mmo wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

.... and by the way, I just counted: HiFly will be the 14th A380-operator.

To be honest, I don't see it lasting long. Not knowing the lease agreement, I think the 380 is going to be a very big money pit for HiFLY.

You don't know the lease agreement, you dislike the plane, and yet still have a solid opinion. Arguments please?

mmo wrote:

To everyone who does not like a divergent opinion:

Seems that you are the one that identifies divergent opinions as attacks.

mmo wrote:

1) I am aware the HiFly has widebodies 330 and 340. However, the 380 is MUCH more expensive to operate and operate at a profit.

So everybody should be operating small planes and cashing mountains of money because they are smaller?

mmo wrote:

2) I am also aware how ACMI works (I have flown the 747 for over 2 years at one, years ago), CPD makes reference to the 787 issues. I agree, there is business there. However, the 787 problems will be fixed. Then what? I can tell you from first-hand experience, if the 380 is used for the Hajj, it will be a disaster.

Strikes, mechanical problems, manufacturing disasters and economic or weather conditions are continuous situations. There are plenty of companies that have been living from them for decades. So when the 787 is fixed nothing else go wrong in the world aviation-related? They are not getting the plane for 6 months or 1 year.

mmo wrote:

Also, what airports in Africa are capable of handling the 380, Kano, Kaduna, Abjua, Lagos?

HiFly seems to disagree with their own research. As you are claiming there are not enough you have the charge of proof, show us the data please and how it is impossible.

mmo wrote:

I wish them well but even SQ elected to pass on their options and to keep the fleet at 12. But as airbazar said to me...what does SQ know!!!

And BA is looking for more playing cat and mouse for months. And EK has +100 and more to come. But...what do BA and EK know about aviation?!

mmo wrote:

I am puzzled in that if HiFly says they have had more demand than they were initially expecting, then why lease only 2?

Perhaps they were taking some of your advice . . . :

mmo wrote:

A company needs very deep pockets for a 380 operation and I doubt HiFly has pockets that deep. Time will tell. Just look at all the other carriers, ACMI and Scheduled who got the "wide body" syndrome who are no longer in operation.

Jayafe wrote:

You don't know the lease agreement, you dislike the plane, and yet still have a solid opinion. Arguments please?


And BA is looking for more playing cat and mouse for months. And EK has +100 and more to come. But...what do BA and EK know about aviation?!

First of all, please tell me where I gave an opinion regarding the plane? If you don't have your glasses on, you might want to grab them. Or better yet, re-read what I wrote.

I don't know about you, but I have over 35 years of experience ranging from Dir of Training, Chief Pilot, Dir of Flight Standards. I have been involved with equipment evaluation, purchasing and developing training programs. So, I guess I don't know much.

You throw BA around, and WW has stated categorically, he will not purchase them at the price Airbus wants. How's that for an endorsement. If the SQ frames are that good, why didn't BA pick them up? That kind of answers your own question there, Skippy!!

You use Emirates as another example, do you think HiFly had pockets as deep as EK? If so, I'd love to live in your world.

My opinion is as valid as your opinion is. If you don't like it, that's fine with me, but stop posting this nonsensical dribble like you are some airline expert.

The question is what justifies operating an A380 over 2 A330's/A340's?

I can think of one and it's AOG situations at outstations, where theh have to bring back a double load of pax.

I wonder what kind of configuration they will have on these birds.

Hifly are pro's at what they do, but pro's have made mistakes before so this will be interesting to watch.

I wish HiFly every success, and at the very least it will be an interesting model to watch.

The good news for the Airbus fanboys is that if this doesn't pan out, they can use the excuse that, well after all it was HiFly.

mmo wrote:

......my opinion is as valid as your opinion is.......

.......no it isn't; if you've held all those positions in the industry you tell us you have; then as an 'informed source', your opinions have much more gravitas and weight than a mere mortal like me.......

.....except.......

mmo wrote:

I have over 35 years of experience ranging from Dir of Training, Chief Pilot, Dir of Flight Standards. I have been involved with equipment evaluation, purchasing and developing training programs. So, I guess I don't know much.......

....if you have held all those positions; I would have thought you might have held a bit more respect for the Directors at 'Hi-Fly' who have made a multi-million dollar business decision to operate the 380, based upon contracts that will undoubtedly have been signed.

mmo wrote:

.........stop posting this nonsensical dribble like you are some airline expert......

....thats very arrogant of you to suggest someone should stop posting on a discussion board populated mostly with amateur observers and enthusiasts; and how do you know he is not an aviation sector employee anyway, who just has a different opinion to yours ?

They have guaranteed Hajj market ex Indonesia and other places every year. 1.5 billion Muslims and all of them supposed to visit Saudi Arabia in their lifetime. Also if it parks up between times they basically have their own airport at Lajes they share with the military.

ucdtim17 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

What Norwegian destinations in the U.S. can accept A380s? LAX, JFK, BOS, ...?

On a one-off basis, just about all of them.

I mean that has a gate and ground infrastructure to support an A380. A380s have landed at OAK but there isn't a gate capable of serving the aircraft.

So what's wrong with a hardstand and three sets of stairs? The A380 was designed with the same step height as the 747. It isn't an issue as long as buses can be arranged.

ucdtim17 wrote:

What Norwegian destinations in the U.S. can accept A380s? LAX, JFK, BOS, ...?

Norwegian destinations in the US: https://www.virtualnorwegian.net/destinations/

A380 capable airports:

ucdtim17 wrote:

I mean that has a gate and ground infrastructure to support an A380. A380s have landed at OAK but there isn't a gate capable of serving the aircraft.

Plenty of 747s operating currently in remote and using stairs, and there's been for many years. (there are recent topics in a.net).

Besides general a.net mythology, 99.9% of airports that are able to provide enough passengers for an A380 are A380-friendly (most of Norwegian destinations). And the ones that aren't, can't handle constant A380 operations due to taxiway constraints, but already have hosted diversion or emergencies, which proves that supporting a x2-3w operation wouldn't be a major problem, as due to its size there are no huge slot constraints either (and no one will stop flying at DY prices because they won't use airbridges in those airports, ask FR about that).

mmo wrote:

......my opinion is as valid as your opinion is.......

mmo wrote:

.........stop posting this nonsensical dribble like you are some airline expert......

mmo wrote:

I have over 35 years of experience ranging from Dir of Training, Chief Pilot, Dir of Flight Standards. I have been involved with equipment evaluation, purchasing and developing training programs. So, I guess I don't know much.......

One more case of "You don't know who you're talking to!"
So you first qualify as an attacker to who disagree with you, and then move to ask me to shut up? Brilliant logic, I must shut up then

Waterbomber wrote:

I wonder what kind of configuration they will have on these birds.

It’s in that Runwaygirl-article. Basically SQ but w/o economy plus.

But he didn’t say from where these thousands of fans want to fly to Moscow. Obviously not from Malta nor from Portugal (... and of course not from Germany...).

Well, they certainly will have to pick up a lot of England's fans to Manchester, while Air Brussels picks up the winner after the final!

Jayafe wrote:

One more case of "You don't know who you're talking to!"
So you first qualify as an attacker to who disagree with you, and then move to ask me to shut up? Brilliant logic, I must shut up then

I think you might want to back off a bit. If you go back and reread the posts, you will see you disagreed with me and I tried to state my reasons. I never asked you to shutup, I just asked you to provide a logical reason. I think you mentioned Hajj flying when HiFly has specifically ruled out Hajj flying. I then asked about the Hajj flying and some of the destinations I have been to with a 747 and that was a nightmare, no can loaders, no airstairs, no air conditioning. And you think the 380 will do that type fo flying?

At the end of the day, I really don't care what happens to HiFly, I have no dog in the fight. I have my preferences in aircraft and I will not tell you what they are for various reasons. One airline I worked for did look very seriously at the 380 and the economics just did not work out.

SelseyBill wrote:

....if you have held all those positions; I would have thought you might have held a bit more respect for the Directors at 'Hi-Fly' who have made a multi-million dollar business decision to operate the 380, based upon contracts that will undoubtedly have been signed.

mmo wrote:

.........stop posting this nonsensical dribble like you are some airline expert......

....thats very arrogant of you to suggest someone should stop posting on a discussion board populated mostly with amateur observers and enthusiasts; and how do you know he is not an aviation sector employee anyway, who just has a different opinion to yours ?

My, my up on our horse are we???? I never said I did not have any respect for the Directors. But remember, respect has to be earned, it is not given. If you are as you say you are, then are you trying to tell me you have never seen airline management make some oddball decisions which came back to haunt them? If not, you have led a charmed life.

Your last comments are very interesting. First of all, I asked specific questions which were never answered. I was responding to that. Secondly, I wrote a number of times I have no issues with HiFly but it kept coming back to me that I did, or I didn't like the 380 or I didn't know what I was talking about. And you call me arrogant???? I am a little confused as to how you arrived at that conclusion when someone is telling me to stop posting!!

AMF

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I suspect that Airbus and the lessor negotiated a good power by the hour lease with Hi Fly on this. The real head-scratcher is their leasing of brand new A330-900neo aircraft. The likely customer base is hajj duty and also existing A380 operators with AOG issues.

The current 789 RR issues will be giving HiFly an nice cash injection, NZ had an 2x 343 hire for 4 months over the southern summer break which wouldn't of been cheap.

mmo wrote:

airbazar wrote:

mmo wrote:

To be honest, I don't see it lasting long. Not knowing the lease agreement, I think the 380 is going to be a very big money pit for HiFLY.

Right because they have no clue about what they're doing
They are a highly conservative and risk averse airline. They wouldn't take this airplane if they weren't absolutely sure that they can make money with it. And I would even bet on seeing them take more A380's in the future.

You would be surprised at the dumb decisions which are made in the business world. As I said in my post, obviously you missed that part, I don't know what the lease is like but I can assure you the maintenance reserves alone would be eyewatering. If the lease is constructed with a minimum block hours/month and they can't sell the aircraft, there will be serious trouble. Filling a 380 is very different than filling a 777/787.

N14AZ wrote about a "rumour supported by a HiFly job advertisement, where it said they will fly the A380 for a "reputable European operator".". I will believe that when I see it. There is such a thing as scope language and while a pilot contract might allow it on a temp basis, I doubt it will be long term.

A company needs very deep pockets for a 380 operation and I doubt HiFly has pockets that deep. Time will tell. Just look at all the other carriers, ACMI and Scheduled who got the "wide body" syndrome who are no longer in operation.

Sure "dumb" decisions get made. But we don't always know the details or what the options at the time were etc. It's easy to play armchair CEO. You can't honestly think that the decision makers woke up one morning and all agreed to buy some A380s and hope for the best. Countless hours of research and negotiations would have gone on for months prior to exchanging millions of dollars, with millions in expenses yet to come. They have no doubt done plenty of market and cost research. They have to justify the cost with plenty of FACTS and evidence and a good business plan to make the funding happen afterall.

They are well aware of the the costs with plenty of data at this point, and know how deep their pockets need to be.

Waterbomber wrote:

The question is what justifies operating an A380 over 2 A330's/A340's?

I can think of one and it's AOG situations at outstations, where theh have to bring back a double load of pax.

I wonder what kind of configuration they will have on these birds.

Hifly are pro's at what they do, but pro's have made mistakes before so this will be interesting to watch.

Passenger counts. I would believe that the lease terms dictate that the frame doesn't always need to be flying, and while parked at Beja, it would incur only parking fees, with lease payments based on when it's actually flying. Remember, the airlines will be chartering in this equipment. Examples could be airlines needing hajj capacity.

I would assume any A380 operator which has an aircraft need extensive repairs or wants to stretch their fleet would be plausible candidates for a 6-12 month lease.

KD5MDK wrote:

I would assume any A380 operator which has an aircraft need extensive repairs or wants to stretch their fleet would be plausible candidates for a 6-12 month lease.

Good opportunity for a number of Airlines to get only their feet wet and gather some BI.

mmo wrote:

I am puzzled in that if HiFly says they have had more demand than they were initially expecting, then why lease only 2?

"More demand than initially expected" does not automatically translate into "need more than two" in the real world, and no amount of experience will change that.

TC957 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

We’ve waited years for a second hand operator. Hopefully we continue to see more opportunities like this. I do hope they put some color on it though. Looks a bit too humble.

As per my previous post, and info from Skyliner, it will have some sort of " save the coral reefs " paintjob.

Ah, must've missed it. Thanks.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

TC957 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

We’ve waited years for a second hand operator. Hopefully we continue to see more opportunities like this. I do hope they put some color on it though. Looks a bit too humble.

As per my previous post, and info from Skyliner, it will have some sort of " save the coral reefs " paintjob.

Ah, must've missed it. Thanks.

I hadn't seen this either. Here is the information provided by skyliner.de, thanks TC957:

Airbus A380-841 c/n 6 9H-MIP HiFly Malta delivery 04jul18 SIN-AUH-MLA, all white, for paint into “Save the Coral Reefs” cs ex 9V-SKC

Source: https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=2

blueflyer wrote:

mmo wrote:

I am puzzled in that if HiFly says they have had more demand than they were initially expecting, then why lease only 2?

"More demand than initially expected" does not automatically translate into "need more than two" in the real world, and no amount of experience will change that.

No, not necessarily. But having now one ACMI operator with A380 available in the market might have serious influence on the overall A380 deployment. So far each carrier ordering [or considering to do so] the A380 had the requirement to plan for a spare in case of an aircraft on ground incident, heavy maintenance etc. A lot of capital investment with possibly questionable value.

With now ACMI capacity being available this "spare requirement" at least for smaller operator might completely drop out and may change the business case for a 2nd-hand A380 purchase or even a new-build A380 purchase due to vastly increased flexibility.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

With now ACMI capacity being available this "spare requirement" at least for smaller operator might completely drop out and may change the business case for a 2nd-hand A380 purchase or even a new-build A380 purchase due to vastly increased flexibility.

Agreed. I believe that HyFly made a very smart and bold decision.
They just started something like a "hot-spare club", anyone who wants in pays a small fee and when you need extra capacity you can have it for a fixed price.Diamond members have priority over gold & silver members; non-members will have to pay an arm and leg for it.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The question is what justifies operating an A380 over 2 A330's/A340's?

I can think of one and it's AOG situations at outstations, where theh have to bring back a double load of pax.

I wonder what kind of configuration they will have on these birds.

Hifly are pro's at what they do, but pro's have made mistakes before so this will be interesting to watch.

Passenger counts. I would believe that the lease terms dictate that the frame doesn't always need to be flying, and while parked at Beja, it would incur only parking fees, with lease payments based on when it's actually flying. Remember, the airlines will be chartering in this equipment. Examples could be airlines needing hajj capacity.

Sure, but how to justify the A380 over for instance 2 A330/A340 that offer the flexibility of being able to deploy separetely when needed.

"Pay what you use" lease terms are great but the old adage that planes lose money when not flying is still applicable. There is a lot more to a parked plane than capital cost and parking fees. Easa part M department, crew recurrent training, tic toc tic toc on calendar-based maintenance intervals, insurance, etc...

Waterbomber wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The question is what justifies operating an A380 over 2 A330's/A340's?

I can think of one and it's AOG situations at outstations, where theh have to bring back a double load of pax.

I wonder what kind of configuration they will have on these birds.

Hifly are pro's at what they do, but pro's have made mistakes before so this will be interesting to watch.

Passenger counts. I would believe that the lease terms dictate that the frame doesn't always need to be flying, and while parked at Beja, it would incur only parking fees, with lease payments based on when it's actually flying. Remember, the airlines will be chartering in this equipment. Examples could be airlines needing hajj capacity.

Sure, but how to justify the A380 over for instance 2 A330/A340 that offer the flexibility of being able to deploy separetely when needed.

"Pay what you use" lease terms are great but the old adage that planes lose money when not flying is still applicable. There is a lot more to a parked plane than capital cost and parking fees. Easa part M department, crew recurrent training, tic toc tic toc on calendar-based maintenance intervals, insurance, etc...

But HiFly has the A330 and A340, four and ten of them and even some new A330 on order. If the A380 are parked, the crew can be used on the A330/340. One, according to planespotters.net two, A380 are additional possibilities when a HYFly customer needs serious capacity.
I assume leasing the A380 is rather a low price for HiFly, it could be even connected to usage.

aerorobnz wrote:

Also if it parks up between times they basically have their own airport at Lajes they share with the military.

They actually use Beja, which is even emptier.

Lajes is on an island in the Azores, which is a 2 hour flight from LIS.

Buyantukhaa wrote:

aerorobnz wrote:

Also if it parks up between times they basically have their own airport at Lajes they share with the military.

They actually use Beja, which is even emptier.

quite correct. That was the one I was thinking of on the mainland

Waterbomber wrote:

"Pay what you use" lease terms are great but the old adage that planes lose money when not flying is still applicable. There is a lot more to a parked plane than capital cost and parking fees. Easa part M department, crew recurrent training, tic toc tic toc on calendar-based maintenance intervals, insurance, etc...

The company enjoys close support from Airbus & other industry players, and HiFly themselves bring extensive experience to this niche industry, so doubt there will be any cost or operational surprises.

For example, commercial aircraft require multiple insurance policies / cover, which can be turned on/off to support flexible operations and minimise costs.

ucdtim17 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

What Norwegian destinations in the U.S. can accept A380s? LAX, JFK, BOS, ...?

On a one-off basis, just about all of them.

I mean that has a gate and ground infrastructure to support an A380. A380s have landed at OAK but there isn't a gate capable of serving the aircraft.

If they have stairs and buses that will usually do the trick

HiFly says that they have two requests for wet-lease operations of their 1st A380.

The 1st request is from an European Airline that doesn't currently fly the A380 yet for transatlantic flight. The 2nd request is from a current A380 operator from Asia.

HiFly will decide in the coming weeks which of the 2 airlines will get this wet-lease that will start in August.

source in German:
https://www.aero.de/news-29592/Hi-Fly-z ... -A380.html

Summer wetleasing has plenty of possibilities. Don't just think of the legacies.

TCX as an example flies double A330s somedays on MAN/LGW to MCO. A possible? Same with VS and the Beach Fleet. TUI and DE spring to mind too. The old charter market is ripe with summer routes that could easily sell out an A380 in medium density fitout. These carriers are increasingly getting into summer capacity leasing.

Momo1435 wrote:

HiFly says that they have two requests for wet-lease operations of their 1st A380.

The 1st request is from an European Airline that doesn't currently fly the A380 yet for transatlantic flight. The 2nd request is from a current A380 operator from Asia.

HiFly will decide in the coming weeks which of the 2 airlines will get this wet-lease that will start in August.

source in German:
https://www.aero.de/news-29592/Hi-Fly-z ... -A380.html

Let's look at this European airline. According to the previously quoted runway girl news piece, it is a first-rank European airline that already uses widebody aircraft, but no A380. In addition they apparently have problems with slots and cannot add frequencies.

So what first-rank airlines with widebody aircraft do we have, that currently not operate the A380:

- Alitalia (very unlikely)
- KLM
- Iberia
- SWISS
- Austrian
- SAS
- Virgin Atlantic
- LOT

Now I believe you all agree that Alitalia, LOT and SAS are out-of-scope. Too much capacity and no real slot restricted airports.

For KLM why should they go to Hi-Fly if their sister company Air France operates the A380. They could probably find a deal and get some A380 from AF. Or simply bought the old SQ birds. Operations wise KL should be able to learn from AF how to operate an A380. From a maintenance perspective, AF already has the necessary facilities and processes in place.

The same goes for SWISS and Austrian. If there would really be a market, the LH Group would simply get some additional units or swap them from their Munich base.

The same goes for Iberia. Willie Walsh already said that they are looking into the business case for some units for IB, but Airbus would have to lower the price (comparable to the BA issue). One more point that speaks against Iberia is the "slot restriction". I doubt that Iberia is really slot restricted, at least not in their home airport.

That leaves us with Virgin Atlantic. It actually makes sense. I can see Virgin having problems adding frequencies to trunk routes ex LHR. In addition they do not have any major partner (read: Delta Airlines) that already operates an A380. It would make sense to upgauge one of Virgin's trunk routes, e.g. LHR - JFK, to an externally leased A380. IIRC Virgin also originally ordered some A380's didn't they?

Thoughts?

The Hi-fly A380 in its new ‘Coral Reef’ paint job is flying into Farnborough today (Thursday)

Do LF and AF have any spare A380s that they actually place at one of their group airlines in the summer? I would not dismiss these airlines for this reason. KLM could actually be a very strong contender based on the slot situation at AMS and their strong north atlantic market. As it will be a wet-lease the maintenance will be down to HiFly, so that's also not be a reason why these airline would not be interested.

flyingphil wrote:

The Hi-fly A380 in its new ‘Coral Reef’ paint job is flying into Farnborough today (Thursday)

She is due to land in next 4 minutes, having flown in from Luqa

Richard28 wrote:

flyingphil wrote:

The Hi-fly A380 in its new ‘Coral Reef’ paint job is flying into Farnborough today (Thursday)

She is due to land in next 4 minutes, having flown in from Luqa

Yes, it says "Not too late for Coral Reefs" on one side, and "Coral Reefs gone by 2050" on the other side.

I don't like having to see a "feel bad" negative message on the aircraft I'm about to fly. Coral reefs are important, but aircraft liveries should be feel good stuff. There's plenty of that to go around too.

From HiFly Facebook page:

"Hi Fly is supporting the Mirpuri Foundation campaign “Save the Coral Reefs” by painting one of its aircraft with a special-themed livery, aiming to reinforce worldwide the message of sustainability and protection of the seas.

The airline joined the project in cooperation with Mirpuri Foundation, Hi Fly’s principal sustainability partner and AkzoNobel, that provided the coating to personalize the project. The chosen aircraft was an Airbus A380-800, the biggest commercial aircraft in the world, which is now painted on both sides, one side in dark blue displaying destroyed corals contrasting with a light blue side representing a pristine ocean with colourful and healthy marine life.

“A big cause requires a big answer and now, the biggest commercial aircraft on the planet will be the one carrying this big message around the globe”, says Paulo Mirpuri,President of both Hi Fly and Mirpuri Foundation.

With this initiative, Hi Fly is raising awareness for this unprecedented campaign to fight the destruction of coral reefs. If no action is taken, these beautiful ecosystems will disappear by 2050. With 50% of the world’s corals already gone, action needs to be taken immediately and awareness is the first step."





https://www.facebook.com/hiflyairline/

JWKIII wrote:

The same goes for Iberia. Willie Walsh already said that they are looking into the business case for some units for IB, but Airbus would have to lower the price (comparable to the BA issue). One more point that speaks against Iberia is the "slot restriction". I doubt that Iberia is really slot restricted, at least not in their home airport.

Thoughts?

I agree that it probably isn't BA but one could argue that these older A380s are nearly identical to new-builds, but much cheaper. So if acquisition cost is the only concern for IAG, these used frames could make it work. Especially with HiFly covering the maintenance side.

VS (run out of slots in LHR) for their golden flights to NYC. or
TK, testing the water before making a decision as they will moving to new airport soon and has been interested in 380 for a long time

JWKIII wrote:

Let's look at this European airline. According to the previously quoted runway girl news piece, it is a first-rank European airline that already uses widebody aircraft, but no A380. In addition they apparently have problems with slots and cannot add frequencies.

So what first-rank airlines with widebody aircraft do we have, that currently not operate the A380:

- Alitalia (very unlikely)
- KLM
- Iberia
- SWISS
- Austrian
- SAS
- Virgin Atlantic
- LOT

Now I believe you all agree that Alitalia, LOT and SAS are out-of-scope. Too much capacity and no real slot restricted airports.

For KLM why should they go to Hi-Fly if their sister company Air France operates the A380. They could probably find a deal and get some A380 from AF. Or simply bought the old SQ birds. Operations wise KL should be able to learn from AF how to operate an A380. From a maintenance perspective, AF already has the necessary facilities and processes in place.

The same goes for SWISS and Austrian. If there would really be a market, the LH Group would simply get some additional units or swap them from their Munich base.

The same goes for Iberia. Willie Walsh already said that they are looking into the business case for some units for IB, but Airbus would have to lower the price (comparable to the BA issue). One more point that speaks against Iberia is the "slot restriction". I doubt that Iberia is really slot restricted, at least not in their home airport.

That leaves us with Virgin Atlantic. It actually makes sense. I can see Virgin having problems adding frequencies to trunk routes ex LHR. In addition they do not have any major partner (read: Delta Airlines) that already operates an A380. It would make sense to upgauge one of Virgin's trunk routes, e.g. LHR - JFK, to an externally leased A380. IIRC Virgin also originally ordered some A380's didn't they?

Thoughts?

For me, it's KLM or Virgin for the reaons mentioned.
NOTE: AF A380 operating out of AMS is really a big big no go for French unions. Simply not going to happen.

It arrived at Farnborough today.

scbriml wrote:

It arrived at Farnborough today.

Wow, thanks for these pictures. I didn’t know that it has two different colors on each side.

PW100 wrote:

For me, it's KLM or Virgin for the reaons mentioned.
NOTE: AF A380 operating out of AMS is really a big big no go for French unions. Simply not going to happen.

I can't understand the logic. If French unions wouldn't like AF A380s operating out of AMS, why would they allow a Hifly A380? The French unions probably prfer an AF A380 flown by Fench crews above a Hifly A380. In addition why would KLM lease an A380 as of August, just after the Summer peak season?

Moreover, I think that Hifly has a different definition of "first-rank airline" than most of us here on net. I would say they would consider Norwegian to be "first-rank" as well (given how good they are towards Hifly). I persoanlly think it's either TUI, Virgin or Norwegian.

JWKIII wrote:

It would make sense to upgauge one of Virgin's trunk routes, e.g. LHR - JFK, to an externally leased A380.

It would make more sense to operate the A380 on a leisure route as LHR - JFK is your most important route and thus you want to show off your product. Would be strange that an airline who decided to cancel its A380 order suddenly hires an A380 from Hifly..

JetBuddy wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

flyingphil wrote:

The Hi-fly A380 in its new ‘Coral Reef’ paint job is flying into Farnborough today (Thursday)

She is due to land in next 4 minutes, having flown in from Luqa

Yes, it says "Not too late for Coral Reefs" on one side, and "Coral Reefs gone by 2050" on the other side.

I don't like having to see a "feel bad" negative message on the aircraft I'm about to fly. Coral reefs are important, but aircraft liveries should be feel good stuff. There's plenty of that to go around too.

From HiFly Facebook page:

"Hi Fly is supporting the Mirpuri Foundation campaign “Save the Coral Reefs” by painting one of its aircraft with a special-themed livery, aiming to reinforce worldwide the message of sustainability and protection of the seas.

The airline joined the project in cooperation with Mirpuri Foundation, Hi Fly’s principal sustainability partner and AkzoNobel, that provided the coating to personalize the project. The chosen aircraft was an Airbus A380-800, the biggest commercial aircraft in the world, which is now painted on both sides, one side in dark blue displaying destroyed corals contrasting with a light blue side representing a pristine ocean with colourful and healthy marine life.

“A big cause requires a big answer and now, the biggest commercial aircraft on the planet will be the one carrying this big message around the globe”, says Paulo Mirpuri,President of both Hi Fly and Mirpuri Foundation.

With this initiative, Hi Fly is raising awareness for this unprecedented campaign to fight the destruction of coral reefs. If no action is taken, these beautiful ecosystems will disappear by 2050. With 50% of the world’s corals already gone, action needs to be taken immediately and awareness is the first step."





https://www.facebook.com/hiflyairline/

This sort of livery where one need to view both side of the plane to get the complete message look great on model but in reality most people probably won't get to see both sides at the same time?

LJ wrote:

JWKIII wrote:

It would make sense to upgauge one of Virgin's trunk routes, e.g. LHR - JFK, to an externally leased A380.

It would make more sense to operate the A380 on a leisure route as LHR - JFK is your most important route and thus you want to show off your product. Would be strange that an airline who decided to cancel its A380 order suddenly hires an A380 from Hifly..

Actually a good point. I was referring to the part where it says "slot restricted". I am not 100% familiar with the slot situation at LGW, but as far as I understand most of Virgin's leisure destinations depart from LGW, not LHR. In addition, the Singapore product is not a bad one, but I see your point that VS probably is inclined to "show-off" their own product on its key route.

I do not see any contradiction, however, in cancelling an order of six A380, that you have to operate for at least ten years, and a wet-lease of a single unit that you can cancel (even against a penalty) at any time if it is no longer required. I rather see it as a validation of my thought as Virgin must have had a business case for A380's in the first place. Over time they may have realized that it is too risky to go through with all six units, but that also means that there might be some routes where they are now lacking capacity.

LJ wrote:

It would make more sense to operate the A380 on a leisure route as LHR - JFK is your most important route and thus you want to show off your product. Would be strange that an airline who decided to cancel its A380 order suddenly hires an A380 from Hifly..

Perhaps ANA will use before delivery of it's own fleet, and to consolidate some flights taking pressure off RR-powered 787 fleet.

Planesmart wrote:

LJ wrote:

It would make more sense to operate the A380 on a leisure route as LHR - JFK is your most important route and thus you want to show off your product. Would be strange that an airline who decided to cancel its A380 order suddenly hires an A380 from Hifly..

Perhaps ANA will use before delivery of it's own fleet, and to consolidate some flights taking pressure off RR-powered 787 fleet.

HI Fly mentioned the interesting airline from Asia currently operating 380, so negative for NH

Interesting, great paint job

The paint job is Fantastic... Thanks for the Photos.!

And for those who criticize The leasing of these aircraft.... there is saying in Mexico that says:

Nobody buys an elephant if they don't own a Circus first.


Best Regards
TRB

Congrats to HiFly for this decision, I sure hope a secondary market can actually buid up.

Regarding the livery though, it's a bit like the "smoking kills" sign on cigarettes. The kerosene burning beast you paint that on is litteraly part of the killing... Talk about greenwashing nonsense