Vladex wrote:

US airlines are all about hard cash flow and quick profits right now and the easiest way to do it is by establishing a monopoly and lowering the expectations . If they had A380 , they would be competing with others and would raise expectations which would be bad for their business plan. They are just financial institutions masquerading as airlines.

Or, just maybe, US airlines don't see near as much concentration of hub demand to justify flying humongous aircraft and see value in strict capacity discipline? They certainly weren't that enthusiastic about the 747-8, 777X, or for that matter the 77W either.

JayBCNLON wrote:

It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen. The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective, and also the safest. Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL. If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers. As the second-hand market for A380s develops and pax numbers grow even more it will happen. Give it 2 - 3 years

Ifvthe US3 wanted the A380 then Boeing would have made them a Deal they couldn't refuse for the 747-800. So? It ain't gonna Happen! Not Now? And not LATER!

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

Do the same in Europe and Japan and the A380 will thrive. Airbus will lunch a freaking NEO for US airlines.

Bald1983 wrote:

[Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost.

Will you PLEASE stop repeating this rubbish in thread after thread!? People have responded to you so often proving how totally false it is.

PPVRA wrote:

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

How would that bring A380 to the US? Wouldn't airlines just re-adjust their schedules? And wouldn't airlines just pass that cost to the passengers, regardless of what aircraft they're flying?

Kilopond wrote:

At least the A380 could work perfectly from NYC to all major global hubs and to some fly-in-fly-out countries like India and Israel.

No it wouldn't. NYC isn't one airport with one major airline. There are two huge international airports (JFK and Newark) split among three carriers (DL, UA, AA).

What's with the ridiculous threads lately? First someone posts about a start-up airline flying between Australia & Canada with zero sources and now Hawaiian interested in the A380?!! What's next? Emirates ordering a bunch of Q400s & ATR42s?!

Dutchy wrote:

If there will be an A380-9NEO and there will be strictly enforced carbon tax and the A380 will have at least a CSAM which is lower then 30% then its competition, than there might be a change.....

I won't hold my breath....

If CORSIA heads in the direction that some in IATA are predicting, it's understandable why airline alliances consider they could have wider roles in the future, including negotiating and settling metal sharing.

In that scenario it's not impossible for an A380 to find a new customer, new or used, but probably not US-based.

The only US airline that I saw have the A380 or remotely close to it, was that Airline in Flight Plan

I’m curious, is QF the only carrier that operates their 380 form multiple home hubs? Being SYD, and MEL? SYD-LAX/HKG/DFW/SIN/DXB/LHR & MEL-DXB/LAX/LHR

All other carriers operate them from a single home hub. Kinda indicates traffic needs to be solidly based around a single hub.
LH-FRA
EK- DXB
QR-DOH
AF-CDG
BA-LHR
OZ-ICN
CZ-CAN
KE- ICN
EY-AUH

johns624 wrote:

Kilopond wrote:

At least the A380 could work perfectly from NYC to all major global hubs and to some fly-in-fly-out countries like India and Israel.

No it wouldn't. NYC isn't one airport with one major airline. There are two huge international airports (JFK and Newark) split among three carriers (DL, UA, AA).

And outlets for more potential growth ( e.g. SWF has Norwegian now ) that will prevent the need for VLAs to grow till long after A380 is too obsolete to be considered.

Leahy said Airbus launched the A380 five years too early (i.e. 2005 would have been better than 2000 ) but I think they launched it 30 years too early.

The only reason it's lasted this long is that EK has come along and used its circumstances so extremely well.

Without EK I think A380 would have been bought in small numbers by a larger group of carriers that right about now would be deciding they've all bought too big airplanes ( much like the early-mid 70s when many airlines discovered the 747 was too big ) and would all be replacing them with big twins.

smi0006 wrote:

All other carriers operate them from a single home hub. Kinda indicates traffic needs to be solidly based around a single hub.
LH-FRA

LH operates the A380 from both FRA and MUC.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

[Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost.

Will you PLEASE stop repeating this rubbish in thread after thread!? People have responded to you so often proving how totally false it is.

Will you please try and stop being a dunce? What I said is not rubbish; it is fact. The only real problem is people such as you that have some emotional attachment for the A-380. So no, dummy, I will not stop repeating an obvious truth. If you do not like it, do not read it.

flydude380 wrote:

The only US airline that I saw have the A380 or remotely close to it, was that Airline in Flight Plan

Weird movie. Love Jodie despite her politics, but she must have needed some money to do that flick.

JamesCousins wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

fsxfan38 wrote:

I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

Not a chance. Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost. The A-380 is too big. You will never see one in the livery of an airline flagged in the United States.

You say 'they lost' but did they really? They may have predicted a larger market for the aircraft, but it clearly has its space in the market, and I dare say, could become profitable one day. They've seen orders from some of the worlds largest airlines, with BA potentially looking at more and EK having 61 on order, that's a very hefty number for such an expensive plane.

That being said I agree on your point about US airlines, unless something unbelievably drastic happens 380s don'r really have a place with the US 3 (or US 6 depending on how we're looking at it)

If it was not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead. I read a story, linked here to Emirates looking at going 777-X.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

[Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost.

Will you PLEASE stop repeating this rubbish in thread after thread!? People have responded to you so often proving how totally false it is.

I have a theory about you. Judging from your name, you may be from Toulouse or have some connection to it and Airbus. I will go out on a limb and suggest you have some personal connection to the A-380 program, or at least Airbus in general. Therefore you take offense at anyone criticizing an Airbus product. Just a theory.

PPVRA wrote:

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

Do the same in Europe and Japan and the A380 will thrive. Airbus will lunch a freaking NEO for US airlines.

So, what you are saying is have government force the airlines to buy a plane the size of the A-380? I believe the result would be a boom for surrounding airports.

Themotionman wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK

WHAT??? One of the main reasons why ATL-MCO is so successful is because of it's frequency and ability to offer a good connection time to practically any inbound ATL flight. If Delta wanted to put widebodies on these routes then we'd already see an all B763/A333 schedule

Also look at the highest volume intercontinental routes of the US3. UA have multiple daily B763s on EWR-LHR - If they wanted something big then they'd have to reduce frequency which would piss of the front of the cabin. The 77W is as big as the US3 will ever need to go.

Actually, we've been there, done that. For example in summer 2003, Delta's ATL-MCO schedule was 3 777s, 6 763s, and 2 764s. I suspect they have moved away from that for a variety of reasons, including that they were all-around a smaller carrier internationally back then so didn't have as many competing uses for the widebodies, they realized that frequency is important in offering good connections at a big hub, and there has been ever-more direct service into Florida from ever-more parts of the country from the likes of B6, NK, G4, and others since then, reducing the need to connect in ATL to get there.

fsxfan38 wrote:

I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

There's a better chance of WN or B6 launching West Coast US to Tokyo service before a US carrier buys a 380. DL seems content with the 350 while AA and UA have 777/787. What would make you think a 380 would be a better option for HA than a 787?

The A380 is only viable in large hubs that are slot limited and have limited prospects for building new runways.

Pretty much the only American airport matching this profile is SFO and only United has a footprint large enough there to use the A380 effectively. But that doesn't mean that United is ever going to buy A380s as SFO is not their main hub but rather their 5th largest.

boswashsprstar wrote:

in summer 2003, Delta's ATL-MCO schedule was 3 777s, 6 763s, and 2 764s. I suspect they have moved away from that for a variety of reasons, including that they were all-around a smaller carrier internationally back then so didn't have as many competing uses for the widebodies, they realized that frequency is important in offering good connections at a big hub, and there has been ever-more direct service into Florida

It was partly what you mention, and partly slack in the fleet between long haul legs to/from ATL; if you're going to have a widebody on the ground for six to ten hours otherwise, you might as well send it on a short hop which can be easily filled. Plus there was the added benefit of keeping pilots current on the number of take-offs and landings required in-type.

PPVRA wrote:

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

Well, no, that wouldn't lead to more demand for the A380 at U.S. carriers at all. It would simply lead to reduced use of regional jets and small narrowbodies at those airports and increased use of larger narrowbodies and perhaps small widebodies. It'd be a boon for the A321, 737-MAX10, and NMA, if launched.

Vladex wrote:

US airlines are all about hard cash flow and quick profits right now and the easiest way to do it is by establishing a monopoly and lowering the expectations . If they had A380 , they would be competing with others and would raise expectations which would be bad for their business plan. They are just financial institutions masquerading as airlines.

The U.S. market and its airports are among the most competitive in the world! Want to fly into ATL, ORD, LAX, SFO, JFK, EWR, DFW, IAH? No problem (apart from perhaps having to negotiate for gates). Want to fly into LHR, LGW, FRA, TXL, or ORY? Line up or pay through the nose for slots (and you still have to find a suitable gate). The current state of the product on the U.S. carriers reflects what customers value; most domestic flights lack a complimentary meal because most domestic economy passengers don't find enough value in that meal to pay a significant premium. In the transatlantic market, I've found DL to offer a better product than most of its competitors.

The A380 in and of itself does not enable a better-quality product. An airline can put suites on an A350, 777, 787, A330, A321, etc. -- if they're willing to use the floor space. To be honest, I found my ride on AF's A380 in Y to be uncomfortable and disappointing: the window seat on the main deck is so far from the sidewall that it's nearly impossible to lean against the wall when trying to sleep and the IFE system was so sluggish in UI response that it was virtually unusable. I had a better experience on my prior trip on AF in a 10-across 777.

UAL747422 wrote:

Besides, 2 major US airlines parked their 4 engine jets within the last 6 months. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a 747 or an A380 wearing a United livery at O'hare.

And the fit for the 747 at those two airlines was largely tied to restrictive bilateral agreements which have been significantly loosened along with far less competitive transpacific markets. When you've only got 14 weekly frequencies to the entire PRC then you make the most of them with 747s. When you've got three times as many, along with competition at potent connecting hubs like ICN and HKG, then you probably want to focus on non-stop or single-connection passengers with smaller aircraft.

Dutchy wrote:

If there will be an A380-9NEO and there will be strictly enforced carbon tax and the A380 will have at least a CSAM which is lower then 30% then its competition, than there might be a change.....

I won't hold my breath....

Actually, the hypothetical A380-900neo would probably suffer in the event of a high carbon tax, even if it were more efficient than the competition. Higher fares (due to the tax) would lead to less travel, and the tax might make it difficult to compete with connections at large hubs over more direct routings. For example, a non-stop JFK-LYS on A321neoLR might be more cost-effective than JFK-CDG-LYS.

Bald1983 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Not a chance. Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost. The A-380 is too big. You will never see one in the livery of an airline flagged in the United States.

You say 'they lost' but did they really? They may have predicted a larger market for the aircraft, but it clearly has its space in the market, and I dare say, could become profitable one day. They've seen orders from some of the worlds largest airlines, with BA potentially looking at more and EK having 61 on order, that's a very hefty number for such an expensive plane.

That being said I agree on your point about US airlines, unless something unbelievably drastic happens 380s don'r really have a place with the US 3 (or US 6 depending on how we're looking at it)

If it was not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead. I read a story, linked here to Emirates looking at going 777-X.

But if Emirates had not been about surely the demand they facilitate would have been taken on by other airlines. I'm not saying we'd have seen as many orders as from Emirates, but most 380 operators would certainly have taken more...

Also, I think you're assuming that the a380, due to its size, has the best CASM. Didn't the Qantas head say that it costs less money (including the extra crew, etc.) to send 2 787s to the same destination than 1 a380? That means that *even if* there are certain routes where a US carrier could justify an a380 in terms of capacity, it's still better to send multiple 787s.

I ridiculed the 787 when it first came out due to its lithium battery fires that grounded the whole fleet. But it's turned into an incredible bird, and, I would argue, the true a380 killer. Somehow, Boeing managed to create a *smaller* plane that has longer range and better CASM than bigger rivals including the a380.

Unlike for passengers, for most airlines, high capacity is not a good thing. A large plane means you must commit to consistently selling more seats to hit breakeven. The only reason to buy a large plane then is a favorable tradeoff: in exchange for the decreased flexibility that a large number of seats entails, you usually either get lower CASM, or longer range. For example, plenty of airlines in the 70s & 80s ran 747s half empty because they needed the 747's range.

But with a 787, you don't need to make any of those tradeoffs. You get lower capacity, with low CASM, and long range. It's an unbeatable combination that makes an a380 hard to justify even in markets that could fill the seats.

PS So why does Emirates fly so many? I'd argue partially because of sunk cost: they committed years ago to building their fleet around it, and use it as part of their luxury branding. And partially because so many of their destinations are slot restricted (e.g. the major European hubs) or governed by strict bilaterals (e.g. India) that an a380 makes sense. But even at Emirates, 777s outnumber a380s, and they just placed an order for 40 787-10s...

PPVRA wrote:

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

Do the same in Europe and Japan and the A380 will thrive. Airbus will lunch a freaking NEO for US airlines.

Irrelevant because no U.S. carrier will buy it. Airbus can't even get EK to commit to an NEO, which would likely be the only carrier to buy it. It will never be more than a niche aircraft.

muralir wrote:

PS So why does Emirates fly so many? I'd argue partially because of sunk cost: they committed years ago to building their fleet around it, and use it as part of their luxury branding. And partially because so many of their destinations are slot restricted (e.g. the major European hubs) or governed by strict bilaterals (e.g. India) that an a380 makes sense. But even at Emirates, 777s outnumber a380s, and they just placed an order for 40 787-10s...

Part of it is that until DWC gets at least a couple more runways and a heck of a lot more terminal space, EK is going to run into airfield capacity constraints at DXB with only two runways available. IMO the potential growth available to TK once the new IST airport opens will put pressure on Dubai to move the DWC project forward more quickly.

fsxfan38 wrote:

I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up a
n A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

Hopefully the current crop of arline managers are not dumb enough to buy/operate this airplane.

A market that can justify an A380 would have justified a 747-8i first, and no one in the US bit. Boeing would have offered UA and DL a sweet deal to keep the line open, yet they both opted for big twins.

Even still, those domestic routes would currently warrant 777s and A330s, yet very few carriers go that big. The domestic widebody market is mostly gone and has been for some time.

JayBCNLON wrote:

If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers.

I'm gonna go with you're trolling us, but just to humor you:

The 748 is a US product...it's not exactly taking its place in US fleets, is it?

boswashsprstar wrote:

Actually, we've been there, done that. For example in summer 2003, Delta's ATL-MCO schedule was 3 777s, 6 763s, and 2 764s. I suspect they have moved away from that for a variety of reasons, including that they were all-around a smaller carrier internationally back then so didn't have as many competing uses for the widebodies, they realized that frequency is important in offering good connections at a big hub, and there has been ever-more direct service into Florida from ever-more parts of the country from the likes of B6, NK, G4, and others since then, reducing the need to connect in ATL to get there.

It's also decent use for widebodies when there's a lot of slack between their usual international flight times. US did that with the 762 and A330s, sending them to SJU from CLT and PHL before going off to Europe later in the evening.

It is very telling too that no airline is using the passenger capacity of the A380, sure EK has the higher capacity version, but airlines are not chasing the yields to fly planes with 600+ Y passengers. Bilaterals and open skies are opening up more point to point. More hubs are global connection points. LLCs are starting to skim the lowest yielding traffic. Airlines are creating separate long-haul subsidiaries to fly the low yielding Y traffic. The A380 costs a lot to purchase and fly. It has its place, but it is limited/not as flexible. This isn't a dig against the A380, there just isn't that market for it in the US (even globally). JVs are also playing a role. If JFK/LAX/SFO/ORD/BOS etc are tapped out of space for the US3 to connect passengers, they either spill them over to another hub, or to a JV partner.

fsxfan38 wrote:

I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...

bro... what are you smoking?

strfyr51 wrote:

JayBCNLON wrote:

It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen. The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective, and also the safest. Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL. If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers. As the second-hand market for A380s develops and pax numbers grow even more it will happen. Give it 2 - 3 years

Ifvthe US3 wanted the A380 then Boeing would have made them a Deal they couldn't refuse for the 747-800. So? It ain't gonna Happen! Not Now? And not LATER!

How can you call the A380 the safest? theres only 200 of them flying? How is it the safest?

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

[Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost.

Will you PLEASE stop repeating this rubbish in thread after thread!? People have responded to you so often proving how totally false it is.

I have a theory about you. Judging from your name, you may be from Toulouse or have some connection to it and Airbus. I will go out on a limb and suggest you have some personal connection to the A-380 program, or at least Airbus in general. Therefore you take offense at anyone criticizing an Airbus product. Just a theory.

I have a theory that you must have some agenda against the A380 since you repeat the same oft-debunked rubbish - which is absolutely NOT fact - at every opportunity.

For the record; yes I do have some connection with the A380 - which is why I KNOW that what you write is rubbish... Because I was there.

But regarding agendas, in fact you'll find I rebuff people talking rubbish on any subject... Boeing, Airbus, whatever. Some of us can discuss facts.

[quote="fsxfan38"]I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.[/quote


Hawaiia. Has never shown interest in the A380 for Europe or any route. The refused to up the order for A358 to A359 be ause the A359 was to big for thier needs. Wherd would you get an idea they would do an A380 when a much smaller plane was passed over as to large a capacity?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Will you PLEASE stop repeating this rubbish in thread after thread!? People have responded to you so often proving how totally false it is.

I have a theory about you. Judging from your name, you may be from Toulouse or have some connection to it and Airbus. I will go out on a limb and suggest you have some personal connection to the A-380 program, or at least Airbus in general. Therefore you take offense at anyone criticizing an Airbus product. Just a theory.

I have a theory that you must have some agenda against the A380 since you repeat the same oft-debunked rubbish - which is absolutely NOT fact - at every opportunity.

For the record; yes I do have some connection with the A380 - which is why I KNOW that what you write is rubbish... Because I was there.

But regarding agendas, in fact you'll find I rebuff people talking rubbish on any subject... Boeing, Airbus, whatever. Some of us can discuss facts.

There you go. I will keep repeating the facts whether you like it or not. The facts are airlines went with twin jets and have passed on the A-380 and the 787-8. Just look at the orders and sales and you might get a clue. Do I have an agenda against the A-380? Just facts. Do I hate it when people try and defend the albatross? NO. Do I prefer Boeing over Airbus? No. I like the A-350.

Here is some reading material for you. https://ameinfo.com/travel/kiss-goodbye ... rbus-a380/ http://www.arabnews.com/node/1143381/business-economy https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense ... uperjumbo/

Now I get the fact you have a personal interest in the A-380 and insist people who would criticize it shut up. It is not going to happen; get used to it.

MrHMSH wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

[Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost.

That's not quite true though, is it? The vast majority of P2P flights are on narrowbody aircraft, an area where Airbus is currently stronger. Additionally, Airbus was very aggressive in its attempts to get LCCs to adopt the A320, and were rewarded for their foresight with very large orders, especially in Asia. LCCs are well-known for their P2P model, so Airbus in reality has been ahead of the curve here. Given that the A320 family is a superb P2P aircraft and is Airbus' most consistent and best-selling product it's a stretch to say they bet on the future being megahub to megahub.

Perhaps you meant for widebodies? The A330, especially the A332 opened up plenty of new routes, and has been very good for a number of P2P routes, and even the A333 has joined that party somewhat. Debatable to call the A359 a megahub plane as well. So we're just left with the A380 and A35K. 2 models in your lineup more suited to megahubs isn't 'betting' on megahubs.

I am not disagreeing with most of what you say. However none of it has anything to do with the A-380.

JamesCousins wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

You say 'they lost' but did they really? They may have predicted a larger market for the aircraft, but it clearly has its space in the market, and I dare say, could become profitable one day. They've seen orders from some of the worlds largest airlines, with BA potentially looking at more and EK having 61 on order, that's a very hefty number for such an expensive plane.

That being said I agree on your point about US airlines, unless something unbelievably drastic happens 380s don'r really have a place with the US 3 (or US 6 depending on how we're looking at it)

If it was not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead. I read a story, linked here to Emirates looking at going 777-X.

But if Emirates had not been about surely the demand they facilitate would have been taken on by other airlines. I'm not saying we'd have seen as many orders as from Emirates, but most 380 operators would certainly have taken more...

Doubtful. there is I believe excess A-380 production capacity right now. They could deliver more, if the orders were there.

ScottB wrote:

Actually, the hypothetical A380-900neo would probably suffer in the event of a high carbon tax, even if it were more efficient than the competition. Higher fares (due to the tax) would lead to less travel, and the tax might make it difficult to compete with connections at large hubs over more direct routings. For example, a non-stop JFK-LYS on A321neoLR might be more cost-effective than JFK-CDG-LYS.

If the A321NeoLR was full.

Airlines, leasors, financiers and OEM's are modelling different scenarios, to see which they will support / lobby against.

Crazy idea...would it work?

What about a People Express style heavily economy layout? Maybe with a mid-continent hub, pick up used 380s and pack ‘em in?

I think the geographical location of America wouldn’t necessarily require any US airline to acquire an A380. They all will be maxed out with 777s and 787s. Yeah a couple 380s would be suitable for some routes, money wise it wouldn’t make sense to have less than 10-20 of just one aircraft

The US3 will always have a cheaper, more underutilized hub available, through which they can re-route connecting traffic on smaller, more flexible twins. Even if they max out all of their current hubs, there are former hubs that still have the infrastructure to be midsized hubs on relatively short notice, for example CLE, MEM, or STL.

Each of the US3's EU3 JV partners already flies the A380, so most of the potential TATL markets (where the timings are such that frequency isn't a big selling point, and the connecting hubs on the European side are very few) are already covered.

Now, does that mean that it's completely impossible that a US3 airline would buy and fly the whale? No, but it's very, very unlikely. The most probable scenario in which I could see it happening is if an existing major A380 operator, like EY or QR, had to make a fire-sale exit from the industry. I could then see DL buying between 6 and 12 used A380s for high-volume routes into slot-restricted airports, specifically LHR and AMS. Even in such an event, the price would have to be rock-bottom to make even DL take the deal; no amount of Airbus discounting would ever convince DL to take the A380 new. The same kinds of economic or geopolitical catastrophes that could wipe out a major airline would also do very nasty things to oil prices, which in turn might cause some very hard rethinking about route planning across the industry. Overall, though, I would put the probability of such a confluence of unlikely events very low, at 1% or lower, cumulative over the next 10 years.

I specifically focus on DL because they have the busiest routes to hubs where they do not have A380-flying JV partners, and are by far the most willing to take a risk on cheap, used, oddball aircraft. AA and UA would let IAG and LH, respectively, grow their existing fleets.

AirFiero wrote:

Crazy idea...would it work?

What about a People Express style heavily economy layout? Maybe with a mid-continent hub, pick up used 380s and pack ‘em in?

You could do it better and cheaper packing in a used ER 777.

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

I have a theory about you. Judging from your name, you may be from Toulouse or have some connection to it and Airbus. I will go out on a limb and suggest you have some personal connection to the A-380 program, or at least Airbus in general. Therefore you take offense at anyone criticizing an Airbus product. Just a theory.

I have a theory that you must have some agenda against the A380 since you repeat the same oft-debunked rubbish - which is absolutely NOT fact - at every opportunity.

For the record; yes I do have some connection with the A380 - which is why I KNOW that what you write is rubbish... Because I was there.

But regarding agendas, in fact you'll find I rebuff people talking rubbish on any subject... Boeing, Airbus, whatever. Some of us can discuss facts.

There you go. I will keep repeating the facts whether you like it or not. The facts are airlines went with twin jets and have passed on the A-380 and the 787-8. Just look at the orders and sales and you might get a clue. Do I have an agenda against the A-380? Just facts. Do I hate it when people try and defend the albatross? NO. Do I prefer Boeing over Airbus? No. I like the A-350.

Here is some reading material for you. https://ameinfo.com/travel/kiss-goodbye ... rbus-a380/ http://www.arabnews.com/node/1143381/business-economy https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense ... uperjumbo/

Now I get the fact you have a personal interest in the A-380 and insist people who would criticize it shut up. It is not going to happen; get used to it.

Those that want to fully take in this kind of tussle probably should reread our "Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'" thread starting somewhere around viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1357419&start=50#p19403425

Much better than having yet another full-throated slagging match.

In terms of the argument, I'm in the "A380 blew it" camp.

In terms of the combatants, I think SomebodyInTLS is giving a strong and clear representation of his point of view, which has more subtlety than Bald1983 seems able to give it.

Also I think it's a cheap shot to suggest bias just because he had a role in the team. It's usually the ones that were there that know best what things went right and what went wrong! I value the input we're getting.

So please, give it a rest, Bald1983...

MrHMSH wrote:

That's not quite true though, is it?

It's clear he was referring to the A380. For a project management class I had to do a paper on a failed project (based on project management definition of a failed project: late and overbudget). I chose the A380. The fact that Airbus is relying on just one airline to even have a chance to break even with the project tells you all you need to know about the A380. Fact is, during development and research, Airbus and Boeing went separate ways. McDonnell Douglas had just shelved its MD-12 project since it had no future at the time in the late 80s, early 90s. When it merged with Boeing, Boeing reconsidered it, but because 747 production was still ongoing, it decided it had a large enough widebody and shelved it once again. Airbus, however, thought that the next step would be a mega jet which would connect the largest cities non-stop and carry a significant larger load than the 747. The difference is striking: world airlines ordered small subfleets (no more than 15) when they would operate over 20-25 747s.

No matter how much they try to spin it, this project (even without the delays and cost overruns) was doomed from the start. Airlines preferred smaller jets for increased frequencies over a large jet for a single daily flight. Add the oil spike of 2005-2008 and the few who may have thought twice about it might have officially said "hell no". The days of regularly scheduled domestic widebody service in the US are over. You'll get the occasional 767 and 777 on a repo flight, a stopover flight, or making use of otherwise idle time, but to think that a US airline will use it between domestic hubs or on high demand, high competition international hubs, is plain delusional.

I agree with Bald1983: Airbus chased the wrong market segment betting on high capacity instead of higher frequencies and is only saving face thanks to EK.

That's not to say, however, that Boeing's bet on the 787 was without problems: it was delayed and had significant overruns too, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Not a chance. They don't have any use for the A380 (or the headaches that come with operating it), so yeah.

notconcerned wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

You wanna save the A380? You wanna see A380s in service with US airlines? Switch JFK and EWR to a congestion pricing model. Done.

How would that bring A380 to the US? Wouldn't airlines just re-adjust their schedules? And wouldn't airlines just pass that cost to the passengers, regardless of what aircraft they're flying?

If you charge more per landing during peak hours, it would incentivize the use of larger aircraft.

The problem with the way it’s done now, is that it’s weight based. So on a per passenger basis, it doesn’t really cost more to land a 767 than it does an A380.

This is purely an example, but imagine a peak hour charge of $10,000 for landing at JFK. Divide that by 250 passengers versus 500 passengers and you’ll get quite a difference. On a system based on weight, any difference is likely negligible and won’t drive airline decision making and fleet planning.

JayBCNLON wrote:

It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen. The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective, and also the safest. Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL. If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers. As the second-hand market for A380s develops and pax numbers grow even more it will happen. Give it 2 - 3 years

the US3 are hardly small and unambitious - from over 20 US airports they fly to over 50 overseas destinations, the ASM count is absolutely mind boggling (tens of thousands), it's more than countries like China, India, Turkey combined I'm pretty sure. For this model to work though you need large narrow body to large wide body twin engine planes it's not about disliking airbus all US3 have or have ordered the 330 or 350.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Vladex wrote:

US airlines are all about hard cash flow and quick profits right now and the easiest way to do it is by establishing a monopoly and lowering the expectations . If they had A380 , they would be competing with others and would raise expectations which would be bad for their business plan. They are just financial institutions masquerading as airlines.

Or, just maybe, US airlines don't see near as much concentration of hub demand to justify flying humongous aircraft and see value in strict capacity discipline? They certainly weren't that enthusiastic about the 747-8, 777X, or for that matter the 77W either.

There is about 10 US hubs with above 50 million pax , and overseas they mostly fly to 6 airports (LHR, CDG,AMS, FRA, GRU, NAR) so there is a lot of trunk traffic but they stick with old equipment because they don't care as much since they have their internal monopoly. US airlines do not really fly to Africa, middle east or most of Asia and they mostly concentrate on those 6 airports from their 50million plus hubs.

I remember awhile back when Airbus was trying to pitch the A380 to Delta, saying that the aircraft would work well on JFK-LHR and ATL-LHR routes. Obviously that didn't go over so well...