Why didn't BA order the B748?

aemoreira1981 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:40 pm

The idea here is: while BA did order 12 A380s with 97 J seats, and they fly a lot of premium routes, it cannot fly a route like LHR-JFK, because the terminal cannot handle the A380, and the side of JFK where it lands can't handle the A380 on Taxiway B, posing a problem when the takeoff runway is 13R (most of the 747s serving JFK are the high-J variety with 86 J seats). Lufthansa noted that it ordered the 747-8I because it needs the space for the business class seats (its 748s have 80 J seats). I do wonder how many J seats can be reasonably be put on the B78Js or A35Ks, as a route like LHR-JFK will always have a need for a lot of J seats, and why BA, a longtime 747 operator, eschewed the 748 despite a need for those J seats, when it could have had a business case for 15-20 frames. I do consider that BA does skimp on Y on these high-J frames while LH still has a lot of Y.

EastLondoner · Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:47 pm

Doesn't the 747-8 need similar facilities gate-wise to the A380 which would have meant Terminal 7 wouldn't have been able to take the aircraft anyway?

hOMSaR · Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:52 pm

The competition came down to 747-8 vs. A380, and A380 won.

Evidently, "JFK" wasn't reason enough to go with the 747.

B764er · Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:53 pm

These J's and Y's are driving me batty!
What do these seat letter codes mean?

rufusmi · Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:56 pm

B764er wrote:
These J's and Y's are driving me batty!
What do these seat letter codes mean?

J = Business Class

Y = Coach

Arion640 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:01 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
The competition came down to 747-8 vs. A380, and A380 won.

Evidently, "JFK" wasn't reason enough to go with the 747.

I remember a pilot saying about this on twitter. The 747 apparently didn’t offer enough performance improvements over the -400, so they went with the A380.

Take from that what you will.

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:03 pm

EastLondoner wrote:
Doesn't the 747-8 need similar facilities gate-wise to the A380 which would have meant Terminal 7 wouldn't have been able to take the aircraft anyway?

No the 747 fits. A380 doesn't.

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:04 pm

One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

SteelChair · Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:55 pm

george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

And yet people claim geopolitics and playing for home team doesn't happen any more...

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:20 pm

SteelChair wrote:
george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

And yet people claim geopolitics and playing for home team doesn't happen any more...

Not Geopolitics at all. Most of their aircraft are RR powered and they wanted the commonality. In fact they went against this with the 777 and ordered half with the GE and didn't pick RR until later because it worked better at the time.

Sooner787 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:23 pm

Wonder how BA is feeling about ordering Rollers for their 787 fleet?

SteelChair · Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:31 pm

They ordered them cause they were better (sic)

SuperTwin · Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:10 pm

george77300 wrote:
EastLondoner wrote:
Doesn't the 747-8 need similar facilities gate-wise to the A380 which would have meant Terminal 7 wouldn't have been able to take the aircraft anyway?

No the 747 fits. A380 doesn't.

The 748 is Code F, officially, like the 388; however its wingspan is what barely pushes it into that next level up. So much of the rest of the aircraft is Code E.

ICAO airplane design codes (or groups, in the case of the FAA) are based primarily on wingspan. The legacy 747 family has been categorized under ICAO Code E, which has a span limit of up to but not including 65 meters. The 747-8 wingspan is about 224.4 feet (68.4 meters), making it the first Boeing commercial airplane to be categorized as Code F.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2010_q3/3/

Revelation · Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:51 pm

Arion640 wrote:
The 747 apparently didn’t offer enough performance improvements over the -400, so they went with the A380.

I think this is the case, plus BA is able to operate A380 at high load factors so they get more revenue with A380.

dampfnudel · Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:44 pm

So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

airbazar · Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:58 pm

The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

Arion640 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:02 pm

SteelChair wrote:
george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

And yet people claim geopolitics and playing for home team doesn't happen any more...

So one airline chooses commonality with one engine manufacturer. This has nothing to do with Geopolitics.

Because BA didn’t buy the 787 at all!

StTim · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:11 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

That would be the 779 that they haven't ordered and would not have on premise even if ordered today in time for the 744 retirements.

bagoldex · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:19 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would it frustrate them?

XAM2175 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:21 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

And once again... BA's money-maker on LON-NYC is premium seats, whereas up-gauging to the A380 would result primarily in a vast increase in economy capacity. Compare the numbers:

A388        F14 J97 W55 Y303
B744 (++J)  F14 J86 W30 Y145
B77W (4 Cl) F14 J56 W44 Y185
B789        F08 J42 W39 Y127

If you figure on the 779 being configured similarly to the current 77W, but quite possibly with a smaller F cabin, then it or any other comparable airframe ticks the boxes quite nicely.

lifecomm · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:21 pm

I think it was a bad decision (my opinion, of course) to purchase the a380. The 747-8i made perfect sense as it would have been a fairly painless acquisition and could have been purchased for an excellent price. It is possible that Boeing took it for granted that, of course, BA was going to take the 747-8i and failed to lower the price sufficiently...

Revelation · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:30 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

There's another way to look at it --- it must be wonderful for BA to find a route they can use the already paid for 744 fleet to offer big premium cabins and high frequency.

airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

Maybe you should start a thread on that topic.

airzim · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:32 pm

airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

Except as a freighter.

Tedd · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:32 pm

SteelChair wrote:
They ordered them cause they were better (sic)

It`s old news but it`s correct. BA ordering the GE90 for the B777 caused a stir since it was expected they`d
go for the home-grown RR product as most of their aircraft were so equiped. One of the reasons they chose
the GE engine centered on a new GE engine workshop being built in Cardiff IIRC, but when they took delivery
there were quite a few reliability problems ( to be expected from a new type ) so it wasn`t quite the marriage
BA had hoped for. For the next batch of B777`s they went with the RR Trent 800 which were reliable & proved
a very popular choice for the -200 series, I think the most popular FWIW.

Re BA not ordering B748, wasn`t it WW himself who suggested the lack of engine choice ( Rollers ) the reason?
Regardless, the earlier era aircraft couldn`t compete with the new kid on the block A380, & this has been proven
with the sales difference, not that the B748 was a bad upgrade on the -400, it just wasn`t quite good enough.
Some on the forum have suggested that BA should have & still should order it. I`m of the opinion that while it
may be inferior to A380 for BA, in light of the stalemate with AB for more which the airline says it could do with,
perhaps it wouldn`t be beyond the realms of possibility if the price was very attractive to intigrate the type into
the fleet. BA know the Jumbo inside-out, the only downside for them could be GEnx, but they know it`s a reliable
turbine, & BA`s customers would love to see the type continue after the sterling job the -400 has provided for a
good many years.

BA174 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:59 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would they care, they operate more services to JFK than the three of those almost put together. JFK is a frequency driven route for BA and I don’t think it was ever a real contender for A380 service to be honest.

airbazar · Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

Maybe you should start a thread on that topic.

Both topics have been beaten to death so may as well consolidate into one thread

frmrCapCadet · Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:19 pm

IIRC from a-netter threads at the time: Airbus priced very attractively. I do not remember whether BA placed their order before or after it was becoming apparent that the 380 was doing better than original specs, and the 748 was doing a little poorer.

dampfnudel · Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:31 pm

bagoldex wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would it frustrate them?

Flexibility perhaps? Not being able to deploy the 380 to a place where it seems to work well for other airlines, especially during the summer.

dampfnudel · Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:38 pm

BA174 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would they care, they operate more services to JFK than the three of those almost put together. JFK is a frequency driven route for BA and I don’t think it was ever a real contender for A380 service to be honest.

Maybe you’re right, but I’m sure BA would’ve deployed the 380 to JFK if they could long ago. Let’s just be honest there.

Cunard · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:10 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
BA174 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would they care, they operate more services to JFK than the three of those almost put together. JFK is a frequency driven route for BA and I don’t think it was ever a real contender for A380 service to be honest.

Maybe you’re right, but I’m sure BA would’ve deployed the 380 to JFK if they could long ago. Let’s just be honest there.

No they wouldn't have done so as LHR to JFK is all about frequency and consistency there is absolutely no need for British Airways to place the A380 on the route, they've only got 12 of them after all.

The aircraft can be deployed elsewhere more efficiently which is what we're seeing.

''Let's just be honest there''.

crimsonchin · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:24 pm

I remember being on here when the order was announced, allegedly it was tightly contested between the 747-8 and A380.

And everyone knows according to A.net Boeing logic, anytime an Airbus wins vs. Boeing in an RFP, it can only be because of discounts.

AleksW · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:41 pm

airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

True, but you really need to fill it up with passengers. The 748, capacity wise, was probably a better choice, if an airline wanted something bigger than 777-300 but not so huge like A380. Maybe, there was something else at play, like discounts, etc.

aemoreira1981 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:45 pm

BA174 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would they care, they operate more services to JFK than the three of those almost put together. JFK is a frequency driven route for BA and I don’t think it was ever a real contender for A380 service to be honest.

AF is 2x A388, 1x B77W (4 class), 1x B772 (ORY) and 1x B789. LH is A388 (B748 winter), EQV from MUC, and B748 (A343 winter). Others are 1x daily.

JFK is frequent, but it sees only one low J 744 (otherwise from LHR it’s high J 744s and 4-class 772s). There is a 10-abreast 772 from LGW but it will soon go to a 226-seater.

BoeingGuy · Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:56 pm

george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

You mean like those GE powered 777-300ERs they ordered with no option for RR engines and the fact they operate 777-200s with both RR and GE engines?

Do you know for a fact that BA decided against the 747-8 because of lack of RR engines, or did you just make that up?

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:21 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

You mean like those GE powered 777-300ERs they ordered with no option for RR engines and the fact they operate 777-200s with both RR and GE engines?

Do you know for a fact that BA decided against the 747-8 because of lack of RR engines, or did you just make that up?

It was catergorically a factor. Certainly not the only but a major one. They didn’t want the GE on 787 (GE slightly better on longer routes and RR on shorter, they are obviously more concerned about the latter) and wanted the RR equivalent on the 748 but couldn’t. It was one of a number of reasons and they eventually settled with the A380.

They by all means don’t always choose RR. In fact half of their 777-200ER are GE when they could have had all RR. Also as you mentioned there is no choice on the 77W but I guess the engines are very similar to the -200ERs they had so it was worthwhile. It’s just what they deem better at the time.

jfk777 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:27 pm

airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

LH was the launch customer for 20 748 and Boeing was dying for an order from a prestige airline so they got a "deal". Korean Air makes flaps or some components for the 748 so they are supporting their own product. Air China wanted a new flagship and the A380 was too big so naturally a 748 fit the bill.

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:27 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

You mean like those GE powered 777-300ERs they ordered with no option for RR engines and the fact they operate 777-200s with both RR and GE engines?

Do you know for a fact that BA decided against the 747-8 because of lack of RR engines, or did you just make that up?

I should further add the RR bias isn’t Geopolitical, but in maintenance and operational costs and clearly as a large customer they have favourible rates. With the -200ER their first batch were GE but as with a new model had issues and such they reverted to the RR for the latter half of deliveries and they were happy with those. As for the 77W they were on some very good prices as compensation due to 787 delays and thus were taken up. They obviously only have one engine choice so GE it was. They have no desire to always buy RR but it seems to work best for them.

george77300 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:29 pm

jfk777 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

LH was the launch customer for 20 748 and Boeing was dying for an order from a prestige airline so they got a "deal". Korean Air makes flaps or some components for the 748 so they are supporting their own product. Air China wanted a new flagship and the A380 was too big so naturally a 748 fit the bill.

Also I guess KE have a relatively large fleet of 748F as well so commonality was probably high. Although they ordered A380 too and as did LH. CA on the other hand thought that was too big. I wonder whether KE would have been better without the A380 and just the 748 but I guess the prestige of the flagship A380 was there and they didn’t want to miss it.

jfk777 · Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:31 pm

george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

While BA has traditional done the right thing for England and their has never been a hard policy to have Rolls Royce engines. Thirty years ago BA 744 almost got GE engines if their proposal would have been "better" Lord King was quoted as saying. BA flies 12 77W( soon 15) with GE engines since those are the only engines on the airplane, GE made an exclusive deal with Boeing like RR made a similar deal with Airbus for the A350.

george77300 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:43 am

jfk777 wrote:
george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

While BA has traditional done the right thing for England and their has never been a hard policy to have Rolls Royce engines. Thirty years ago BA 744 almost got GE engines if their proposal would have been "better" Lord King was quoted as saying. BA flies 12 77W( soon 15) with GE engines since those are the only engines on the airplane, GE made an exclusive deal with Boeing like RR made a similar deal with Airbus for the A350.

Absolutely. They clearly have good terms and deals based on how many they have but certainly not set in stone. Half of the 777-200ERs have GE because that was the better deal at the time.

deltal1011man · Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:54 am

george77300 wrote:
One of the key reasons too for the 380 over the 748 was the lack of RR engines. BA had no option for RR on the 747 to have some more commonality with other fleets and they did with the A350/B787/A380 that they ordered instead.

but yet have BA has no problem ordering and operating GE90 only 777-300ERs? :confused:

BA didn't order the 748 because, for the most part its a turd compared to the 77W, 350 and 779. On top of all of that, the BA/AA Joint venture prefers frequency over capacity in the NYC-LHR market. If BA/AA can't figure out how to replace the F/J seats from the 744 with something else then they just drive up fares. For the most part its not like United and Delta/Virgin are going to be able to add a bunch of seats to pick up seats lost.....and honestly I'm not sure either would be overly sad to see the prices in the market go up.

seabosdca · Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:56 am

Supposedly BA was very close to a deal for the 748 but Airbus pulled out all the stops and made their A380 offer more attractive.

I doubt JFK has much to do with it—if I had to guess, I would guess the aircraft mix of the future at JFK is very premium 787-10s, for business class frequency.

787Driver · Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:09 am

They didn’t order them, because it didn’t make financial sense to do so.

You’re welcome.

Arion640 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:43 am

dampfnudel wrote:
BA174 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Why would they care, they operate more services to JFK than the three of those almost put together. JFK is a frequency driven route for BA and I don’t think it was ever a real contender for A380 service to be honest.

Maybe you’re right, but I’m sure BA would’ve deployed the 380 to JFK if they could long ago. Let’s just be honest there.

Too many Y seats in the A380. There’s over 300. Economy yields are trashed over the Atlantic right now, they would only be adding to that problem.

BA deploy the A380 to where it’s useful for them, on routes usually over about 9 hours.

workhorse · Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:12 am

They did:

B777LRF · Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:25 am

BA ran a competition between the two, with the loser certain they'd never see an order from the airline. The A380 won, based on whichever criteria BA had established. Nobody here is privy to what those criteria were, nor how either manufacturer responded to them. All we know is that BA found the A380 the better proposal, which is why the didn't - and won't ever - order the 747-8I.

Andy33 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:37 am

dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Not for the majority of the fleet it won't be the 779.
At the maximum they had 57 744s. Today they have 36, so 21 have already been replaced before the prototype 779 has even flown. Two more go this year, indirectly replaced by 789s. That leaves 34.
They have 18 A350-1000s on order, explicitly stated as 744 replacements, for delivery starting next year up to late 2021/early 2022. That leaves 16 744s.
Also between next year and late 2021/early 2022 they have 12 787-10s being delivered.
The most recent public statement on the fleet plan (November 2017) said that by the start of 2023 there would be just 12 744s left, with all of them going by February 2024. While most of the 12 surviving into 2023 will likely be flying to JFK, there's a problem with ordering 779s as the replacement. That is that given current orders Boeing can't deliver 12 779s to BA by Jan 2024.
Two provisos though: it is entirely possible that some of the airlines with 779s on order for 2023 delivery would be only too happy to cancel or defer their orders, creating vacant production slots BA might take; and it is now 10 months since the fleet plan was published, we'll only know whether this still what they intend when the next Capital Markets Day presentations are made in November this year.
Also consider that BA or its owners IAG have sufficient options for either A350s or 787s to account for 12 further planes and more besides. They even have 7 A380 options, but no options at all for 77X family planes.

StTim · Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:47 am

Andy33 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
So when BA starts retiring their 744 fleet in the next decade, the replacement for their JFK flights will probably be the 779? It must be frustrating for BA to see AF, LH, SQ and other airlines use the 380 at JFK while they can’t.

Not for the majority of the fleet it won't be the 779.
At the maximum they had 57 744s. Today they have 36, so 21 have already been replaced before the prototype 779 has even flown. Two more go this year, indirectly replaced by 789s. That leaves 34.
They have 18 A350-1000s on order, explicitly stated as 744 replacements, for delivery starting next year up to late 2021/early 2022. That leaves 16 744s.
Also between next year and late 2021/early 2022 they have 12 787-10s being delivered.
The most recent public statement on the fleet plan (November 2017) said that by the start of 2023 there would be just 12 744s left, with all of them going by February 2024. While most of the 12 surviving into 2023 will likely be flying to JFK, there's a problem with ordering 779s as the replacement. That is that given current orders Boeing can't deliver 12 779s to BA by Jan 2024.
Two provisos though: it is entirely possible that some of the airlines with 779s on order for 2023 delivery would be only too happy to cancel or defer their orders, creating vacant production slots BA might take; and it is now 10 months since the fleet plan was published, we'll only know whether this still what they intend when the next Capital Markets Day presentations are made in November this year.
Also consider that BA or its owners IAG have sufficient options for either A350s or 787s to account for 12 further planes and more besides. They even have 7 A380 options, but no options at all for 77X family planes.

But BA don't like to be a customer for early build planes as these tend to be overweight and have more technical issues.

I don't see the 779 in this picture.

trijetsonly · Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:13 am

airzim wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The A380 will beat out the 748 on just about every metric so the real question is why did LH, KE, and CA ordered the 748?

Except as a freighter.

And additionally except for the belly cargo capability. The 748 hauls much more underfloor cargo than the A380. Good for LH, KE and CA. Probably not necessary for BA.

Matt6461 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:20 am

Per Leeham's numbers, an A380 provides ~40% more capacity than 748i for ~18% higher trip cost.
So less than half of your additional seats (A380 vs. 748i) need to sell and you're still ahead of the game.

In short, the A380 is just a far, far better passenger plane than the 748i.
Given that the A380 is itself a pretty bad product, the 748i must be terrible - like double-digit total sales terrible.

A more interesting question is why did anybody buy this plane at all?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net