I still think the developing world *ought* to need more A380s as the global middle class basically doubles in count from 500 million to 1 billion. Routes like BOM-LHR or PVG-LAX might go to 10x A380 per day. If not, then the theory of the A380 breaks down and it is just an EK airplane. But the original theory still deserves a look. Is 350pax really sufficient for future global needs? Right now the answer is YES. Still true in 2030?

par13del wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

What will Boeing's reaction be? Could airlines looking to defer 777X deliveries, whilst retaining launch discounts, be in for a reality check? Or could IAG, LH and SQ be tempted to top up, in order to keep Boeing honest, while a larger A350 is developed?

My armchair is especially comfortable at this time of year.

The 777X is barely larger than the 777W, contrary to a former popular poster about the 400 pax large twin. Boeing already has its cards on the table and the economics of the 777W are already well known, the 777X is supposed to be better with an slight increase in pax numbers, so if one is in the market for an A380 and is hesitant on the price or improvements in the frame, looking towards Boeing is going in a different direction, so far, abuse of the A380 with low pax numbers has not been spoken about since the low numbers have been used to increase luxury.

You threw in a lot of assertions without answering the question about Boeing's reaction. If EK defers 777X deliveries Boeing will be in a bad shape, Airbus can shut down A380 next month without much heartburn.

/ranton
If 777X is incremental over 77W, should it cost $12 Billion? If EK defers 777X and WA backs out from $8.6B incentives, whatever Boeing spent so far is on Boeing. Now time for Boeing fans to jump in ask where I got the $12 Billion number, let say it is a hypothetical.

Whatever is the direction, big is bad in the current market, hence it is the wrong direction.

So 777X is neither an A380 replacement nor vastly superior to 77W, for that price tag. It is like a pregnancy conceived from a one night stand.
/rantoff

DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

Is there such a market for such aircraft? Even the B777X admits that such doesn't exist, forcing at least a J-W-Y design, if not a (F)-J-W-Y+-Y design. It appears that 250-400 seats is the sweet spot. (I know that KE's reconfiguration of the A380 is under 400 seats and SQ has a 379-seat version, but the A380 is still a super-heavy plane.) Emirates may be able to fill an A380, but they're an exception.

That said, BA might be willing to take on secondhand A380s at the right price as their hub is slot-restricted with almost no slots available. But one has to consider that the only A380 operator in China, a true emerging market, is China Southern with just 5.

Flighty wrote:

I still think the developing world *ought* to need more A380s as the global middle class basically doubles in count from 500 million to 1 billion. Routes like BOM-LHR or PVG-LAX might go to 10x A380 per day. If not, then the theory of the A380 breaks down and it is just an EK airplane. But the original theory still deserves a look. Is 350pax really sufficient for future global needs? Right now the answer is YES. Still true in 2030?

The fact is that the world air markets are fragmenting.

For the first time in 2017, there are over 20,000 unique international airport pairs per IATA. In 1996 there were fewer than 10,000.

So yes global traffic is certainly forecast to grow, but the availability of new ever more fuel-efficient aircraft combined with changing economic landscapes in countries fosters further growth direct services between cities.

Balerit wrote:

Sounds like another fake news story drummed up from the US to scare Airbus investors.

It's a European-sourced article from a European news source, it isn't some blog or even The Seattle Times. Any halfway aware Airbus investor has been very familiar with the A380's limited prospects for some time and certainly wouldn't be "scared" by this at all. If anything their confidence is probably boosted by Airbus demonstrating they're going to make a pragmatic, business-based decision instead of making heavy concessions to EK just to drag out what has become an albatross.

Well we can say this the Boeing 747 had a much longer run than this whale and it was much more beautiful also. Just face it the A380 was just built so that Airbus could say they built the biggest plane but as we can see it's longevity isn't going to last as long as Boeing's great Jumbo.

ro1960 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

Airplanes are not built to last like they were before just like everything else. We live in a throw away world now.

Isn't rather that planes fly more nowadays than 20-30 years ago?

No they are made a lot cheaper nowadays. Planes spent way more hours in the air before than they do now.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

Sure there are older models finding new homes but this is not just any another aircraft. It’s an A380, not just any airline will want to take them even at “great prices”. It’s too much airplane and it’s proving to be the case for even some of these top worldwide carriers.

LAXintl wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I still think the developing world *ought* to need more A380s as the global middle class basically doubles in count from 500 million to 1 billion. Routes like BOM-LHR or PVG-LAX might go to 10x A380 per day. If not, then the theory of the A380 breaks down and it is just an EK airplane. But the original theory still deserves a look. Is 350pax really sufficient for future global needs? Right now the answer is YES. Still true in 2030?

The fact is that the world air markets are fragmenting.

For the first time in 2017, there are over 20,000 unique international airport pairs per IATA. In 1996 there were fewer than 10,000.

So yes global traffic is certainly forecast to grow, but the availability of new ever more fuel-efficient aircraft combined with changing economic landscapes in countries fosters further growth direct services between cities.

This is an important point.

Hubbing is needed and even required as so many city pairs lack the traffic to support a direct flight. But few here realize how common bridge hubbing used to be (multiple hub connections to get point to point). I've double hubbed before and... it is not comfortable knowing a trip is dependent on two connections.

Many posters here ask "where will the aircraft fly to?" One side of long haul P2P will always be a hub. Finding space at spokes, won't be the issue.
The new Beijing airport
The new Istanbul airport
The DWC airport (just a question of when, the one and only run ME3).
Hong Kong (will eventually get that 3rd runway)
CAN (more runways)
Possibly a new airport for Ethiopia (yea, I'm being a cynic)
The new runway at ATL
Eventually a new Mumbai airport
DEN has near infinite potential
PVG is getting an expansion

Will LHR get more runways(s)?
SFO a reconfiguration?
PHX a new runway (unlikely, but there was a proposal to tear down a 'less affluent' area for it...)

Only DWC (and possibly LHR) will be likely candidates for A380 hubbing.

The rest will do better with 787s and A350s. Cest la vie.


Lightsaber

klm617 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Airplanes are not built to last like they were before just like everything else. We live in a throw away world now.

Isn't rather that planes fly more nowadays than 20-30 years ago?

No they are made a lot cheaper nowadays. Planes spent way more hours in the air before than they do now.

What is your stats? All records show planes fly more today... I'd like to know your comparison.

LIghtsaber

BrianDromey wrote:

I think a lot of posters agree that the A380 has limited market appeal. I can't see it ever being operated on the American continent. The ME3 hubs have a unique geographical position which fits very large wide bodies, such as the A380/77W/35J, etc well. .

Many hubs have good geographical positions as well. What is unique in the Middle East is the combination of (1) people with deep pockets an low/medium labor costs to create competitive hubs (2) thinking global and longer term and (3) daring people with great aviation management skills.

Japan : nothing -> no A380 so far
USA : they have only (3) -> no A380
Europe : they have (2) and (3) -> a few A380
Singapore/Korea : (1) (2) & (3)-> they have a significant A380 fleet relative to their size.
China : they only have (1) and (2) -> very few A380s

With time European carriers could order more A380s, in particular to better compete against the long haul LCCs.
For Asian carriers it's double edge : ME3&CN3 are taking market shares so it's difficult to add A380s. However because of ME3&CN3 the business is now more focus on the routes to the top cities. To maintain the corporate revenues high it is vital to be strong on these markets with A380s.
China is the anomaly, they need time to fix it.
USA : A380 could work only on a few transatlantic routes and maybe Japan from different airports. It's probably not enough to justify a sub fleet. US carriers will lose the Pacific war against the Chinese carriers...

Arion640 wrote:

I think we'll see the last EK order then potentially game over sadly.

I think we have already seen the last 380 order. The game has been over for a while, cleaning up the stadium now, then its permanent lights out.

[quote="dtw2hyd"]
You threw in a lot of assertions without answering the question about Boeing's reaction. If EK defers 777X deliveries Boeing will be in a bad shape, Airbus can shut down A380 next month without much heartburn.
quote]
If EK defers deliveries of the 777X what effect does that have on them not going through with their order for additional A380's, the subject of the thread is the A380,
The 777X came into the topic as a poster made the comment of airlines ordering additional A380's to keep Boeing honest on prices, the 777X at present is not selling like hotcakes and Boeing has not dropped prices, they have on the 777W which is a known entity and at end of life production.

In terms of capacity the 777X is a minimal increase over the 777W regardless of how many billions and years it takes to produce, it is still not a 500 pax plane like the A380.

beenalongtime wrote:

The orders will come....

From who? VLA segment is dead. No amount of wishing will change that. If it makes you feel better the 747 is dead too.

Regardless of whether this EK order happens, the fact remains that the program's termination hangs on a customer whose existence Airbus did not foresee, and nothing like the uptake Airbus predicted has come to pass. That's enough to show what a foolish investment this was, a first-order foolishness that Airbus exacerbated via grandiose planning for a 1,000-seat monster that will never fly.

The sooner this program dies the better for future VLA development.

lightsaber wrote:

Only DWC (and possibly LHR) will be likely candidates for A380 hubbing.

Ironically or not, the world's largest owner of A380s shows how you deal with not having as many flights to LHR as you might want, you fly to LGW, STN, MAN, BHM, etc and pull traffic away from LHR.

Matt6461 wrote:

Regardless of whether this EK order happens, the fact remains that the program's termination hangs on a customer whose existence Airbus did not foresee, and nothing like the uptake Airbus predicted has come to pass.

Unfortunately for the A380 EK was created.

Airbus was right to believe in the future of hubs. They just did not expect that one would impact alone half of the world.

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Only DWC (and possibly LHR) will be likely candidates for A380 hubbing.

Ironically or not, the world's largest owner of A380s shows how you deal with not having as many flights to LHR as you might want, you fly to LGW, STN, MAN, BHM, etc and pull traffic away from LHR.

your point is definitely valid, however it's not just pulling traffic away from LHR, although that is part of it. BHX for example has a huge Asian (Indian/Pakistani and others) population, which hits right in the sweet spot for DXB and its connections to India, throw in some folks heading to the far east and Australia and not wishing to schlep down to LHR (which although can be done via the M42, M40 and M25), get the wrong time of day, it can be a right PITA and therefore a market you can create. It's amazing to me that an airport that size can sustain double daily A380's to DXB at something basically the size of BNA or AUS. But it's there and it works. Can you imagine the a.net conversations if BA went from a single 789 to double daily A380 to LHR from AUS? I grant you the market isn't the same, so probably not a fair comparison, but that's essentially what EK are doing here.

Aither wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Regardless of whether this EK order happens, the fact remains that the program's termination hangs on a customer whose existence Airbus did not foresee, and nothing like the uptake Airbus predicted has come to pass.

Unfortunately for the A380 EK was created.

Airbus was right to believe in the future of hubs. They just did not expect that one would impact alone half of the world.

Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?

dtw2hyd wrote:

If EK defers 777X deliveries Boeing will be in a bad shape, Airbus can shut down A380 next month without much heartburn.

Fortunately for Boeing that is almost impossible. The 777X, as the middle child in the currently planned EK fleet, is the one aircraft they will need no matter what. In a growth scenario, it continues as the middle option, replacing the 77W fleet over time. In an extreme growth scenario, some 787 orders might even be converted to 777X. In a contraction scenario, on the other hand, the 777-9 (or 777-10X) gradually takes over for the A380 as the heavy hauler, with the 787-10 serving as a 77W replacement. If I were Boeing, I would feel very secure about my EK orders.

Matt6461 wrote:

Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?

Yes.
The impact is not limited to Asia-Europe. Some transpac routes were not possible because we could not balance with flights to Europe.
CX would probably have ordered an A380 fleet without EK, and use some of these A380s to North America.
etc.
and perhaps the most important : a dozen of carriers (re)ordering aircraft every year would have completely changed the perception around the A380 imo. In many places in the world perception is more important than technical things. It's unfortunate for the A380 which is still the most cost efficient aircraft when rightly used. But the fleet management and marketing departments have no incentive to propose something nobody else is doing. That's the reality of aviation.

Aither wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?

Yes.

A couple months ago I was arguing against this point and another A380 supporter said, basically, "why are you making that argument? nobody believes that."

Well, here we have somebody who actually believes EK hurt the A380. At least claims such belief.

Rather than rehashing that argument fully, I'll just point out that EK is basically a non-factor on TPAC, yet there are very few A380's flying it. Only 1-5 to/from China on TPAC, which was supposedly the A380's raison d'etre.

That's a natural experiment that definitively rebuts your claim. Not that the absurd claim that EK hurt the A380 needs rebuttal.

Pretty interesting catch-22 situation playing out in the media.

Airbus wont commit to the program without EK orders, and EK wont commit to orders without protecting its asset values knowing Airbus will remain in the project long term.

I am afraid there might not be enough room to bridge this divide. Someone - either Airbus or EK must put Billions in $$$ at risk to appease the other party, possibly a risk far too big for either party to take.

Matt6461 wrote:

Aither wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?

Yes.

Rather than rehashing that argument fully, I'll just point out that EK is basically a non-factor on TPAC, yet there are very few A380's flying it. Only 1-5 to/from China on TPAC, which was supposedly the A380's raison d'etre.
.

As I said, you have to consider side effects like fleet management. EK had a negative impact on the demand of A380s on the transpacific. We can argue by how much but it clearly had a significant one (on transpac flight = approximately 2.5 - 3 aircraft).

Some people say how bad EK needs the A380 but as you mention transpac it's going to be the same there. Without the A380 I know some guys who will have to soon make 2 aircraft fly side by side and burn their traffic rights because there could be no longer A380s available. Who knows with Airbus saying they could stop the A380 production some airlines could have a second thought about it in the coming weeks. I'm just speculating here.

sassiciai wrote:

I do call you out about LHR3. Can you please update us on what has moved forward here recently, please. As far as I know, this is now at the bottom of a minority government's action list, and will not likely see daylight until the entire opera pf Brexit is played its course!

2030? Would you like to bet LHR3 versus DWC full opening?

I'll bet on more quad orders by then!

A delay of the third runway at LHR due to Brexit is largely immaterial to the relevant timescale. Even if Airbus were to terminate the A380 program tomorrow and refuse to deliver the remaining unbuilt aircraft to EK (beyond unlikely!), EK would still be able to operate the A380 through around 2050. I think it's quite probable the third LHR runway will have opened by then -- let alone other changes which might impact the global aviation market in general.

By the same token, there is no requirement chiseled in stone for EK to retire A380s after 12 years. If they find it useful to retain their A380s longer in order to deal with constrained runway capacity at DXB until DWC is developed sufficiently to move the hub, they will do just that!

WkndWanderer wrote:

Any halfway aware Airbus investor has been very familiar with the A380's limited prospects for some time and certainly wouldn't be "scared" by this at all. If anything their confidence is probably boosted by Airbus demonstrating they're going to make a pragmatic, business-based decision instead of making heavy concessions to EK just to drag out what has become an albatross.

I think any Airbus investor interested in metrics like profit margin or return on invested capital would be happy to see the end of the A380 program at this point. Running the program at near break-even brings the operating margin of the commercial airplanes division down even with the highly successful A320, A330, and A350 programs printing money. The A380 is also a distraction for management and it uses resources (labor, facilities, equipment) which could probably be put to more productive use on other products. Stringing the program along in the hope that maybe big orders will start rolling in ten or twenty years down the road is foolish. If a sizeable VLA market should materialize in a decade or two, it makes far more sense to just start over and develop a new aircraft platform based on that decade's technology, rather than the technology of the late 1990s and early 2000s.

DWC wrote:

Not quite. If Airbus scrap the A380, Game Theory shows they will need to develop the A350-1100, or face significant market-share loss ( on top of 2017's ) while Boeing reap monopolistic profits in the VLA sector.

There are no "monopolistic profits" for Boeing to "reap" in the VLA sector. The 777-9 might be slightly better-suited to certain missions than the A350-1000 due to being 10% larger, but that's simply not enough of a difference to allow "monopolistic profits." Airbus has had the VLA market almost entirely to itself (the 747 has not been a credible competitor) and there have been no profits to be had.

Revelation wrote:

The dark hand theory behind (c) then would be that EK is failing due to its excessive number of inefficient A380s and Dubai is broke so won't rescue them, so it wants to kill off the A380 and get out of future orders but doesn't want to be the one seen doing so, so it asks for impossible things and then snubs Airbus for refusing to deliver them, then Airbus looks like the bad guy when all along it's EK who is the bad actor.

I don't subscribe to the theory of EK failing, but I do find it curious that several of their A380s over the past year or so have been sitting parked waiting several months before handover. That doesn't jibe well with a narrative of needing more and more.

BrianDromey wrote:

Overall I think IAG have 6-12 too few A380s as they have publicly acknowledged. IAG have even expressed a possibility of operating a single frame, or two at EI and IB. All of that said, they are interested, but only at the right price - much lower than either Airbus or lessors are willing to accept.

Even though BA faces constraints due to the slot restrictions on their primary hub, they need the A380 less than one might think precisely because they are the largest slotholder at LHR by a wide margin. They have quite a bit of flexibility to upgauge and consolidate frequencies in order to increase capacity if need be. They certainly have routes where they could use attractively-priced A380s, but it seems clear that BA isn't so keen as to pay what Airbus is asking for new planes. And yet they have been willing to pay the going price for new 787s and A350s...

Aither wrote:

EK had a negative impact on the demand of A380s on the transpacific. We can argue by how much but it clearly had a significant one

The argument about how much is the whole damn argument. You have to make some kind of case that other airlines would have bought 143 more A380's absent EK. That's how logic works. Your refusal to even attempt such a case - instead you hide behind nebulous secondary factors like fleet balancing - belies your supposed confidence that such a case can be made.

ScottB wrote:

There are no "monopolistic profits" for Boeing to "reap" in the VLA sector. The 777-9 might be slightly better-suited to certain missions than the A350-1000 due to being 10% larger, but that's simply not enough of a difference to allow "monopolistic profits." Airbus has had the VLA market almost entirely to itself (the 747 has not been a credible competitor) and there have been no profits to be had

Right. DWC and others think as if aircraft of different sizes cannot act as substitutes for each other. This is false at both the airline level (e.g. frequency over gauge) and at the system level (e.g. airlines offering Other, quicker routing and/or higher frequency will siphon traffic from trunk routes, substituting their demand for smaller planes for the trunk-hauler's demand for larger planes).

An economist should know the proper conditions for applying monopoly analysis (not here). Even monopolistic competition analysis applies only weakly here, as our present VLA's are such poor products that their positive product differentiation is negligible (a380) or nonexistent (748i).

seahawk wrote:

Airbus is replacing their senior management, so the incoming team will want the A380 problem solved one way or the other. And at the moment ending the program seems to be the saver option.

There is also the shadow of the ongoing corruption investigations.

If the outcome is really dire, then some hard pruning might be necessary to cut costs and cut fast, .

In such a scenario, the Whalejet would be in deep merde, I fear.

cheers

Matt6461 wrote:

Aither wrote:

EK had a negative impact on the demand of A380s on the transpacific. We can argue by how much but it clearly had a significant one

The argument about how much is the whole damn argument. You have to make some kind of case that other airlines would have bought 143 more A380's absent EK. That's how logic works. Your refusal to even attempt such a case - instead you hide behind nebulous secondary factors like fleet balancing - belies your supposed confidence that such a case can be made.

No need to be aggressive here. Nobody except maybe Airbus has the data to precisely figure out. However with some market knowledge and common sense you can get a rough idea of what additional A380 there could have been without the ME3. It takes between 2 and 3 aircraft to do a long haul route. For each of the following airlines it's not hard to imagine 3-6 additional destinations they could have serve without EK.

CX +20
SQ +10
TG +10
MH +5
PR +10
LH +15
BA +15
AF +10
KL +5
QF +10
Total : 110

As I said on top of that you change the perception of the A380 so it's quite reasonable to think other airlines would have ordered (top up re-order from the Koreans the Chinese, maybe Iberia, Aeroflot, Garuda, Saudi Arabian, the Chinese maybe Iran Air and an Indian company...). Also important for Airbus the pricing to sell to more customers would have been higher than selling to EK.
So all in all, yes we will never know for sure but it's quite reasonable to believe that EK has not been good for the A380 program.

DWC wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Airbus is replacing their senior management, so the incoming team will want the A380 problem solved one way or the other. And at the moment ending the program seems to be the saver option.

Not quite. If Airbus scrap the A380, Game Theory shows they will need to develop the A350-1100, or face significant market-share loss ( on top of 2017's ) while Boeing reap monopolistic profits in the VLA sector.

The A350-1100 would be a project they could shape though. And if the A380 does not sell keeping the line alive for a game theory is pointless and the A350-1100 is unavoidable anyway.

I think the important question will be this one:

Can the market sustain EK selling its 150 used frames if they replace them by 150 new ones? (Read: Will someone buy them at reasonable prices?)

I think this question will be the important one, because EK doesn’t need 300 frames. And if they don’t find buyers for their old frames, they won’t buy new ones and perhaps this will end A380 production in less than two years. And from what I am seeing there is no real market for used A380s. Actually we see the opposite, like airlines struggling to fill their A380s like TG, QF, KE, MH, just to name a few. We also have airlines like QF stating that they won't pick up their options and we see airlines like MH using the A380s for Hadj charters, which didn't work so well apparently.

Can you imagine any airline or a number of airlines that would take 100 to 150 used A380s from EK?

And by your opinion is their any possibility that EK starts replacing it's A380s with new frames before the old ones even have reached the middle of their useful life and without getting paid for these old frames? I could imagine that these aren't completely depreciated at this point. Don't know, but if EK isn't willing to open their pockets really wide, I don't see a future for the whale...

Arion640 wrote:

BA have said their 777's will see 30 years of service, I wouldn't be surprised if they push the A380's to do the same thing. No reason why aircraft can't fly this long if properly maintained.

Plenty of reasons. Not the least of which being if the aircraft's market value falls below the cost of mtx. That's exactly what's happening to the (non-ER) 744 for 2018, and why essentially every major airline got rid of them before year's end.

BA is one of the few majors to see a cost benefit in making the required maintenance modifications necessary to keep the 744 flying, and that's likely because they had so many more than anyone else: the scale justified the cost.

Similar problems would be faced by the 777-9 once EK dumps 500+ on the used market.

CARST wrote:

I think the important question will be this one:

Can the market sustain EK selling its 150 used frames if they replace them by 150 new ones? (Read: Will someone buy them at reasonable prices?)

They are killing all the potential buyers around them so....maybe the solution for EK is to buy another airline somewhere which would buy second hand A380s. Something crazy like buying Norwegian and destroying everybody on the north Atlantic.

LAX772LR wrote:

Plenty of reasons. Not the least of which being if the aircraft's market value falls below the cost of mtx. That's exactly what's happening to the (non-ER) 744 for 2018, and why essentially every major airline got rid of them before year's end.

Sort of. It's more about replacement value than market value. Both UA and DL have already next generation VLAs in service or on order (350s for DL & 77W for UA). As for DL, it's also worth noting that they inherited those 744s from a merger and they've been perusing a more P2P, less NRTcentric Pacific network; the need for the 744 or its equivalent size fell away for them anyway.

Considering the age of most 744s, they're either paid off or the lease payments wouldn't be close to a new smaller a/c.

In UA &DL's case, had the need for them remained, and there were no forthcoming replacements in either network, they'd have ate the MX cost of the required certifications. And they'd know, as you do, how low the resale is on those.

Aither wrote:

CARST wrote:

I think the important question will be this one:

Can the market sustain EK selling its 150 used frames if they replace them by 150 new ones? (Read: Will someone buy them at reasonable prices?)

They are killing all the potential buyers around them so....maybe the solution for EK is to buy another airline somewhere which would buy second hand A380s. Something crazy like buying Norwegian and destroying everybody on the north Atlantic.

Totally unrealistic, would not work. First of all you have regulated ownership rights for airlines in most countries, especially in the EU and USA. No foreign ownership >49%.
Then you have totally different systems in the UAE and Europe. Foremost: taxation. If EK would have to operate in the EU, they would have not even survived the time back then when they still flew 727s. The credits to order 100 777s at one time and later 150 A380s would have never been granted.
It’s not like they got direct subsidies (at least officially), but they got so much help to grow through market-distorting credits, zero tax, ultra low paid Bangladeshi and Indian workers and other other indirect subsidies, that they never had to compete with a privately run airline in Europe head to head. You can forget the idea that the Emirates system could be copied in any First World Country.

Emirates need to find about 10 airlines taking 15 frames each to sell off their old fleet. I don’t see that happening. And thus I see the end of the program.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

KarelXWB wrote:

There seems to be little demand for large and expensive aircraft. Right now the market concentrates around A350/787 sized aircraft and will probably stay that way for a long time to come. Apparently airlines do not want a 500-seater, be it a quad or twin.

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

VV wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

There seems to be little demand for large and expensive aircraft. Right now the market concentrates around A350/787 sized aircraft and will probably stay that way for a long time to come. Apparently airlines do not want a 500-seater, be it a quad or twin.

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

Seating capacity of the 777 is 550 seats. Not that any airline will stuff as many seats into the triple 7, but there’s the possibility to do so...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

seahawk wrote:

Similar problems would be faced by the 777-9 once EK dumps 500+ on the used market.

well i dont think so, they can be re-fitet or converted to cargo.
twin marked is much larger nowday's but few want or need an a380

CARST wrote:

VV wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

There seems to be little demand for large and expensive aircraft. Right now the market concentrates around A350/787 sized aircraft and will probably stay that way for a long time to come. Apparently airlines do not want a 500-seater, be it a quad or twin.

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

Seating capacity of the 777 is 550 seats. Not that any airline will stuff as many seats into the triple 7, but there’s the possibility to do so...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

i dont see this so far there are some dense A330 out there with 388PAX capacity!
http://www.evelop.com/es/nuestra-flota/
no joke

ericm2031 wrote:

777-9’s and potentially a 777x-10/350-1100

The article states that they would keep the last A380 for much longer. Therefore the aircraft arriving in 2022 would probably be still in service by late 2030s. Therefore it will be replaced with aircraft that don't exist yet.

VV wrote:

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

Yep, and it's called 777.

CARST wrote:

Then you have totally different systems in the UAE and Europe. Foremost: taxation. If EK would have to operate in the EU, they would have not even survived the time back then when they still flew 727s. The credits to order 100 777s at one time and later 150 A380s would have never been granted.
It’s not like they got direct subsidies (at least officially), but they got so much help to grow through market-distorting credits, zero tax, ultra low paid Bangladeshi and Indian workers and other other indirect subsidies, that they never had to compete with a privately run airline in Europe head to head.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Far more challenging to create tax effective financing opportunities in countries with zero tax rates.

Realise this is a.net not accounting.net, but do posters who target EK because they happen to be based in a country with zero (largely) tax rates, which pre-date the airline's existence, realise globally there are a host of multinationals outside aviation incurring costs in countries with positive tax rates (so accrue tax losses and other benefits), with profits swept to low or no tax destinations? My poacher turned gamekeeper alter ego suggests that's where your focus and principles should be directed.

The ability to order and acquire aircraft in value multiples apparently unsupported by cashflow, P&L and balance sheets is something that could be levied at virtually any airline at some time or other, going back to when commercial aviation was in it's infancy.

Fortunately, charismatic leadership, vision and ideas can (and still do) excite and inspire otherwise fuddy duddy financiers, without whom there would have been very few startups - ever. Or groundbreaking aircraft too.

The bravest financial decision most on here will ever take is a home mortgage (although some might claim marriage too). As we head into a new year, celebrate those who have the confidence and conviction to make decisions with massive repercussions, flawed though they may prove to be in hindsight.

KarelXWB wrote:

VV wrote:

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

Yep, and it's called 777.

At seating densities that would fully max out the evacuation limit (873, not even 11across) on a comparably outfitted A380

Planesmart wrote:

CARST wrote:

Then you have totally different systems in the UAE and Europe. Foremost: taxation. If EK would have to operate in the EU, they would have not even survived the time back then when they still flew 727s. The credits to order 100 777s at one time and later 150 A380s would have never been granted.
It’s not like they got direct subsidies (at least officially), but they got so much help to grow through market-distorting credits, zero tax, ultra low paid Bangladeshi and Indian workers and other other indirect subsidies, that they never had to compete with a privately run airline in Europe head to head.

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Far more challenging to create tax effective financing opportunities in countries with zero tax rates.

Realise this is a.net not accounting.net, but do posters who target EK because they happen to be based in a country with zero (largely) tax rates, which pre-date the airline's existence, realise globally there are a host of multinationals outside aviation incurring costs in countries with positive tax rates (so accrue tax losses and other benefits), with profits swept to low or no tax destinations? My poacher turned gamekeeper alter ego suggests that's where your focus and principles should be directed.

The ability to order and acquire aircraft in value multiples apparently unsupported by cashflow, P&L and balance sheets is something that could be levied at virtually any airline at some time or other, going back to when commercial aviation was in it's infancy.

Fortunately, charismatic leadership, vision and ideas can (and still do) excite and inspire otherwise fuddy duddy financiers, without whom there would have been very few startups - ever. Or groundbreaking aircraft too.

The bravest financial decision most on here will ever take is a home mortgage (although some might claim marriage too). As we head into a new year, celebrate those who have the confidence and conviction to make decisions with massive repercussions, flawed though they may prove to be in hindsight.

Your whole answer is based on the assumption that the guys who drove EK out of a small national airline into the transcontinental monster we have today were great visionaries backed by brave financiers.

If you turn your vision around by 180 degrees EK didn’t have some brave people providing the required cheap credits and guarantees, but they had a few Sheiks who didn’t know what to do with their money. That was a carte blanche, to do whatever they want.

Also they didn’t change aviation or the market of transportation in total. They just took traffic away from other airlines which existed long before them. These 150 A380s would be Flying today in the fleets of BA, AF, LH, SQ, NH, TG, QF and CI. Just to name a few players who dominated the market between Europe and Africa/Asia/Australia.

Some people were allowed to play airline manager their with a lot of cheap money. Of course they made a great job. This weren’t some A.net armchair CEOs, everything EK did was more or less the right step at the right time, but still, looking back how that growth was started and how all these massive orders were possible, you can not leave out their financial background.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

KarelXWB wrote:

VV wrote:

Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?

Yep, and it's called 777.

Very interesting.
I didn't know the 777 was a 500-seater.
So, what's an A380 then? A 600-seater or a 700-seater?

CARST wrote:

Some people were allowed to play airline manager their with a lot of cheap money. Of course they made a great job. This weren’t some A.net armchair CEOs, everything EK did was more or less the right step at the right time, but still, looking back how that growth was started and how all these massive orders were possible, you can not leave out their financial background.

Having some money provided and working with it without having to pander to the quarterly imbeciles was a similar foundation to Airbus success.

But afaics for both having a vision and working towards that goal with competent people at hand is another
and much bigger mandatory requirement. money is nothing more than a nice foundation.

Abstract vision of profits ( shareholders, management ) as Boeing seems to work for is not sufficient.

On the Rolls-Royce side of the A380, it is clear that the Trent has been Pip'd enough. RR is not going to look backwards as a means of moving forward. They are resourcing the UltraFan as its primary concept, together with multiple other secondary tech progress including the Advance core. The next large and step-changed RR engine for the future may be available for EIS by 2027 at the earliest, using the UltraFan concept with many other high tech changes.

There is no need for any step-change to replace the big selling large engines T1000 TEN (and T7000) or the TXWB before a 2027 EIS. But RR technological progress will continue as always, and when the commercial time is right that new tech will reach the production lines. By 2027 the new replacement for the 737 range, and the NEO for 787 and A350 will all be coming towards EIS.

By then GE and RR will have competing entries for each of these markets. GE's entry into these 2027 market is unknown, but they know it will need to be commercially competitive with RR, who by that time will have the lion's share of the large civil aero-engine market.

CARST wrote:

Your whole answer is based on the assumption that the guys who drove EK out of a small national airline into the transcontinental monster we have today were great visionaries backed by brave financiers.

If you turn your vision around by 180 degrees EK didn’t have some brave people providing the required cheap credits and guarantees, but they had a few Sheiks who didn’t know what to do with their money. That was a carte blanche, to do whatever they want.

I am of the opinion these transactions were underwritten by regional Princes and executed at global financial hubs by renowned aviation financiers/banks. Yet another brand image management strategy to make it look like global financiers were flocking to finance these fancy orders. I may be wrong.

These transactions were financed by a variety of financial institutions including EU and US state banks (i.e. US import export bank), Islamic banks and more broadly the general banking and investment fund communities.

If we consider the ME3 economies, the amount of US and EU funds coming into the state far exceed the funds required to pay the finance costs associated with the purchase of aircraft.

If we consider Abu Dhabi, they generate substantial incomes in US dollars from the sale of oil and gas.

I don’t think it would take too much of a stretch of the imagination to realize these nations would be best served by leveraging these incomes to diversify their economy.

If we consider the other option is leaving the money in the bank, the investment in airports and aircraft seems to be, on face value a very reasonable response to the opportunities posed by earning excess incomes in foreign currencies.