Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
fsxfan38 wrote:[...] as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.
JayBCNLON wrote:and also the safest.
JayBCNLON wrote:It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen.
JayBCNLON wrote:The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective,
JayBCNLON wrote:and also the safest.
JayBCNLON wrote:Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL.
JayBCNLON wrote:Give it 2 - 3 years
chrisp390 wrote:Airbus talked with HA about the A380 but nothing ever came of those talks.
jubguy3 wrote:The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK
chrisp390 wrote:Airbus talked with HA about the A380 but nothing ever came of those talks.
seabosdca wrote:The multi-hub, generally not slot-restricted model of US airline operations is a poor fit for an A380-size aircraft. There are only a few routes worldwide flown by US carriers where additional capacity couldn't be added through additional 787/A350/777 frequencies, with lower risk and vastly more fleet flexibility.
Notice that the US carriers have ignored even the 777-9, while they busily add A330neo and 787, and all seem to be chomping at the bit for Boeing to sell NMA.
jayunited wrote:Back to the A380 I have serious doubt that any US carrier will ever have the A380 in their fleet new or used because I think US carriers no longer have a interest in 4 engine aircraft. The A380 has only been in service for about 11 years and while their have been some US carriers who have added other used aircraft to their fleet I'm not sure that will be the case for the A380, the biggest hurdle I see is maintenance cost. High maintenance cost among other factors seal the fate of 744's resulting in that aircraft type being retired earlier than most people were probably expecting. The lower cost of ownership and projected maintenance cost is also what made the 77W more attractive to UA than Boeings 748i, it probably was the same for AA while DL has chosen the A359. As A380s start to hit their teenage years I wonder what the cost of ownership will be especially as it pertains to maintenance cost. We have seen US carriers invest in life extension programs for some of their older fleet types where it makes sense financially but at the same time retire other aircraft do to actual or projected high maintenance cost. If the A380 is to have a slight (very slight) chance of entering service with a US carrier either new or used I think US carriers would like to see what would a 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 year old A380 cost to maintain.
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.
jubguy3 wrote:Maybe they could use it for Tokyo and possibly Los Angeles services; ANA is planning to send their A380s to Honolulu. It's the second busiest international route from the US.
I know Delta has been on record saying it's too big of an aircraft, and they operate the largest hub in the US. The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK, JFK/DTW/ATL-AMS, and ATL-CDG where there is less competition and higher frequencies. But it has a limited enough scope that I don't think it would ever be useful for them. The kinds of routes you see non-EK carriers using A380s on outside the US are not the kind of routes that really exist in the US that can't be served just as well with higher frequencies on a 777.
I don't see it being useful for United or American either. Rather than the traditional single hub airlines like SQ or KL, US airlines operate a variety of hubs with a variety of market focuses. This complicates the viability of the A380 in the US - it really only works for bringing in large amounts of passengers on high frequency routes over long distances. It's not something the US really needs. If anybody would need it, it would be Delta, and they have said that they have no interest. Maybe Airbus could cut them a deal? There are always those parked SQ A380s and the ones that MH is seemingly trying to get rid of. I know that could help ease the sticker shock for some airlines here, and operating older frames isn't a problem with effective maintenance.
The world does not have enough Emirates for Airbus.
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
aemoreira1981 wrote:The US airline business model is based on frequency. The only wide-body domestic routes one sees are generally major trunk routes (New York area to LAX and SFO), repositioning flights operating as revenue flights (i.e., MIA to JFK or MIA to LAX), or East Coast to Hawaii (New York to HNL). The A380 thus is inefficient for any domestic service.
As for the B777X, UA and AA already have B77Ws and DL has gone with the A359. It will be a long time before the B777X considered by a US carrier.
StuckinCMHland wrote:It is pretty clear that no regular US airline would want the 380, but is it possible that a charter service might get a few for something like military airlift? If there is another significant war in the future involving the US/NATO/SEATO (if SEATO still exists) a 380 might be a good plane to use to quickly transport troops to a conflict zone.
It might also be something that NGO's might look at in the future, say for quick transport of relief workers to a place stuck by natural disaster (i.e. an earthquake/tsunami in AK, or SE Asia), or a a flying hospital as other charities have used smaller aircraft for in the past.
I understand that both of these things are longshot ideas, since nobody is going to buy A380's and store them for a rainy day if they cannot be used for other purposes, and the cost of maintaining the plane and a core of people fly and maintain them would be very expensive. But finding a way to use an A380 as a people-mover in these situations is a better use of the frame than turning it into scrap before its time.
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.
jubguy3 wrote:There are always those parked SQ A380s and the ones that MH is seemingly trying to get rid of. I know that could help ease the sticker shock for some airlines here, and operating older frames isn't a problem with effective maintenance.
NZ321 wrote:I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work. But these carriers have convinced their Boards on their own they can't justify the investment. Look at the frequency and ability of some long haul carriers re A380 to the US. Shows it can work.
NZ321 wrote:
If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it. It's in the too-hard-to-play and we-can't-win-at-that-game-so-we're-not-playing category. Can't blame them entirely given their history but...... A radical shift in thinking could move things to a different dimensions at one or other carrier. Not holding out hope though. I think this is extremely unlikely. I don't think this aspect is divorced from the point-to-point strategy of by-passing hubs that US carriers have employed. This is a competitive response.
Steelhead wrote:Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?
Blotto wrote:If almost any operator chooses to fly the A380 into either LAX or JFK or both, there has to be enough demand for US carriers to fill the aircraft as well. In fact there are A380s home bases that see less A380 traffic than LAX/JFK.
The US3 will have their reasons to ignore the aircraft.
NZ321 wrote:If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it.
NZ321 wrote:The US major carriers (international) have not bought A380 because they can't or don't want to compete for international high yield business traveller and it isn't a freight carrying aircraft like the 77W. Such travellers - I am one - chose other airlines. I avoid all US airlines because of their shoddy service on long haul across nearly all aircraft.
I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work. But these carriers have convinced their Boards on their own they can't justify the investment. Look at the frequency and ability of some long haul carriers re A380 to the US. Shows it can work. If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it. It's in the too-hard-to-play and we-can't-win-at-that-game-so-we're-not-playing category. Can't blame them entirely given their history but...... A radical shift in thinking could move things to a different dimensions at one or other carrier. Not holding out hope though. I think this is extremely unlikely. I don't think this aspect is divorced from the point-to-point strategy of by-passing hubs that US carriers have employed. This is a competitive response.
But considering available airfares, I avoid US carriers long haul every step of the way if I can. A380 J class in KE, TG, SQ or OZ or EK, QR or EY is on another planet from what the US airlines offer. US majors are just not competitive for the international business traveller. I doubt anything is likely to change in the near future.
Steelhead wrote:Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?
The airlines contractually pledge aircraft to the various segments of CRAF, ready for activation when needed. To provide incentives for civil carriers to commit aircraft to the CRAF program and to assure the United States of adequate airlift reserves, the government makes peacetime DOD airlift business available to civilian airlines that offer aircraft to the CRAF. DOD offers business through the CRAF Charter Airlift Services contract.
To participate in the international segments of CRAF, carriers must maintain a minimum commitment of 30 percent of its CRAF capable passenger fleet and 15 percent of its CRAF capable cargo fleet. Aircraft committed must be U.S.-registered and carriers must commit and maintain at least four complete crews for each aircraft...
...
Three stages of incremental activation allow for tailoring an airlift force suitable for the contingency at hand. Stage I is for minor regional crises and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HADR) efforts, Stage II would be used for major theater war and Stage III for periods of national mobilization.
The commander, U.S. Transportation Command, with approval of the Secretary of Defense, is the activation authority for all three stages of CRAF. During a crisis, if AMC has a need for additional aircraft, it would request the commander of USTRANSCOM to take steps to activate the appropriate CRAF stage.
Each stage of the CRAF activation is only used to the extent necessary to provide the amount of civil augmentation airlift needed by DOD. When notified of call-up, the carrier response time to have its aircraft ready for a CRAF mission is 24 to 48 hours after AMC assigns the mission, depending on which CRAF stage is activated. The air carriers continue to operate and maintain the aircraft with their resources; however, AMC controls the aircraft missions.
JayBCNLON wrote:If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers.
blockski wrote:
So. What does that have to do with the A380?
If a US Airline bought the A380 and you had a choice between flying that or flying, say, a KE 777, which would you pick?
neomax wrote:Steelhead wrote:Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?
We're gonna have way bigger problems than the A380 if we plan on moving large amounts of US troops somewhere anytime soon. The last thing this planet needs is more instability in an already volatile world. You think throwing billions of dollars and troops into another conflict is worth it? Imagine the humanitarian crisis, power vacuum, regional turmoil and difficulty of rebuilding yet another war torn country. The only thing an astronomical defense budget and the equally ridiculous war that ensues is worth nothing more than an ego boost for a few politicians who want to distract the country from their own internal troubles.
I want to see a US airline buy the A380, but if it meant starting another widespread global conflict just to move US troops, I'd rather take the A321 and skip the war.
NZ321 wrote:[...]I avoid all US airlines because of their shoddy service on long haul across nearly all aircraft.[...]
Haha, what a nasty word! Back in time, I had been tought that a PANAM stewardess offering peanuts from her pantsuit pocket had been casual, easygoing, nonchalant and cool.NZ321 wrote:[...]I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work.[...]
cpd wrote:I can't see it happening any time soon.
The future is single aisle long range aircraft. That's the best solution for the USA carriers. What they need is single aisle planes that will do trans-pacific flights carrying about 200 passengers, all crammed in. People want cheap flights and frequency.
JayBCNLON wrote:If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers
Steelhead wrote:Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?
FlyHappy wrote:Steelhead wrote:Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?
you're kidding, right?
Have you ever seen how troops are flown about when in need? Makes Basic economy look really, really nice. I wish I had a picture, but I don't.
Picture this: cargo plane, folding chairs (basically), 1000 abreast with single aisle (okay, slight exaggeration).
The military has no need to conform to pesky, inconvenient, and expensive civilian regulations.
getting the picture?