted below cost (on any measure).
In a perverse way, even the most loyal Boeing WB customer needs Airbus to be active at the top of the market to ensure ensure responsible pricing.
Don't see an EK 777X top up order, until Airbus has either committed to the current or improved A380, or replaced it.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:57 pm

VV wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing is and was not making money on producing the 747-8. Far from getting a return on development, they had also to write off part of the early production cost deferrals and declare a loss on that program.

And based on Boeing's own reporting, there are more write-off's (or miracles) required.


I think that's the thing. Boeing already recognized parts of the loss in their operating results.

In reality Boeing is doing just fine on free cash flow that I estimated would exceed ten billion dollars for the full year 2017. It is not a surprise their stock is now above US$ 300 per share.

Anyway, the thread is about the A380 possible phase out. Now I understand why Airbus would stubbornly maintain the A380 production. The one who survives will start to make money after the other's dismissal.

Basically both of them will continue to bleed.or one must give up and leaves the door wide open for the other to make profit. That's not a comfortable situation.

In this situation, the one with a lot of blood (read: money) can sustain the injury longer.

Using your analogy, the blood has already spilled well beyond 2018, and beyond the 748 and A380. The 777X is a financial casualty, a legacy it's burdened with for close to a decade.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:12 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
Egerton wrote:
Hi RJMAZ, Some long time ago there were discussions among the A.net glitterati to the effect that lengthening the A380 fuselage would improve its aerodynamics via the improved fineness ratio. I.e. it is too fat for its length. Is this still correct?

That is correct.

Ideally a plane would want to be pencil thin and very long but in the real world the weight to make a long thin object is very high relative to the volume. This then requires more lift and a bigger wing for any given volume so you start to go backwards again. That's why most aircraft are within a set fineness ratio.

With a stretch the total drag would of course increase but at a smaller percentage than the increased volume. So it would be highly beneficial from a CASM perspective.

The wing for the A380 isn't bad at all. The biggest problem with the current A380 design by far is pretty simole. The wing is simply oversized, designed to lift 50T more than the current A380. So it is carrying dead weight. The wing could be 20T lighter and still carry the current fuselage. That would result in a direct fuel burn improvement. Very few airliners have a wing span greater than its length. The larger A380-900 fuselage simply makes it better match for the large wing. Its much cheaper to go this route than making the wing smaller to suit the smaller fuselage.

The fuselage tube is very light if we look at other aircraft families with stretches we can accurate predict how much a stretch of the A380 would weigh.

The tube itself is generally under 20% of the aircrafts weight. So a 10% stretch of the A380 would increase empty weight by less than 2%. Empty weight would only increase by 5T up to 282T. A 10% increase in passengers would add another 5T.

Weight is closely linked to fuel burn so fuel burn would be roughly 4% higher during cruise while carrying 10% more passengers. So a 5+% CASM improvement.

Its going to be 20 years until we get another 5% improvement from engines. Airbus would have to spend billions to lighten and redesign the whole wing, wingbox and landing gear to gain 5% using the current fuselage length.

Slap some winglets on the current wing and be done with it.


Wow, this is such a collection of armchair engineering.
1. Stretching a fuselage almost never adds weight (mass to be precise) inefficently. Weight-wise, an aircraft is composed of much more than just a flying fuselage. If you're carrying wings, engines, tailplanes, cockpits, landing gears, systems already, you might as well slap as long a fuselage as possible.

2. Stretching the A380 by 10% will add way more than 5 tons. The ballpark is more like 15 tons if they do it efficiently.

3. Why 20 years to get 5% SFC improvement? CFM and PW are claiming a 15-20% SFC improvement from the previous generation of engines.

The point that I agree is that a new wing is not going to make the A380 more efficient nor more affordable. Any fuel efficiency gained by that will be paid double in capital costs. The wing is pretty efficient, the fuselage is not. Just look at the thing. It's stubby.


10 years ago every financier predicted oil rising to 200 USD/barrel. Today they are predicting that it will stay low forever.
If you want to know what would make the A380 a success again? High oil prices.
With oil over 120 USD/barrel, fares would go up significantly again and airlines would be forced to go back to operating very efficient hub-hub models, droping the point to point models. Everyone is saying that the B787 and A350 open up new point to point routes, but in reality, it's cheap oil that is doing that.
Higher oil prices aren't going to make the B787's or A350's less desirable. Airlines will just move those aircraft back to hub-hub routes.
However, with ever increasing numbers of joint-ventures, it would become very appealing to replace two medium widebodies by a single VLA.
Passengers will adapt their schedules to be able to afford to fly at all.
Enjoy the cheap oil while it lasts.

Waterbomber,
Cheap oil helps the 779, not the A388. Already the 77W carries a passenger for fractionally less fuel, the A380 just saves a lot of money elsewhere.

For high oil to spike A380 sales, we need to see a stretch with new engines and new wingtips (hopefully folding wingtps).

One big advantage the 779 takes away from the A388 is early climb to a high cruise altitude. Both benefit by getting up into thin air early. The 77W had higher than optimum wing loding (as typical of stretches). The A380;has the opposite issue, a wing a bit oversized for the current length.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VV
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:12 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Using your analogy, the blood has already spilled well beyond 2018, and beyond the 748 and A380. The 777X is a financial casualty, a legacy it's burdened with for close to a decade.


I really do not understand your comment.

What's so different with the 777X compared to the A350-100 or any other derivative aircraft program?
I think the 777X is doing just fine for now. It is not waiting for another program to die before it can make money.

Spending capital for new product is a normal practice, I guess. And usually it takes a little bit of time to return the investment.

For the A380 and 747-8 we know neither one is making money, unless one dies.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1385
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:30 pm

VV wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
VV wrote:
I do not know if Boeing is making money on each delivered 747-8, but I guess most of the initial investment has been paid off.

In my comment I was only restating what has been said by Airbus that the breakeven (from per unit production cost perspective) was secured at 25 aircraft per year. So, a fortiori anything below 20 units per year would be below breakeven. Or perhaps I misunderstood something.


Boeing is not making money on the 747-8.

Pretty sure breakeven for the A380 was at 12 to 15 frames as of a couple years ago.


Well, if you say Boeing is not making money with the 747-8, so be it.

On the A380, a press article says, "Following a clampdown on costs, Airbus has said the A380 can break even at production levels of 20 a year, while Bregier has previously said he is pushing the breakeven level as low as possible to sustain low production."

The link is Reuters December 14, 2017 / 4:23 AM.

So, you (Slug71) say that Brégier succeeded to push the breakeven level to 12-15 units. It's a pity he decided to leave the company.


Even the move to one plane a month, known as “rate one” and currently due to take effect from 2018, was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for the struggling A380 program when it was announced last year, though Airbus says that it’s able to break even at that production level on a per-plane basis.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ates-order

RayChuang wrote:
Personally, I think in the longer term, EK may be looking a big 777-9 order to eventually replace the A380, especially if they can get Boeing to develop a higher MTOW version with a range around 8,000 nautical miles.


I think it's more likely the 777X order gets cut.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:02 am

lightsaber wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
That is correct.

Ideally a plane would want to be pencil thin and very long but in the real world the weight to make a long thin object is very high relative to the volume. This then requires more lift and a bigger wing for any given volume so you start to go backwards again. That's why most aircraft are within a set fineness ratio.

With a stretch the total drag would of course increase but at a smaller percentage than the increased volume. So it would be highly beneficial from a CASM perspective.

The wing for the A380 isn't bad at all. The biggest problem with the current A380 design by far is pretty simole. The wing is simply oversized, designed to lift 50T more than the current A380. So it is carrying dead weight. The wing could be 20T lighter and still carry the current fuselage. That would result in a direct fuel burn improvement. Very few airliners have a wing span greater than its length. The larger A380-900 fuselage simply makes it better match for the large wing. Its much cheaper to go this route than making the wing smaller to suit the smaller fuselage.

The fuselage tube is very light if we look at other aircraft families with stretches we can accurate predict how much a stretch of the A380 would weigh.

The tube itself is generally under 20% of the aircrafts weight. So a 10% stretch of the A380 would increase empty weight by less than 2%. Empty weight would only increase by 5T up to 282T. A 10% increase in passengers would add another 5T.

Weight is closely linked to fuel burn so fuel burn would be roughly 4% higher during cruise while carrying 10% more passengers. So a 5+% CASM improvement.

Its going to be 20 years until we get another 5% improvement from engines. Airbus would have to spend billions to lighten and redesign the whole wing, wingbox and landing gear to gain 5% using the current fuselage length.

Slap some winglets on the current wing and be done with it.


Wow, this is such a collection of armchair engineering.
1. Stretching a fuselage almost never adds weight (mass to be precise) inefficently. Weight-wise, an aircraft is composed of much more than just a flying fuselage. If you're carrying wings, engines, tailplanes, cockpits, landing gears, systems already, you might as well slap as long a fuselage as possible.

2. Stretching the A380 by 10% will add way more than 5 tons. The ballpark is more like 15 tons if they do it efficiently.

3. Why 20 years to get 5% SFC improvement? CFM and PW are claiming a 15-20% SFC improvement from the previous generation of engines.

The point that I agree is that a new wing is not going to make the A380 more efficient nor more affordable. Any fuel efficiency gained by that will be paid double in capital costs. The wing is pretty efficient, the fuselage is not. Just look at the thing. It's stubby.


10 years ago every financier predicted oil rising to 200 USD/barrel. Today they are predicting that it will stay low forever.
If you want to know what would make the A380 a success again? High oil prices.
With oil over 120 USD/barrel, fares would go up significantly again and airlines would be forced to go back to operating very efficient hub-hub models, droping the point to point models. Everyone is saying that the B787 and A350 open up new point to point routes, but in reality, it's cheap oil that is doing that.
Higher oil prices aren't going to make the B787's or A350's less desirable. Airlines will just move those aircraft back to hub-hub routes.
However, with ever increasing numbers of joint-ventures, it would become very appealing to replace two medium widebodies by a single VLA.
Passengers will adapt their schedules to be able to afford to fly at all.
Enjoy the cheap oil while it lasts.

Waterbomber,
Cheap oil helps the 779, not the A388. Already the 77W carries a passenger for fractionally less fuel, the A380 just saves a lot of money elsewhere.

For high oil to spike A380 sales, we need to see a stretch with new engines and new wingtips (hopefully folding wingtps).

One big advantage the 779 takes away from the A388 is early climb to a high cruise altitude. Both benefit by getting up into thin air early. The 77W had higher than optimum wing loding (as typical of stretches). The A380;has the opposite issue, a wing a bit oversized for the current length.

Lightsaber



That's an opinion, not a fact.
If oil goes up to 150 USD/barrel again, you bet that A380's will see 3-5-3 configurations and perhaps even a simple stretch and who knnows maybe new engines. That's when you can compare it to a B779 with 10-abreast seating and see which one burns less fuel.
If oil shoots up, the B779 stands to benefit as well of course versus smaller models, and there it won't be because it saves fuel vs a B787 or a A350XWB, but as you put it "it saves a lot of money elsewhere", offering lower CASM.

At 60 USD/barrel, CASM is pretty much irrelevant. For instance, saying that EK has 10% lower CASM because of the whale fleet while others fly 10% more direct routings using B787's is what makes it irrelevant. Fares are cheap either way, so there is enough demand to make everyone happy.

Let's imagine that tomorrow oil shoots up, fares go along and demand plummets. The CASM difference of the A380 fleet becomes more pronounced. It's no longer -10% but -25%. Why?
Because
1. EK can buy home-made fuel for outbound flights and its government will be able to fund it better thanks to higher oil incomes.
2. Because the A380 will keep the -10% CASM advantage offered by sheer mass (savings ranging from capital cost per seat, pilot wages, maintenance costs, to landing fees, ATC duties, handling fees, etc...)
3. Believe it or not, an A388 reconfigured to be as dense as a 9Y B787 or 10Y B777, will have lower fuel burn per seat. If stretched, this will be even more pronounced.

If I were an airline today and I believed that fuel prices would stay low forever, the widebody to buy is not an A380, not a B779, not a A350 or B787. At 60 USD / barrel oil, the lowest CASM is achieved by the aircraft that offers a combination of lowest non-fuel costs, with purchase cost and maintenance cost as biggest factors. Plenty of mid-life widebodies on the market, and that's what I would buy.
If I'm already operating A330's, B767, B77W's and/or A380's, I would defer my A350/B787/B777X deliveries and negotiate a cheap lease extension with my lessor or buy the aicraft, because that's what makes most sense today.
It doesn't really make sense for airlines to be ordering A350's and B787's the way they are, but they can afford to because cheap oil is giving them budgets, and they're spending those budgets on shiny jets that don't really give much of a cost advantage.

So saying that the A380 has no business case, is a short-term view.
If you ask me, the aircraft that don't really have a business case are the high capital cost A350/B787/B77X.
If fuel is cheap, you still have expensive monthly leasing bills.
If fuel is expensive, you still have the expensive monthly leasing bills and you can't afford to park the thing even though the demand is depressed because of higher fares. You may save up to 20% of fuel vs. older widebodies but you have 20% less demand and that by itself breaks the business case for many routes, especially anything you started as a point to point route during times of cheap fuel.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:56 am

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.

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.


If a bullfrog had wings he would not bump his butt so much. Boeing is a lot closer to meeting its sales projections; the A-380 is not. But for Emirates, the program would be dead. Even if the parameters change, the A-380 was designed to fly from one mega hub to another mega hub and there are not that many mega hubs. It would be very expensive to build shells and wait for someone to buy them. It is expensive to build them and it is expensive to store them.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:14 am

Waterbomber wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:

Wow, this is such a collection of armchair engineering.
1. Stretching a fuselage almost never adds weight (mass to be precise) inefficently. Weight-wise, an aircraft is composed of much more than just a flying fuselage. If you're carrying wings, engines, tailplanes, cockpits, landing gears, systems already, you might as well slap as long a fuselage as possible.

2. Stretching the A380 by 10% will add way more than 5 tons. The ballpark is more like 15 tons if they do it efficiently.

3. Why 20 years to get 5% SFC improvement? CFM and PW are claiming a 15-20% SFC improvement from the previous generation of engines.

The point that I agree is that a new wing is not going to make the A380 more efficient nor more affordable. Any fuel efficiency gained by that will be paid double in capital costs. The wing is pretty efficient, the fuselage is not. Just look at the thing. It's stubby.


10 years ago every financier predicted oil rising to 200 USD/barrel. Today they are predicting that it will stay low forever.
If you want to know what would make the A380 a success again? High oil prices.
With oil over 120 USD/barrel, fares would go up significantly again and airlines would be forced to go back to operating very efficient hub-hub models, droping the point to point models. Everyone is saying that the B787 and A350 open up new point to point routes, but in reality, it's cheap oil that is doing that.
Higher oil prices aren't going to make the B787's or A350's less desirable. Airlines will just move those aircraft back to hub-hub routes.
However, with ever increasing numbers of joint-ventures, it would become very appealing to replace two medium widebodies by a single VLA.
Passengers will adapt their schedules to be able to afford to fly at all.
Enjoy the cheap oil while it lasts.

Waterbomber,
Cheap oil helps the 779, not the A388. Already the 77W carries a passenger for fractionally less fuel, the A380 just saves a lot of money elsewhere.

For high oil to spike A380 sales, we need to see a stretch with new engines and new wingtips (hopefully folding wingtps).

One big advantage the 779 takes away from the A388 is early climb to a high cruise altitude. Both benefit by getting up into thin air early. The 77W had higher than optimum wing loding (as typical of stretches). The A380;has the opposite issue, a wing a bit oversized for the current length.

Lightsaber



That's an opinion, not a fact.
If oil goes up to 150 USD/barrel again, you bet that A380's will see 3-5-3 configurations and perhaps even a simple stretch and who knnows maybe new engines. That's when you can compare it to a B779 with 10-abreast seating and see which one burns less fuel.
If oil shoots up, the B779 stands to benefit as well of course versus smaller models, and there it won't be because it saves fuel vs a B787 or a A350XWB, but as you put it "it saves a lot of money elsewhere", offering lower CASM.

At 60 USD/barrel, CASM is pretty much irrelevant. For instance, saying that EK has 10% lower CASM because of the whale fleet while others fly 10% more direct routings using B787's is what makes it irrelevant. Fares are cheap either way, so there is enough demand to make everyone happy.

Let's imagine that tomorrow oil shoots up, fares go along and demand plummets. The CASM difference of the A380 fleet becomes more pronounced. It's no longer -10% but -25%. Why?
Because
1. EK can buy home-made fuel for outbound flights and its government will be able to fund it better thanks to higher oil incomes.
2. Because the A380 will keep the -10% CASM advantage offered by sheer mass (savings ranging from capital cost per seat, pilot wages, maintenance costs, to landing fees, ATC duties, handling fees, etc...)
3. Believe it or not, an A388 reconfigured to be as dense as a 9Y B787 or 10Y B777, will have lower fuel burn per seat. If stretched, this will be even more pronounced.

If I were an airline today and I believed that fuel prices would stay low forever, the widebody to buy is not an A380, not a B779, not a A350 or B787. At 60 USD / barrel oil, the lowest CASM is achieved by the aircraft that offers a combination of lowest non-fuel costs, with purchase cost and maintenance cost as biggest factors. Plenty of mid-life widebodies on the market, and that's what I would buy.
If I'm already operating A330's, B767, B77W's and/or A380's, I would defer my A350/B787/B777X deliveries and negotiate a cheap lease extension with my lessor or buy the aicraft, because that's what makes most sense today.
It doesn't really make sense for airlines to be ordering A350's and B787's the way they are, but they can afford to because cheap oil is giving them budgets, and they're spending those budgets on shiny jets that don't really give much of a cost advantage.

So saying that the A380 has no business case, is a short-term view.
If you ask me, the aircraft that don't really have a business case are the high capital cost A350/B787/B77X.
If fuel is cheap, you still have expensive monthly leasing bills.
If fuel is expensive, you still have the expensive monthly leasing bills and you can't afford to park the thing even though the demand is depressed because of higher fares. You may save up to 20% of fuel vs. older widebodies but you have 20% less demand and that by itself breaks the business case for many routes, especially anything you started as a point to point route during times of cheap fuel.


To be clear I am not bashing Airbus. The A-350 will be successful as well.
 
Aither
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:31 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I think the A380 is a Alliance plane, to connect the hubs in different continents. I think the ideal rotation rate for a alliance between hubs is 4x daily. If a alliance has a demand above 1600 daily passengers (4x 400pax) or 584k passengers annually, a larger plane than the 777 or A350 is required.


How do you get these 4x daily ? on long haul routes almost nobody flies more than 2 and then flying above 2 one of the flights is often a 747 or an A380.
I agree there are a few counter examples but these are exceptions typically from airlines not having enough such routes to order a sub fleet of 747s or A380s.
Never trust the obvious
 
Aither
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:46 am

seahawk wrote:
That sadly ignores realities like the geographical placement of your hubs. The US3 would face much bigger problems if they would move all traffic to maybe 2 megahubs each, as other airlines could connect the secondary cities (which still would have huge catchment areas) directly to their hub. And it is no different in Europe. If the ME3 can offer many one stop connections, you are at a disadvantage if you need two stops for the same trip. Airlines serving a market with real original demand need other strategies as airlines aiming to thrive on connecting traffic.


Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
IslandRob
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:04 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:17 am

Waterbomber wrote:
So saying that the A380 has no business case, is a short-term view.
If you ask me, the aircraft that don't really have a business case are the high capital cost A350/B787/B77X.


Wow. Do you actually believe what you wrote? If so, I think your zeal for the A380 is blinding you to reality. -ir
If you wrote me off, I'd understand it
'Cause I've been on some other planet
So come pick me up, I've landed
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1385
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:38 am

Bald1983 wrote:
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.

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.


If a bullfrog had wings he would not bump his butt so much. Boeing is a lot closer to meeting its sales projections; the A-380 is not. But for Emirates, the program would be dead. Even if the parameters change, the A-380 was designed to fly from one mega hub to another mega hub and there are not that many mega hubs. It would be very expensive to build shells and wait for someone to buy them. It is expensive to build them and it is expensive to store them.


Which is exactly why Airbus needs give the A380 a big update. Understandably (because of costs), they are reluctant to spend more money on the program. With good reason. But by the sounds of it, new engines might be a must. The GP7200 is done this year and RR won't provide anymore PIPs for the T900. Any potentially interested buyers will not like that. I wouldn't. That would be a GAP of almost 10 years until another efficiency improvement is done when the Ultrafan is available. Most likely the 10 years of commitment EK is asking for. Airbus most likely knows, that means they'll have to certify new engines now (which wasn't foreseen).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:13 am

Aither wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That sadly ignores realities like the geographical placement of your hubs. The US3 would face much bigger problems if they would move all traffic to maybe 2 megahubs each, as other airlines could connect the secondary cities (which still would have huge catchment areas) directly to their hub. And it is no different in Europe. If the ME3 can offer many one stop connections, you are at a disadvantage if you need two stops for the same trip. Airlines serving a market with real original demand need other strategies as airlines aiming to thrive on connecting traffic.


Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.


There I disagree if a route has enough OD demand to fly it directly it is always the best way, even more so if the destination is a friendly alliance hub.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:57 am

Aither wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I think the A380 is a Alliance plane, to connect the hubs in different continents. I think the ideal rotation rate for a alliance between hubs is 4x daily. If a alliance has a demand above 1600 daily passengers (4x 400pax) or 584k passengers annually, a larger plane than the 777 or A350 is required.


How do you get these 4x daily ? on long haul routes almost nobody flies more than 2 and then flying above 2 one of the flights is often a 747 or an A380.
I agree there are a few counter examples but these are exceptions typically from airlines not having enough such routes to order a sub fleet of 747s or A380s.


I wrote Alliance; so for example SkyTeam: Timetable Europa - North Amerika
AMS - JFK 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days it's 3x daily; 2x KLM & 1x Delta)
AMS - ATL 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days 3x daily; 2x Delta + 1x KLM.
LHR - ATL 4x Delta / Virgin Atlantic.
CDG - ATL 2x Air France & 2x Delta
This are examples from one Alliance, do I have to search for other alliances?
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:32 am

seahawk wrote:
Aither wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That sadly ignores realities like the geographical placement of your hubs. The US3 would face much bigger problems if they would move all traffic to maybe 2 megahubs each, as other airlines could connect the secondary cities (which still would have huge catchment areas) directly to their hub. And it is no different in Europe. If the ME3 can offer many one stop connections, you are at a disadvantage if you need two stops for the same trip. Airlines serving a market with real original demand need other strategies as airlines aiming to thrive on connecting traffic.


Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.


There I disagree if a route has enough OD demand to fly it directly it is always the best way, even more so if the destination is a friendly alliance hub.


I think that we have an opportunity to make things clear here.
What does it mean for a route to have enough O&D demand?
O&D demand can vary for the very same route.
Short-term example: JAL was forced to cancel a daily NRT-CDG flight in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, while the remaining HND-CDG was flying half-empty.
Longer term example: At 60 USD/barrel, a random airline would have to sell tickets at 500 USD return on a random route to break-even. It sells tickets at 600 USD average fare and the average load factor on the A35K is 90%.
Same airline, same route, but this time, oil is 120 USD / barrel and the airline would have to sell the ticket for an average fare of 700 USD to break even at 90% load factors. The infamous fuel surcharges return, and the airline can sell tickets for an average fare of 750 USD and fill its A35K to 70%, or for 800 USD and fill its A35K to 60%, because market demand reduces with increasing fares. However, at 70% load factors, the break even average fare is 840 USD and at 60% load factors, it's 910 USD.
This shows how a seemingly profitable route can suddenly become unprofitable, despite having the "most fuel efficient aircraft" available.

So when oil is cheap, the A35K will be too small to capture the full profit potential, while when oil is expensive, the A35K is useless on the route.

So be careful when you say that there is enough O&D demand on a given route TODAY.
It may no longer be the case in 2-3 years.
You can't base a 20-year aircraft purchase decison on factors that may change within 2-3 years.

Islandrob, a real life example for you.
AY has added A359's to fly the Asian routes, replacing A343's plus additional ones for growth. A330's were more than capable of flying those routes and plenty are available on the used market, yet AY decided to invest in the A359. I think that this is a mistake, since there is nothing to offset the high capital cost of those aircraft.
In today's cheap fuel evironment, the A359's higher capital cost can't be offset by its lower fuel burn and slightly larger capacity versus an A330 or even an A343.
In a high fuel environment, the A359's higher capital cost is still there and perhaps it can be offset by its lower fuel burn, but you still end up with routes that are not profitable or barely so. If it were a used A330, you could then just return it to the lessor at the next term and close the route, but you can't do that with a brand new 12 year lease on your A359.

This is why it's very dangerous to invest in high capital cost aircraft to operate point to point routes.
The volatility of the demand is just too high and you can't opt out when things take a turn for the worse.

As I said, today it makes more sense to keep operating low capital cost widebodies to anywhere where they can make money, given cheap fuel. If fuel becomes more expensive, they can then be replaced by B787/A350 only on mainline routes where higher yields guarantee profits even at higher fuel prices. Then you realise that those are trunk routes, and that nothing can beat an A380 on a trunk route.
Last edited by Waterbomber on Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
DWC
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:43 am

Waterbomber wrote:
Islandrob, a real life example for you.
AY has added A359's to fly the Asian routes, replacing A343's plus additional ones for growth. A330's were more than capable of flying those routes and plenty are available on the used market, yet AY decided to invest in the A359. I think that this is a mistake, since there is nothing to offset the high capital cost of those aircraft.
In today's cheap fuel evironment, the A359's higher capital cost can't be offset by its lower fuel burn and slightly larger capacity versus an A330 or even an A343.
In a high fuel environment, the A359's higher capital cost is still there and perhaps it can be offset by its lower fuel burn, but you still end up with routes that are not profitable or barely so. If it were a used A330, you could then just return it to the lessor at the next term and close the route, but you can't do that with a brand new 12 year lease on your A359.-

This is why it's very dangerous to invest in high capital cost aircraft to operate point to point routes.
The volatility of the demand is just too high and you can't opt out when things take a turn for the worse.

You may actually have taken the wrong example.
The AY order was for the A350 Mark I, much closer to the A333 with 15-20% less operating costs, at LAUNCH Prices - read cheap.
It was reported here that AY was then able, perforce, to upgrade to the A350-XWB at virtually no surcharge, if at all, so they still got brand new super efficient A350s at the price of brand new A330s.
Therefore AY made twice the good decision : order more afficient A333s ( A350-Mark I ) & then go for the more efficient A350-XWB for about the same (low) price.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:00 am

DWC wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
Islandrob, a real life example for you.
AY has added A359's to fly the Asian routes, replacing A343's plus additional ones for growth. A330's were more than capable of flying those routes and plenty are available on the used market, yet AY decided to invest in the A359. I think that this is a mistake, since there is nothing to offset the high capital cost of those aircraft.
In today's cheap fuel evironment, the A359's higher capital cost can't be offset by its lower fuel burn and slightly larger capacity versus an A330 or even an A343.
In a high fuel environment, the A359's higher capital cost is still there and perhaps it can be offset by its lower fuel burn, but you still end up with routes that are not profitable or barely so. If it were a used A330, you could then just return it to the lessor at the next term and close the route, but you can't do that with a brand new 12 year lease on your A359.-

This is why it's very dangerous to invest in high capital cost aircraft to operate point to point routes.
The volatility of the demand is just too high and you can't opt out when things take a turn for the worse.

You may actually have taken the wrong example.
The AY order was for the A350 Mark I, much closer to the A333 with 15-20% less operating costs, at LAUNCH Prices - read cheap.
It was reported here that AY was then able, perforce, to upgrade to the A350-XWB at virtually no surcharge, if at all, so they still got brand new super efficient A350s at the price of brand new A330s.
Therefore AY made twice the good decision : order more afficient A333s ( A350-Mark I ) & then go for the more efficient A350-XWB for about the same (low) price.


AY's original order was for 11 units, hardly worth a decent discount. I doubt that they would have paid less than some blue chip customers who only commited once it was the XWB. The second batch was ordered afterwards. Also, when you sell and leaseback, a lot of that discounting gets lost into the lessor's pockets.
In any case I'm pretty sure a used A330 or A343 would have saved a lot on monthly lease payments today versus brand new A359's.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:08 am

Waterbomber wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Aither wrote:

Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.


There I disagree if a route has enough OD demand to fly it directly it is always the best way, even more so if the destination is a friendly alliance hub.


I think that we have an opportunity to make things clear here.
What does it mean for a route to have enough O&D demand?
O&D demand can vary for the very same route.......


That is just fleet planing for me. You should always aim to have a part of the fleet made up by older jets with no capital costs that can be used for new routes if the demand is good or sent to storage if the demand is weak. It is preferably to a pure hub centric system using VLAs. There you are much less flexible when it comes to adjusting capacity to demand.
 
DWC
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:12 am

Waterbomber wrote:
AY's original order was for 11 units, hardly worth a decent discount. I doubt that they would have paid less than some blue chip customers who only commited once it was the XWB. The second batch was ordered afterwards. Also, when you sell and leaseback, a lot of that discounting gets lost into the lessor's pockets.
In any case I'm pretty sure a used A330 or A343 would have saved a lot on monthly lease payments today versus brand new A359's.

I don't have the figures, just repeating to you information discussed in threads here.
Take it with them, the evidence suggest they are right, chances are high that the EY management have been every bit as rational than the armchair CEO you are - and possibly more far reaching : they run a widely accepted efficient airline.
To me AY are an LCC charging Legacy fares, so I won't by flying them again if I can avoid it. ;)
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:17 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I wrote Alliance; so for example SkyTeam: Timetable Europa - North Amerika
AMS - JFK 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days it's 3x daily; 2x KLM & 1x Delta)
AMS - ATL 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days 3x daily; 2x Delta + 1x KLM.
LHR - ATL 4x Delta / Virgin Atlantic.
CDG - ATL 2x Air France & 2x Delta
This are examples from one Alliance, do I have to search for other alliances?


Interesting, I thought it would be quite a narrow window for departure, but it isn't the case for AMS-JFK: 09:30
→12:24 Delta 47 MD-D-Z-
→13:28 Delta 49 MDWDVZZ
→15:50 KLM 641 MDWDVZZ
→19:30 KLM 643 MDWDVZZ

So trading in the 4 flights for 3 A380 flights will lose flexibility for the traveler, the AMS - JFK example is a relatively short one of course, the longer the flight, less will that matter.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
spacecookie
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:19 am

seahawk wrote:
The business case for the A380 was solid. Market prediction solid, launch customers solid for the size of the plane.

There is nothing solid in a fast moving world and as we see now the market predicition was totally wrong.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:22 pm

Dutchy wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I wrote Alliance; so for example SkyTeam: Timetable Europa - North Amerika
AMS - JFK 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days it's 3x daily; 2x KLM & 1x Delta)
AMS - ATL 2x KLM + 2x Delta (some days 3x daily; 2x Delta + 1x KLM.
LHR - ATL 4x Delta / Virgin Atlantic.
CDG - ATL 2x Air France & 2x Delta
This are examples from one Alliance, do I have to search for other alliances?


Interesting, I thought it would be quite a narrow window for departure, but it isn't the case for AMS-JFK: 09:30
→12:24 Delta 47 MD-D-Z-
→13:28 Delta 49 MDWDVZZ
→15:50 KLM 641 MDWDVZZ
→19:30 KLM 643 MDWDVZZ

So trading in the 4 flights for 3 A380 flights will lose flexibility for the traveler, the AMS - JFK example is a relatively short one of course, the longer the flight, less will that matter.


Either I do not understand your post, or I misread it, but I only see a seven hour gap between half past noon and half past seven… And, as DL47 only goes out three days a week, I would say that, in effect, trading those four flights for three, the first of which would leave somewhat between DL47 and Dl49 schedule, and the next ones at KL 641 and KL 643’s times, would cause no meaningful loss of flexibility.
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:38 pm

Aircellist wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Interesting, I thought it would be quite a narrow window for departure, but it isn't the case for AMS-JFK: 09:30
→12:24 Delta 47 MD-D-Z-
→13:28 Delta 49 MDWDVZZ
→15:50 KLM 641 MDWDVZZ
→19:30 KLM 643 MDWDVZZ

So trading in the 4 flights for 3 A380 flights will lose flexibility for the traveler, the AMS - JFK example is a relatively short one of course, the longer the flight, less will that matter.


Either I do not understand your post, or I misread it, but I only see a seven hour gap between half past noon and half past seven… And, as DL47 only goes out three days a week, I would say that, in effect, trading those four flights for three, the first of which would leave somewhat between DL47 and Dl49 schedule, and the next ones at KL 641 and KL 643’s times, would cause no meaningful loss of flexibility.


Whoops something went wrong there:
→09:30 Delta 47 MD-D-Z-
→10:30 Delta 49 MDWDVZZ
→13:30 KLM 641 MDWDVZZ
→17:10 KLM 643 MDWDVZZ

So perhaps Delta 47/49 could be combined. For the 13.30 and 17.10 departure not so.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21443
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:30 pm

Aither wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That sadly ignores realities like the geographical placement of your hubs. The US3 would face much bigger problems if they would move all traffic to maybe 2 megahubs each, as other airlines could connect the secondary cities (which still would have huge catchment areas) directly to their hub. And it is no different in Europe. If the ME3 can offer many one stop connections, you are at a disadvantage if you need two stops for the same trip. Airlines serving a market with real original demand need other strategies as airlines aiming to thrive on connecting traffic.


Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.

The more time passes the more the world markets look like the US one and this means the world is moving away from the A380's strengths.

Currently the EU market looks more and more like the US market as consolidation continues to take hold.

It's no longer BA with LHR vs LH with FRA, it's IAG with LHR, MAD, BCN, etc vs LH with FRA, VIE, MUC, BRU, etc.

And that's how China is evolving too. US3, EU3, CN3.

More airports with more direct journeys for more people.

Fewer people shlepping to the LHRs and FRAs and AMSs of this world unless the want to get to London, Frankfort, or Amsterdam.

And no A380 sales for a very long time now.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9481
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:08 pm

DWC wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
AY's original order was for 11 units, hardly worth a decent discount. I doubt that they would have paid less than some blue chip customers who only commited once it was the XWB. The second batch was ordered afterwards. Also, when you sell and leaseback, a lot of that discounting gets lost into the lessor's pockets.
In any case I'm pretty sure a used A330 or A343 would have saved a lot on monthly lease payments today versus brand new A359's.

I don't have the figures, just repeating to you information discussed in threads here.
Take it with them, the evidence suggest they are right, chances are high that the EY management have been every bit as rational than the armchair CEO you are - and possibly more far reaching : they run a widely accepted efficient airline.
To me AY are an LCC charging Legacy fares, so I won't by flying them again if I can avoid it. ;)


AY was making ~$40 million+ on the sale-leasebacks of their early A350. They got the plane significantly cheaper than market value.

And quite easy to believe that got a great deal. Remember Airbus was losing the order and PR game against the 787 early on with the A350 mk1. That was reflected in the going price for the aircraft. Since Airbus was the one that broke the order agreement by scrapping the mk1 and relaunching the aircraft as the XWB they were not in much of a position to demand significant increases in pricing to preexisting contracts when it came to conversions over to the XWB.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:27 pm

One way to sell more A380s is to cancel all agreements that allow EK to operate at EU airports. That way the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Singaporean and Korean can take over the massive EU to Asia market, along with IAG, LH and AF. Many of these airlines would probably need some more A380 aircraft when EK is out of the market. Another plus for Airbus would be that EK would have to defer or cancel 77X and 78X orders due to overcapacity. A win-win situation for everyone except DXB. :-)
 
bob75013
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:59 pm

reidar76 wrote:
One way to sell more A380s is to cancel all agreements that allow EK to operate at EU airports. That way the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Singaporean and Korean can take over the massive EU to Asia market, along with IAG, LH and AF. Many of these airlines would probably need some more A380 aircraft when EK is out of the market. Another plus for Airbus would be that EK would have to defer or cancel 77X and 78X orders due to overcapacity. A win-win situation for everyone except DXB. :-)


That will happen about the time there is a 4 foot snowfall in Dubai.
 
User avatar
IslandRob
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:04 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:21 pm

reidar76 wrote:
One way to sell more A380s is to cancel all agreements that allow EK to operate at EU airports. That way the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Singaporean and Korean can take over the massive EU to Asia market, along with IAG, LH and AF. Many of these airlines would probably need some more A380 aircraft when EK is out of the market. Another plus for Airbus would be that EK would have to defer or cancel 77X and 78X orders due to overcapacity. A win-win situation for everyone except DXB. :-)


Why would anyone rational want to distort the existing aviation system for the sole purpose of keeping a dinosaur alive?

Besides, it's not at all clear that barring EK from many of its most lucrative markets would help the sale of new A380s. Imagine how rapidly EK would be dumping boatloads of used A380s on the (thus far reluctant) market under that scenario. -ir
If you wrote me off, I'd understand it
'Cause I've been on some other planet
So come pick me up, I've landed
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:10 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
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.

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.


If a bullfrog had wings he would not bump his butt so much. Boeing is a lot closer to meeting its sales projections; the A-380 is not. But for Emirates, the program would be dead. Even if the parameters change, the A-380 was designed to fly from one mega hub to another mega hub and there are not that many mega hubs. It would be very expensive to build shells and wait for someone to buy them. It is expensive to build them and it is expensive to store them.


Which is exactly why Airbus needs give the A380 a big update. Understandably (because of costs), they are reluctant to spend more money on the program. With good reason. But by the sounds of it, new engines might be a must. The GP7200 is done this year and RR won't provide anymore PIPs for the T900. Any potentially interested buyers will not like that. I wouldn't. That would be a GAP of almost 10 years until another efficiency improvement is done when the Ultrafan is available. Most likely the 10 years of commitment EK is asking for. Airbus most likely knows, that means they'll have to certify new engines now (which wasn't foreseen).


It sounds like you are starting from the position of saving the A-380 and working backwards. The better approach is to go with aircraft that meet your needs and that would be twins, 787's A-350's, etc. The A-380 was built and marketed on a flawed premise, mega-hub to mega hub. If it were not flawed, there would be a lot more of them flying, write now.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:15 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
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. :sarcastic:


I suspect minimal development costs and a goal to take a few orders from the A-380. It will share a similar fate, except it came in a cargo version.
 
Jetty
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:24 pm

Aither wrote:
How do you get these 4x daily ? on long haul routes almost nobody flies more than 2 and then flying above 2 one of the flights is often a 747 or an A380.
I agree there are a few counter examples but these are exceptions typically from airlines not having enough such routes to order a sub fleet of 747s or A380s.

Just from my home airport AMS I know 4 long haul destinations (ATL, MSP, DTW, JFK) with 3/4 flights daily of which none are 747/A380. But those flights are spread over the day and connect to different flight banks thus no upgrade in capacity desired.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:00 am

I would not be shocked at all if we see 25 A380s for china, 30 for Emirates and 6-10 for BA. Often the press is right on the ball, sometimes they are merely repeating each other, quoting predictable analysts and writing what supports their financers preferences.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:12 am

keesje wrote:
I would not be shocked at all if we see 25 A380s for china, 30 for Emirates and 6-10 for BA. Often the press is right on the ball, sometimes they are merely repeating each other, quoting predictable analysts and writing what supports their financers preferences.


Why would BA buy/lease new ones when at the same time plenty of used ones are expected to be available at what one would expect to be very low prices/lease rates.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:12 am

IslandRob wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
One way to sell more A380s is to cancel all agreements that allow EK to operate at EU airports. That way the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Singaporean and Korean can take over the massive EU to Asia market, along with IAG, LH and AF. Many of these airlines would probably need some more A380 aircraft when EK is out of the market. Another plus for Airbus would be that EK would have to defer or cancel 77X and 78X orders due to overcapacity. A win-win situation for everyone except DXB. :-)


Why would anyone rational want to distort the existing aviation system for the sole purpose of keeping a dinosaur alive?

Besides, it's not at all clear that barring EK from many of its most lucrative markets would help the sale of new A380s. Imagine how rapidly EK would be dumping boatloads of used A380s on the (thus far reluctant) market under that scenario. -ir


This move can't be ruled out, not so much on an industrial or commercial level, but on the political stage. It wouldn't be a straight out cancellation, but it could be something like no additional traffic rights or having to share those evenly with European airlines and not allowing transfers of traffic rights from EY to EK.
Keeping the A380 going is about saving jobs. If EK is going to give those jobs to the U.S., in the form of B777X orders and B787-10 orders while making Airbus executives offering A380's look ridiculous, you can bet that those executives are going to have a chat with the political leaderships of the U.K., France and Germany. Airbus has already sent a message to EK via the leasing community, threatening to close off their lines after the last deliveries to EK and reduce residual values on new deliveries, making them less eager to commit to a sale and leaseback deal with EK.

Bald1983 wrote:

It sounds like you are starting from the position of saving the A-380 and working backwards. The better approach is to go with aircraft that meet your needs and that would be twins, 787's A-350's, etc. The A-380 was built and marketed on a flawed premise, mega-hub to mega hub. If it were not flawed, there would be a lot more of them flying, write now.


That is your opinion, not a fact.
I think that the B787 was marketed on the flawed premise of sustainable point to point travel.
Hub to spoke and hub to hub (within joint ventures and major cooperations) is and will always be sustainable. There are yields and there is volume. The market for A380's is not huge, as you only have so many city pairs that can support one, but it exists and consolidation, joint ventures make it a more desirable option.

We should also celebrate successes and the A380 is a success so far, in my view.
In the 20 years between 1989 and 2009, Boeing delivered 467 passenger B744's.
In the 10 years between 2007 and 2017, Airbus delivered 216 passenger A380's, almost half of the total B744 deliveries. So if you look at these numbers, it's clear that the A380 has taken over the B744's market completely, despite losing some 36 sales to the B748i.
Another 50 are almost certain to be delivered, so in my view, Airbus should target to sell another 150 within the next 10 years.
If they can manage to sell 80 copies to China and to the UAE, I'm not sure that people will keep calling it a failure.

With fuel prices as low as they are and capital costs likely to be very low on used A380's, airlines should be jumping on the used market for 3 year leases. But most managements in 2018 are of the "me too" kind and reluctant to make such moves before seeing others do it.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:31 am

seahawk wrote:
The business case for the A380 was solid. Market prediction solid, launch customers solid for the size of the plane.


No, it wasn't. This is plainly revisionist history. The Airbus market outlook in 2000 estimated a need for 1,200 VLA aircraft between 2000-2020. In reality, the actual market size was closer to 400 aircraft. How can you describe an estimate as "solid" when it was wrong by 66 percent?

Plenty of third-party analyst believed the A380 marketing case was too aggressive prior to launch because of trends - such as route fragmentation - that were observable at the time. Many of these critics were labeled as "Euro-skeptics" or "Boeing spokesmen" or whatever.

Waterbomber wrote:
I think that the B787 was marketed on the flawed premise of sustainable point to point travel.
Hub to spoke and hub to hub (within joint ventures and major cooperations) is and will always be sustainable.


"Hub-to-spoke" versus "point-to-point" is simply arguing semantics. They are the exact same thing.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
lerc
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:06 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:33 am

First time poster here so take it easy lol.

Im curious...having seen the chaos that happened at JFK over the recent storm and all the congestion with so many planes, doesn't it demonstrate that airports are at capacity thus making the case for larger airplanes down the road.

It takes much longer to expand an airport with a 25-50 gate terminal than it is to build an A380.

Couldn’t Airbus pause the program until airlines realize there simply isn’t enough space in airports for the current frequency over capacity model?
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:21 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The business case for the A380 was solid. Market prediction solid, launch customers solid for the size of the plane.


No, it wasn't. This is plainly revisionist history. The Airbus market outlook in 2000 estimated a need for 1,200 VLA aircraft between 2000-2020. In reality, the actual market size was closer to 400 aircraft. How can you describe an estimate as "solid" when it was wrong by 66 percent?

Plenty of third-party analyst believed the A380 marketing case was too aggressive prior to launch because of trends - such as route fragmentation - that were observable at the time. Many of these critics were labeled as "Euro-skeptics" or "Boeing spokesmen" or whatever.

Waterbomber wrote:
I think that the B787 was marketed on the flawed premise of sustainable point to point travel.
Hub to spoke and hub to hub (within joint ventures and major cooperations) is and will always be sustainable.


"Hub-to-spoke" versus "point-to-point" is simply arguing semantics. They are the exact same thing.


They are not. Airliners.net is missusing the terms.
You can talk about hub to hub when you have hub-scale feeding at both ends of a route.
Hub to spoke is when you have hub-scale feeding only at one end.
Point to point is when you don't have hub-scale feeding at either end and you rely on O&D and small scale codesharing to fill your capacity.

The size of the local market has no bearing on whether to define a location as a hub. A hub is where airlines decide to concentrate their operations.

For instance, LHR-HND is hub to hub, as JL is in a joint venture with BA and they have huge feed at both ends.
HEL-NRT is hub to spoke, JL and AY have a joint venture but there is barely any feeding from JL at NRT.
Point to point is a route like NRT-CDG for JL, there is little feed on both ends, making it vulnerable. The same route is hub to spoke for AF.

EK's A380 operations are mostly hub to spoke obviously, contrary to popular belief that they're hub-to-hub routes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke%E2% ... n_paradigm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-point_transit
Last edited by Waterbomber on Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
JHwk
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: Reuters:Airbus ready to phase out A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:34 am

lerc wrote:
First time poster here so take it easy lol.

Im curious...having seen the chaos that happened at JFK over the recent storm and all the congestion with so many planes, doesn't it demonstrate that airports are at capacity thus making the case for larger airplanes down the road.

It takes much longer to expand an airport with a 25-50 gate terminal than it is to build an A380.

Couldn’t Airbus pause the program until airlines realize there simply isn’t enough space in airports for the current frequency over capacity model?

While I think Airbus is best off pausing production for 2-3 years, airport congestion isn't a simple issue that can just be solved by a bigger plane.

Issues like JFK are often exacerbated by larger planes; I remember being on a 748 with both our flight and a 380 being cancelled after departure at LAX within 15 minutes. TBIT was a mess for about 4 hours trying to deal with the mess.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos