Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
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?
Balerit wrote:Sounds like another fake news story drummed up from the US to scare Airbus investors.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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. .
Arion640 wrote:I think we'll see the last EK order then potentially game over sadly.
beenalongtime wrote:The orders will come....
lightsaber wrote:Only DWC (and possibly LHR) will be likely candidates for A380 hubbing.
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.
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.
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.
dtw2hyd wrote:If EK defers 777X deliveries Boeing will be in a bad shape, Airbus can shut down A380 next month without much heartburn.
Matt6461 wrote:Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?
Aither wrote:Matt6461 wrote:Just to clarify- do you believe EK has been a net negative for the A380?
Yes.
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.
.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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?
seahawk wrote:Similar problems would be faced by the 777-9 once EK dumps 500+ on the used market.
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
ericm2031 wrote:777-9’s and potentially a 777x-10/350-1100
VV wrote:Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?
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
KarelXWB wrote:VV wrote:Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?
Yep, and it's called 777.
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.
KarelXWB wrote:VV wrote:Is there any twin 500-seater on offer?
Yep, and it's called 777.
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.
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.