LJ wrote:

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?

Moving capacity from CDG to AMS, carrying a french flag? When the French unions already complain that the capacity balance has swung way too much towards AMS?
That would be a "in your face" type of managment action that can not and will not end nicely. Don't think the Frech unions will see this as "preserving French jobs" . . .

mmo wrote:

airbazar wrote:

mmo wrote:

You would be surprised at the dumb decisions which are made in the business world.

That's true but so far the only thing you proved is that you know nothing about HiFly.
They wouldn't have taken an A380 is they didn't already have customers lined up to use it. This is a very different business model than a scheduled commercial airline. I know it's a big jump from a 777/A346 to an A380 but it's not HiFly's responsibility to fill the seats. They'll get paid the same regardless of load factor.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/04/0 ... ito-seats/

- "Line maintenance will be carried out by Hi Fly’s sister company, MESA, in Lisbon and at its facility in Beja, south-central Portugal, and the leases will be fully wet: not dry, not damp, Mirpuri says."

- "Notably, Mirpuri says, the fully wetleased aircraft will operate between major airports, largely on existing A380 routes, either as supplemental or replacement capacity. “We are having actually significantly more demand than what we were initially expecting for these first aircraft. "

So I have to ask, what makes you the expert? I am very familiar with the ACMI world and how they work. The problem is, while I applaud their optimism, the goals of placing the 380 at a major carrier on a long-term ACMI contract are between slim and none. In addition, should one 380 go down for MX, trying to cover the uplift will be a feat in and of itself.

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

First you criticise hi fly for being reckless then for being conservative.

BobleBrave wrote:

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

A380 still is one of the plane that burn least fuel per seat on longer flights

RickNRoll wrote:

mmo wrote:

airbazar wrote:

That's true but so far the only thing you proved is that you know nothing about HiFly.
They wouldn't have taken an A380 is they didn't already have customers lined up to use it. This is a very different business model than a scheduled commercial airline. I know it's a big jump from a 777/A346 to an A380 but it's not HiFly's responsibility to fill the seats. They'll get paid the same regardless of load factor.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/04/0 ... ito-seats/

- "Line maintenance will be carried out by Hi Fly’s sister company, MESA, in Lisbon and at its facility in Beja, south-central Portugal, and the leases will be fully wet: not dry, not damp, Mirpuri says."

- "Notably, Mirpuri says, the fully wetleased aircraft will operate between major airports, largely on existing A380 routes, either as supplemental or replacement capacity. “We are having actually significantly more demand than what we were initially expecting for these first aircraft. "

So I have to ask, what makes you the expert? I am very familiar with the ACMI world and how they work. The problem is, while I applaud their optimism, the goals of placing the 380 at a major carrier on a long-term ACMI contract are between slim and none. In addition, should one 380 go down for MX, trying to cover the uplift will be a feat in and of itself.

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

First you criticise hi fly for being reckless then for being conservative.

I don't know what you were reading, but I certainly did not do either of those.

c933103 wrote:

BobleBrave wrote:

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

A380 still is one of the plane that burn least fuel per seat on longer flights

True but it’s still a symbol of human consumption that isn’t sustainable.

787Driver wrote:

c933103 wrote:

BobleBrave wrote:

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

A380 still is one of the plane that burn least fuel per seat on longer flights

True but it’s still a symbol of human consumption that isn’t sustainable.

A sentiment that is being more loudly and frequently heard by ICAO and IMO reps, together with evaporating patience for the snail like progress by their UN masters, making it increasingly likely voluntary will become mandatory, with more ambitious goals.

scbriml wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Better they get it painted quick as there will be thousands of football fans wanting to get to Moscow for the semi-final and final of the WC.

Wow, and I thought I was an optimist!

Hey it would get business every 4 years.

Planesmart wrote:

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

Well according to the quoted article the airline which is not operating the A380 yet and showing interest is from Europe, so NH is unlikely.

As for which European airline might be interested? Lets remember that this A380 has a F class cabin and 60 J seats so that rules out a lot of European airlines. There aren't many markets in Europe that can fill that many premium seats. To me this has Virgin Atlantic written all over it. But i would not rule out TP entirely. Both of these airlines operate out of severely congested airports. But again, 60 J seats are a lot of seats for TP.

airbazar wrote:

As for which European airline might be interested? Lets remember that this A380 has a F class cabin and 60 J seats so that rules out a lot of European airlines. There aren't many markets in Europe that can fill that many premium seats. To me this has Virgin Atlantic written all over it. But i would not rule out TP entirely. Both of these airlines operate out of severely congested airports. But again, 60 J seats are a lot of seats for TP.

Maybe Turkish?

Turkey is considered part of europe. And asia.
Their HQ is in the European part of Turkey.

HighFlyerIT wrote:

Leej wrote:

airbazar wrote:

As for which European airline might be interested? Lets remember that this A380 has a F class cabin and 60 J seats so that rules out a lot of European airlines. There aren't many markets in Europe that can fill that many premium seats. To me this has Virgin Atlantic written all over it. But i would not rule out TP entirely. Both of these airlines operate out of severely congested airports. But again, 60 J seats are a lot of seats for TP.

Maybe Turkish?

Turkish is not European.

I'd say Virgin or KLM.

As for the Asian airline, I guess the contenders are Korean, Thai, and Asiana. Any idea?

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

Leej wrote:

airbazar wrote:

As for which European airline might be interested? Lets remember that this A380 has a F class cabin and 60 J seats so that rules out a lot of European airlines. There aren't many markets in Europe that can fill that many premium seats. To me this has Virgin Atlantic written all over it. But i would not rule out TP entirely. Both of these airlines operate out of severely congested airports. But again, 60 J seats are a lot of seats for TP.

Maybe Turkish?

Turkish is not European.

I'd say Virgin or KLM.

As for the Asian airline, I guess the contenders are Korean, Thai, and Asiana. Any idea?

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

HighFlyerIT wrote:

Leej wrote:

airbazar wrote:

As for which European airline might be interested? Lets remember that this A380 has a F class cabin and 60 J seats so that rules out a lot of European airlines. There aren't many markets in Europe that can fill that many premium seats. To me this has Virgin Atlantic written all over it. But i would not rule out TP entirely. Both of these airlines operate out of severely congested airports. But again, 60 J seats are a lot of seats for TP.

Maybe Turkish?

Turkish is not European.

I'd say Virgin or KLM.

As for the Asian airline, I guess the contenders are Korean, Thai, and Asiana. Any idea?

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

My bid: European airlines are VS and TK (marginally can be definite as an European airline)
Asian: KE and OZ

Difficult to pick for the Europeans

Turkish: As for Turkish, I am not 100% convinced that they would want to take such a plane in the phase prior to them moving to their new home at Istanbul's third airport. Also, would IST Atatürk currently be A380 ready. I mean as an airline they would certainly have the network to be able to support A380 flights although I would be wondering which routes they would choose, they would have an easier time with some non-TATL routes. All in all, the timing seems odd and TK in my view wouldn't introduce VLAs that aren't Turkey-branded. Such a prestigious aircraft that would easily be the flagship of that airline just can't wear that coral reefy livery in Turkey. And to add my two cents, TK is based in the European part of Turkey and given their extensive network to Euro cities, they are in my view clearly a European airline in the geographical sense. Sort of like Air Canada would be an American airline.

Virgin: LHR is a goldmine and if they find metal to up gauge that seems like a solid possibility. Only thing that might make me a little doubtful with that is their previous history with A380s. Still, their view might have changed with the 787 troubles.

KLM: I don't see any point for KLM to take them in, no routes in desperate need of up gauging.

Norwegian: With that J and F configuration they should be out of consideration. But then again, it's Norwegian and if anyone would fancy an A380 for their LGW-JFK LCC service with some nice seats (or more realistically for their OSL-ANC service, jokes aside) then it's these guys.

TAP: I don't see them taking in A380s, not a sizeable enough market for North America and in South America with their Azul partnership, there's not that one city that needs the A380.

Iberia and Aer Lingus are wildcards to me but both could use the A380 but I don't see them leasing, so overall I'm going to go with Virgin, Norwegian and Turkish in that order.

As for the Asian airline, it might be one of the Koreans or as a total wild card China Southern, although I am not too sure about their history with leased frames. SQ is off the table for obvious reasons, MH should be too. Thai would be a little surprising as well.

HighFlyerIT wrote:

Turkish is not European.

Istanbul is in Europe. Their main base is IST.

PW100 wrote:

LJ wrote:

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?

Moving capacity from CDG to AMS, carrying a french flag? When the French unions already complain that the capacity balance has swung way too much towards AMS?
That would be a "in your face" type of managment action that can not and will not end nicely. Don't think the Frech unions will see this as "preserving French jobs" . . .

I don't see how leasing a Hifly A380 can be considered "perserving French jobs" nor that a Hifly wouldn't swing the capacity towards AMS.

I would think TUI as a potential A380 operator during peak periods.

Cheers,

A388

TK? They are getting a brand new ginormous hub in a few months. I don't think VLA's are in their future.
TP. Rumor has it that TP is indeed one of the carriers interested but the airport won't allow A380 operations. Same rumor source also told me that EK also wanted to bring the A380 to LIS and was denied. We shall see.

" first-rank European airline that already uses widebody aircraft, but no A380. In addition they apparently have problems with slots and cannot add frequencies."

Both TP and VS tick all of those boxes. Maybe DY at LGW? Don't see anyone else ticking all of those boxes. Yes IST is severely restricted but not for long. What exactly is a "first-rank" airline anyway?

AFAIK current IST airport can't handle A380 on regular basis (otherwise EK and QR would have scheduled it long, long time ago...)

airbazar wrote:

TK? They are getting a brand new ginormous hub in a few months. I don't think VLA's are in their future.
TP. Rumor has it that TP is indeed one of the carriers interested but the airport won't allow A380 operations. Same rumor source also told me that EK also wanted to bring the A380 to LIS and was denied. We shall see.

" first-rank European airline that already uses widebody aircraft, but no A380. In addition they apparently have problems with slots and cannot add frequencies."

Both TP and VS tick all of those boxes. Maybe DY at LGW? Don't see anyone else ticking all of those boxes. Yes IST is severely restricted but not for long. What exactly is a "first-rank" airline anyway?

I can only imagine how "pleasant" it would be to have an A380 in LIS airport right now. Or maybe two, EK and Hifly.

hongkongflyer wrote:

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

Spot on with my guesses, VS are fairly protective over their high-quality hard-product, however they fill A340s to JFK summer-round, likewise on 747s to MCO.

The second point you raise is actually a very interesting one, is there a chance that the availability of a short-term A380 lease could allow potential customers to assess it's viability in their fleets, thus leading to more A380 orders? Food for thought...

JWKIII wrote:

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.

LGW is becoming increasingly slot restricted, there was large competition for Monarch's ex-slots not long back...

airbazar wrote:

Maybe DY at LGW?

DY uses a Wamos 747 to JFK currently - so may be they want an upgrade...

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ec-kxn

Gosh I hate when an interesting topic turns into a mudslinging bitch-fest

HiFly has announced that the first wet-lease contract is indeed for an European customer. Their A380 will operate long-haul sectors this summer period, but with a possible extension. The name of the customer hasn't been announced.

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/hi-fly-ag ... -the-a380/

Cheers!

Not sure if this has been shared, RGN has a good article on the interior: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/07/2 ... perations/

Everything remains SQ's except you don't get sarong kebaya clad cabin crew and premium economy. Surprised SQ didn't strip out the Suites before handing back to lessor.

LifelinerOne wrote:

HiFly has announced that the first wet-lease contract is indeed for an European customer. Their A380 will operate long-haul sectors this summer period, but with a possible extension. The name of the customer hasn't been announced.

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/hi-fly-ag ... -the-a380/

Cheers!

My money's on VS, they're having issues with how tight their fleet utilization is, and could fill A380s to MCO and possibly CUN. The big question though, is how do you sell the extra seats available in such a short period.

Don't think it can be DY, as they aren't that "well established" in a traditional sense. Exciting stuff!

JamesCousins wrote:

My money's on VS, they're having issues with how tight their fleet utilization is, and could fill A380s to MCO and possibly CUN. The big question though, is how do you sell the extra seats available in such a short period.

Don't think it can be DY, as they aren't that "well established" in a traditional sense. Exciting stuff!

They are pulling out of CUN.

JamesCousins wrote:

LifelinerOne wrote:

HiFly has announced that the first wet-lease contract is indeed for an European customer. Their A380 will operate long-haul sectors this summer period, but with a possible extension. The name of the customer hasn't been announced.

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/hi-fly-ag ... -the-a380/

Cheers!

My money's on VS, they're having issues with how tight their fleet utilization is, and could fill A380s to MCO and possibly CUN. The big question though, is how do you sell the extra seats available in such a short period.

I fully agree on VS. Will VS be able, though, to fill all the F and J seats to MCO and CUN? With the current top-tier configuration from SQ, I rather see this bird on a high-yield top-level heavy route.

Seems interest is actually taking shape in writing..little vague but it is a a start..Wonder which one

Hi Fly has revealed that a European operator is the first customer to agree a wet-lease contract for the Portuguese company’s initial Airbus A380.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 80-450568/

JWKIII wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

LifelinerOne wrote:

HiFly has announced that the first wet-lease contract is indeed for an European customer. Their A380 will operate long-haul sectors this summer period, but with a possible extension. The name of the customer hasn't been announced.

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/hi-fly-ag ... -the-a380/

Cheers!

My money's on VS, they're having issues with how tight their fleet utilization is, and could fill A380s to MCO and possibly CUN. The big question though, is how do you sell the extra seats available in such a short period.

I fully agree on VS. Will VS be able, though, to fill all the F and J seats to MCO and CUN? With the current top-tier configuration from SQ, I rather see this bird on a high-yield top-level heavy route.

If it does end up being Virgin Atlantic... what does that say about the A380s Virgin had on the order books for a decade but finally removed only in March?!? Seems very odd.

I don't see why it seems odd. For me it makes a lot of economic sense. One Airbus A380 is a whole different story than six A380. With Hifly, VS also does not have to worry about all the additional processes that come along your own A380 fleet (e.g. separate maintenance processes, separate cabin/cockpit crews, separate operating procedures, etc. etc.). And the financing costs are tremendously lower as well.

If VS gets the A380, I assume that they simply realized that there is no need in their network for their own fleet of six aircraft and thus they decided to go for the more "costly", when one only looks at the leasing costs, but much more flexible solution. This way they can simply upgauge on certain routes whenever there is enough demand (and higher yields to justify the higher leasing costs) and return the aircraft after some months/years when demand decreases again.

I also believe that an aircraft of the complexity and size of the A380 requires a fleet of at least ten units to be operated as efficiently as possible. A smaller fleet could make no economic sense.

9H-MIP positioned from FAB to XCR with an intermediate landing in CHR today morning according to FR24.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9h-mip

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

If it does end up being Virgin Atlantic... what does that say about the A380s Virgin had on the order books for a decade but finally removed only in March?!? Seems very odd.

Not odd. They are buying in short term capacity, operated by someone else.

That is a very very different beast to operating the things themselves (with all the complexities, maintenance, training, staffing etc issues that entails).

If it is them of course.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

JWKIII wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

My money's on VS, they're having issues with how tight their fleet utilization is, and could fill A380s to MCO and possibly CUN. The big question though, is how do you sell the extra seats available in such a short period.

I fully agree on VS. Will VS be able, though, to fill all the F and J seats to MCO and CUN? With the current top-tier configuration from SQ, I rather see this bird on a high-yield top-level heavy route.

If it does end up being Virgin Atlantic... what does that say about the A380s Virgin had on the order books for a decade but finally removed only in March?!? Seems very odd.

That a) they didn't want that many, and b) they didn't want them all year round. As others have said a potential 3-month lease on 1 frame, is different to a 15-year lease on 6....

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.

JFK and LAX gets a fair number of A380's already.

JFK gets Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Air France, Asiana and Korean for at least part of the year.

LAX gets Air France, British, Qantas, China Southern, Emirates, Korean, Singapore and Asiana.

BOS can handle them, Both BA and Emirates have sent A380's to Boston before, but nothing on a full time basis.

Everybody is assuming that the slot restrictions refer to the home airport, what if they refer to the destination airport? Which would explain why this carrier only want to lease one aircraft rather than being able to justify a whole fleet - pretty much any European carrier would be able to fill an A380 into JFK (for example) without much difficulty.

so maybe orbest ?

qf002 wrote:

Everybody is assuming that the slot restrictions refer to the home airport, what if they refer to the destination airport? Which would explain why this carrier only want to lease one aircraft rather than being able to justify a whole fleet - pretty much any European carrier would be able to fill an A380 into JFK (for example) without much difficulty.

Then I would say LOT

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

And it's now parked in BYJ
https://www.tsf.pt/sociedade/interior/v ... 27249.html (portuguese only, sorry). First time a a380 lands in Portugal

ddp wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

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.

JFK and LAX gets a fair number of A380's already.

JFK gets Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Air France, Asiana and Korean for at least part of the year.

LAX gets Air France, British, Qantas, China Southern, Emirates, Korean, Singapore and Asiana.

BOS can handle them, Both BA and Emirates have sent A380's to Boston before, but nothing on a full time basis.

DY also fly to ORD now do they not.

qf002 wrote:

Everybody is assuming that the slot restrictions refer to the home airport, what if they refer to the destination airport? Which would explain why this carrier only want to lease one aircraft rather than being able to justify a whole fleet - pretty much any European carrier would be able to fill an A380 into JFK (for example) without much difficulty.

Fair point. That would indeed widen the prospects. I still keep my bets on Virgin Atlantic though. I want to see their livery on an A380

JWKIII wrote:

qf002 wrote:

Everybody is assuming that the slot restrictions refer to the home airport, what if they refer to the destination airport? Which would explain why this carrier only want to lease one aircraft rather than being able to justify a whole fleet - pretty much any European carrier would be able to fill an A380 into JFK (for example) without much difficulty.

Fair point. That would indeed widen the prospects. I still keep my bets on Virgin Atlantic though. I want to see their livery on an A380

HiFly just gave this A380 a brand new special livery, it won't be painted in lessee's colors.

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

ddp wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

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.

BOS can handle them, Both BA and Emirates have sent A380's to Boston before, but nothing on a full time basis.

Eh? BA have been sending the A380 to BOS about 5 times per week this summer.

In some portuguese forums there are rumours that the first client is Air Austral.

jepece wrote:

In some portuguese forums there are rumours that the first client is Air Austral.

Has UU financial improved for past few years to take on such a mammoth? Last we heard they were bleeding money with every flight they take off.

It would also tie in with the coral reef livery given Reunion has that nearby. Just need to stick on the Air Austral titles

jepece wrote:

In some portuguese forums there are rumours that the first client is Air Austral.

Unless HiFly gives them a super deal, it doesn't make much sense as Air Austral's 77W have 438 seats, so they'd increase their trip cost by 50% for just a few more seats...