garf25 wrote:

What's the seat cost for an A380 on a short haul 2 hour return (2x2 hour) versus the a320. Based on max seating configuration and flight crew doing the return sector rather than getting off and hotac.

If travel companies such as TUI or Thomas Cook could fill these machines, which would make more money?

Not interested in business models etc, I know those companies wouldn't order. Just which is cheaper.

Widebodies have poor economics on such short missions due to long turn times. The 797 works to fix that. QF has noted two 789 are cheaper than one A388, I do not know the mission length.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

Why would it be a good thing? Sometimes I wonder if people here are even aviation enthusiasts...

speedbird52 wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

Why would it be a good thing? Sometimes I wonder if people here are even aviation enthusiasts...

Because it opens space at the top end of the size and range market for something that truly moves aviation forwards, lowers cost of access and improves the connectivity of the world? Having the A380 artificially squat on the top end of the market subsidized by profitable programs constrains what others could do in that space.

lightsaber wrote:

garf25 wrote:

What's the seat cost for an A380 on a short haul 2 hour return (2x2 hour) versus the a320. Based on max seating configuration and flight crew doing the return sector rather than getting off and hotac.

If travel companies such as TUI or Thomas Cook could fill these machines, which would make more money?

Not interested in business models etc, I know those companies wouldn't order. Just which is cheaper.

Widebodies have poor economics on such short missions due to long turn times. The 797 works to fix that. QF has noted two 789 are cheaper than one A388, I do not know the mission length.

How does the MoM fix that? A widebody does not need a longer because it is a widebody, it needs a longer time because usually you have more things to prepare. More food to remove and restock, cushions, blankets, newspapers and so on, all things that a single aisle does usually not need. In addition you typically need a bit more cleaning after an 8 hour flight than after an 80 minute flight. And if you use 3 jet bridges it would be between 200 to 250 pax per jet bridge and door, quite close to the 797.

Surely the A380 is way too heavy for such short missions to make money, but that is not due to long turn around times.

speedbird52 wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

Why would it be a good thing? Sometimes I wonder if people here are even aviation enthusiasts...

As an aviation enthusiast, the only reason it could be a “good thing” would be in allowing Airbus to focus on the next thing instead.
I thought the EK order was great, but it seems to be turning to poop fairly rapidly.

American 767 wrote:

Without Emirates, the A380 would have been a failure. Airbus would have pulled the plug a long time ago already.

I assume you mean in recent times. If Emirates did not exist I suspect that many other airlines flying Europe to Asia and beyond would have ordered many more than they did. As many as Emirates ? Who can tell !

bigjku wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

Why would it be a good thing? Sometimes I wonder if people here are even aviation enthusiasts...

Because it opens space at the top end of the size and range market for something that truly moves aviation forwards, lowers cost of access and improves the connectivity of the world? Having the A380 artificially squat on the top end of the market subsidized by profitable programs constrains what others could do in that space.

I have seen the Superjumbo accused of many things but this is a new one. Poor Boeing that gets forbidden by the A380 to do anything! Poor Chinese! You can bet that anything that(if) comes after the Superjumbo will be massive downgrade and a step back and not forward in what matters the most heck all that really matters for travelling public - comfort. You forgot to blame the A380 for not preventing famine too btw.

Strato2 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Why would it be a good thing? Sometimes I wonder if people here are even aviation enthusiasts...

Because it opens space at the top end of the size and range market for something that truly moves aviation forwards, lowers cost of access and improves the connectivity of the world? Having the A380 artificially squat on the top end of the market subsidized by profitable programs constrains what others could do in that space.

I have seen the Superjumbo accused of many things but this is a new one. Poor Boeing that gets forbidden by the A380 to do anything! Poor Chinese! You can bet that anything that(if) comes after the Superjumbo will be massive downgrade and a step back and not forward in what matters the most heck all that really matters for travelling public - comfort. You forgot to blame the A380 for not preventing famine too btw.

One I don’t really care if Boeing competes in that space or not but I am for innovation rather than stagnation. The market has largely rejected the airplane and maybe something else can provide a true step change in the cost of long distance international travel.

And the vast majority passengers don’t put comfort first. They put cost first. Ever shred of real world evidence backs that statement up.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Pride aside - pride being the only thing keeping this whale afloat - how long can Airbus financially sustain such a loss leader?

How long, you ask? As long as 512.6 million EU citizens say so.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Pride aside - pride being the only thing keeping this whale afloat - how long can Airbus financially sustain such a loss leader?

The losses are "marginal" in Airbus's own words.
Secondly, air travel is supposed to double in the 2030s (there are many resources that support those claims).
Many airports either don't have the capital of room expand. The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.
The A380s time is still coming. But will need an update by that time.

musman9853 wrote:

i think this is the end for the a380. my hunch is the new management is gonna announce that they're gonna close the line after the 30 firm ek orders. i dont think ek's order last year will ever actually happen.

I certainly wouldn't be betting money on that. EK has made no indication they would cancel. They already said RR will be powering those frames.

Slug71 wrote:

The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking whilst passenger totals are rising due to that another option: bypass the airports that can't accept more flights.

The main tenet of A380 theology, the world has no other choice but use the biggest planes possible, is IMHO false.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

what's wrong with so many.Yea I get it looks gloomy but why are so many cheering for the demise. I has a passenger LOVE the plane. Has a fan of aviation I love the 747-8 and would like to see it and the A380 around for has long has they can. NOT SURE WHY its a good thing and thankfully?

Heck even clapped out birds AA767's or Maddogs I find sad to see go.

Did Emirates ever sort out engines on the new order? I don't think they did....

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking[...]

Really?

So, the 737 more than doubling in passenger capacity from the original 737-100 to the latest 737MAX10 is shrinking?
The A318/736 being dead, the A319/73G/737M7 having lousy sales, the A321/739 having great sale, the 737MAX growing in size from the 737NG; all that's shrinking?
The 777X increase capacity from the current 777, that's shrinking too?

Oh, and all those CRJ200/ERJ135/145 being parked, that's shrinking average aircraft size too?

trav777 wrote:

going slowly-

CASM is a metric that is functionally irrelevant

it's cost across seats. If seats do not have butts, then this number is immaterial to the actual profitability of a frame. For brevity I didn't say this last time, mea culpa.

Trip revenue versus trip costs are what matter. Want a lower CASM, just add more seats presto you have a better plane. This was the A380 theory and has been repeated ad nauseum here. If you cannot sell the seats what difference does it make.

Us carriers switched to narrowbodies because of profitability in terms of selling seats, as they could have beaten the CASM with a high density widebody but they could not sell the seats.

Additionally, I looked at Oliver Wyman's fleet and frame analysis of US carriers (you can find it on the net) where they broke down CASM for NBs for pretty much every US carrier and compared it to AirwaysMag analysis of CASM for various WBs- it's not lower. Many of the NB CASMs are significantly higher even than for a 77W

Two thoughts....
One...many carriers that switched to NB from WB did so because of greater flexibility. NBs can be used on more routes than WBs. Yes, that can mean WBs could be filled, but it also means more NBs can be filled more consistently and on more routes. Kind of a half full vs. half empty viewpoint.

Two...why so stuck on the idea of CASM being irrelevant? If that were the case, then airlines wouldn't talk about it so much. Regardless of how many butts are in the seats, it's still an important metric. Yes, trip cost vs. trip revenue tells you whether the flight is profitable. But CASM can help show why the profitability of that trip changed, along with a bunch of other metrics that show other factors. And the 380 theory wasn't just CASM...it was Airbus thinking that intercontinental routes would consolidate for various reasons vs. continued fragmentation that has occurred instead.

Back to EK. Several comments about whether the 380 would have lasted if EK didn't exist, would others have filled that demand? But...would EK exist as it does without the 380? Could they have twice as many 777s?

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking[...]

Really?

So, the 737 more than doubling in passenger capacity from the original 737-100 to the latest 737MAX10 is shrinking?
The A318/736 being dead, the A319/73G/737M7 having lousy sales, the A321/739 having great sale, the 737MAX growing in size from the 737NG; all that's shrinking?
The 777X increase capacity from the current 777, that's shrinking too?

Oh, and all those CRJ200/ERJ135/145 being parked, that's shrinking average aircraft size too?

Yep, in the international roles we're talking about in this thread we see:
A380 struggling to hit 300 deliveries plus 747-8i struggling to hit 50, previous generation 747-400 sold ~700 or twice as many
A380 being underutilized (Thai, MH) and/or going on to 2nd hand market or scrapping after only 12 years in service (AF, EK)
747-400s replaced by A350, 787-10/9, A330
777W being replaced by A350/787
737MAX/A321NEO flying TATL routes

The main point being:

Revelation wrote:

The main tenet of A380 theology, the world has no other choice but use the biggest planes possible, is IMHO false.

Revelation wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking[...]

Really?

So, the 737 more than doubling in passenger capacity from the original 737-100 to the latest 737MAX10 is shrinking?
The A318/736 being dead, the A319/73G/737M7 having lousy sales, the A321/739 having great sale, the 737MAX growing in size from the 737NG; all that's shrinking?
The 777X increase capacity from the current 777, that's shrinking too?

Oh, and all those CRJ200/ERJ135/145 being parked, that's shrinking average aircraft size too?

Yep, in the international roles we're talking about in this thread we see:
A380 struggling to hit 300 deliveries plus 747-8i struggling to hit 50, previous generation 747-400 sold ~700 or twice as many
A380 being underutilized (Thai, MH) and/or going on to 2nd hand market or scrapping after only 12 years in service (AF, EK)
747-400s replaced by A350, 787-10/9, A330
777W being replaced by A350/787
737MAX/A321NEO flying TATL routes

And you "conveniently" forget that:
a lot of the TATL routes now flown with 737MAX/A321NEO were previously flown with 757's, those were only marginal compared to the WB routes;
the 767 was replaced mainly by 787/A330/A350;
there aren't that many 777W routes that are replaced by 787/A350;
the new iteration of the 777 is bigger than the existing 777;
the 747-400 is being replaced by the A350-1000 and 777's, with only a slight reduction of capacity (which corresponds mainly to the unused capacity previously offered by the 747-400).

Revelation wrote:

The main point being:

Revelation wrote:

The main tenet of A380 theology, the world has no other choice but use the biggest planes possible, is IMHO false.

That's your opinion, not facts; I do not share your opinion, that's my right.

I guess once EK firms up their 20 A380 this year, they will take Amedeo (3) and Air Accord order (20).

grbauc wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

The writing's on the wall for that beast. And it's a good thing.

Boeing 747 is next, thankfully - whether you like it, or not.

what's wrong with so many.Yea I get it looks gloomy but why are so many cheering for the demise. I has a passenger LOVE the plane. Has a fan of aviation I love the 747-8 and would like to see it and the A380 around for has long has they can. NOT SURE WHY its a good thing and thankfully?

Heck even clapped out birds AA767's or Maddogs I find sad to see go.

Its constant on this forum. 4 engines = bad, A380 = very bad.
Yet this is supposed to be an aviation enthusiast place.

Same with the constant A vs B battles.

danj555 wrote:

Did Emirates ever sort out engines on the new order? I don't think they did....

Yes. They chose RR.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Really?

So, the 737 more than doubling in passenger capacity from the original 737-100 to the latest 737MAX10 is shrinking?
The A318/736 being dead, the A319/73G/737M7 having lousy sales, the A321/739 having great sale, the 737MAX growing in size from the 737NG; all that's shrinking?
The 777X increase capacity from the current 777, that's shrinking too?

Oh, and all those CRJ200/ERJ135/145 being parked, that's shrinking average aircraft size too?

Yep, in the international roles we're talking about in this thread we see:
A380 struggling to hit 300 deliveries plus 747-8i struggling to hit 50, previous generation 747-400 sold ~700 or twice as many
A380 being underutilized (Thai, MH) and/or going on to 2nd hand market or scrapping after only 12 years in service (AF, EK)
747-400s replaced by A350, 787-10/9, A330
777W being replaced by A350/787
737MAX/A321NEO flying TATL routes

And you "conveniently" forget that:
a lot of the TATL routes now flown with 737MAX/A321NEO were previously flown with 757's, those were only marginal compared to the WB routes;
the 767 was replaced mainly by 787/A330/A350;
there aren't that many 777W routes that are replaced by 787/A350;
the new iteration of the 777 is bigger than the existing 777;
the 747-400 is being replaced by the A350-1000 and 777's, with only a slight reduction of capacity (which corresponds mainly to the unused capacity previously offered by the 747-400).

Revelation wrote:

The main point being:

Revelation wrote:

The main tenet of A380 theology, the world has no other choice but use the biggest planes possible, is IMHO false.

That's your opinion, not facts; I do not share your opinion, that's my right.

I'll add that even with the A330, 787, 777, the larger variants are also favoured. Except where the range is needed.
The only aircraft we're not seeing that with right now, is the A350. But I think we'll eventually see a shift to the A35K too.

So I cant agree that aircraft size has been shrinking either. I think it's more to do with the NB market growing. There has been a shift toward frequency, but they will hit their limits at some point too.

Small planes get bigger. Biggest planes get fewer. A continuing and ongoing trend.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Small planes get bigger. Biggest planes get fewer. A continuing and ongoing trend.

And then the biggest planes will be the smaller planes that got bigger. Chicken and egg.

The 787 and A350 have very healthy backlogs. A lot of A330s and 777s are not yet at their replacement cycles. And right now there is no real rush with the recent T1000 issues and A350 production still in ramp-up (The ULR and A35K were only just certified last year).

The A380 would most likely ended up with 290 deliveries. That is a reasonable number considering the 747-400 passenger models sold 467 in total (744, 744D, 744ER) during a period when no direct competition (both capacity and range) existed. Nowadays with air travel growing but also alternatives including 77W, B748I, A35K, and 779, the market demand for A380 has reached its limit.

RalXWB wrote:

Is this the first "Airbus and the A380" are doomed thread of 2019 or did I miss the first one?

It's the first one, you're right!

ElroyJetson wrote:

Every time I hear Amedeo and the 20 A380 order that has been on the books for years I laugh.
:
Amedeo......really?

When I hear Amedeo, I think of Falco.

N14AZ wrote:

I also thought that would be a possible scenario but it seems that it will not happen since they just started to refurb all twelve A380s:

A refurb could not come soon enough. I had a couple A380 flights recently, SYD-LAX and DFW-SYD. I was in premium economy on both flights and the difference in the cabin was drastic. On the SYD-LAX flight, I was on OQH and it was nice. My return flight was on OQC and it seemed a bit tired and even different seats than on OQH. The armrest IFE can really be replaced too.

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking[...]

Really?

Yes - when measured by seats/planes delivered.

However, this is not because planes are getting smaller, it's because the proportion of single-aisle to twin-aisle deliveries has slewed massively towards the single-aisles. Look at last year - Airbus and Boeing delivered 1,224 single-aisles between them! That's an astonishing number - nearly three and a half every single day of the year. In the same year they delivered 328 passenger twin-aisles. That's nearly a 4:1 ratio.

Go back ten years and do the same comparison and the ratio will be much closer. So yes, the "average aircraft size is shrinking", but not because planes are getting smaller. As the proportion of larger single-aisle (A321, 737-9/10) and twin-aisle (A35K, 787J and 777X) deliveries increases over the next few years, the rate of shrink will slow, level off and "average size" may start increasing again.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

scbriml wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking[...]

Really?

Yes - when measured by seats/planes delivered.

That statement needs to be qualified, it's true for the widebody market. On the narrobody side, the average size has been going up as evidenced by the much larger share of A321s compared to a few years ago.

aviationaware wrote:

That statement needs to be qualified, it's true for the widebody market. On the narrobody side, the average size has been going up as evidenced by the much larger share of A321s compared to a few years ago.

My reply covered that.

It would be interesting to see if Airbus can do to the A380 what it did to the A340.
4 hair dryers replaced by 2 real engines, and then again by 2 newer engines. The A340 lives on in the A330neo.

An A380 configured as twin with large nextgen engines that dwarf the GE9X and just slightly less range, burning 25% less fuel.
Everybody will be standing in line to buy some.

I feel that DL will make a move on used frames, for VS and/or JFK-LHR.
They are all out for blood, you should look at the fares that they're proposing recently on JFK-LHR...

I have never been an A380 backer....the program was a huge mistake imo.

But it will be sad to see it go. It never even made it to the more balanced sretch model.

Waterbomber wrote:

It would be interesting to see if Airbus can do to the A380 what it did to the A340.
4 hair dryers replaced by 2 real engines, and then again by 2 newer engines. The A340 lives on in the A330neo.

An A380 configured as twin with large nextgen engines that dwarf the GE9X and just slightly less range, burning 25% less fuel.
Everybody will be standing in line to buy some.

I feel that DL will make a move on used frames, for VS and/or JFK-LHR.
They are all out for blood, you should look at the fares that they're proposing recently on JFK-LHR...

Absolutely not. The a330 neo is a derivative of the a330. The a330 and a340 were developed together.. Airbus did not remove two engines from an a340 to make a 330.

Making a quad into a twin isn't trivial and the odds that Airbus embarks on it are basically zero. And the same number of people will be lining up as now.. also zero.

I'm sorry but Airbus, as a stock company, cannot justify a product on pride alone. The opportunity cost especially is immense. What the EU citizens think is irrelevant.

Waterbomber wrote:

It would be interesting to see if Airbus can do to the A380 what it did to the A340.
4 hair dryers replaced by 2 real engines, and then again by 2 newer engines. The A340 lives on in the A330neo.

An A380 configured as twin with large nextgen engines that dwarf the GE9X and just slightly less range, burning 25% less fuel.
Everybody will be standing in line to buy some.

No they will not.

Skipping over the technical arguments, the airline industry can find a VLA's worth of passengers that want to go to the same place at the same time but they can't do it on enough routes with enough profit on enough days of the week to enable A380 to thrive.

The fundamental issue isn't the efficiency of the A380 per se (but it of course could use improvement) but it is the structure of demand in the market.

For instance EK said it had no interest in the Plus interior optimizations on their A380s whereas pretty much every other airline is finding they can make more money by cramming in more seats into their aircraft. That tells you that EK's main issue is the number of passengers willing to pay market value for such seats.

If you try to improve the efficiency of the A380 you have to find a way to pay for such improvements. The A380 has removed many of the unknowns about the VLA market. We now know that outfits like MH and TG definitely should not have ordered A380s, AF, QF and LH should not have ordered as many as they did because they didn't take all of their orders etc. The market base for A380 is proven and it is far smaller than the early rosy predictions. The original infrastructure was sized for 48/year, here we are heading towards 6/year. The market base to justify a major spend to improve the A380 just isn't there.

And the technical side makes your idea a non-starter. There is no engine that can provide enough thrust to a two-engined A380, and unlike A330/A340 the design does not allow for a two-engined A380. It'd in essence need to be a clean sheet and there's no market for that right now.

Waterbomber wrote:

I feel that DL will make a move on used frames, for VS and/or JFK-LHR.
They are all out for blood, you should look at the fares that they're proposing recently on JFK-LHR...

Nonsense. The blood DL would be spilling would be their own. Provide some evidence, or just stop with such stuff.

Articuno wrote:

The A380 would most likely ended up with 290 deliveries. That is a reasonable number considering the 747-400 passenger models sold 467 in total (744, 744D, 744ER) during a period when no direct competition (both capacity and range) existed. Nowadays with air travel growing but also alternatives including 77W, B748I, A35K, and 779, the market demand for A380 has reached its limit.

And yet the program will still be a failure considering it lost Airbus money.

trav777 wrote:

lol a NEO...are we STILL talking about dumping billions into a program that ALREADY cost billions and failed?

The A380 NEO is probably doomed, but this isn't a proper way to evaluate the economics of a project. You are falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy. The billions that Airbus has already spent on the A380 are irrelevant to evaluating an A380 NEO. The only thing that matters when evaluating an A380 NEO is whether the incremental investment yields a positive net present value.

DfwRevolution wrote:

The only thing that matters when evaluating an A380 NEO is whether the incremental investment yields a positive net present value.

Yep, and such an evaluation will have the "benefit" of the data generated by the A380 throughout its life cycle. A lot of rosy predictions of the 90s about VLAs will run right in to the real world experience of building and marketing a real VLA.

Dhierin Bechai at Seeking Alpha just had an article recapping A380:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/423249 ... r-customer

Main points:

Airbus delivered 12 frames last year, will deliver 8 this year, and will go to 6 next year.

His backlog analysis shows 87, of which 31 are likely to be no-shows, leaving 56 to be built (almost all for EK).

Based on those numbers, the production line runs dry in 2027.

From what I could tell of the article, EK has 53 orders and he mentioned 16 options that didn't appear to be part of that tally. His opinion seems to be that the delays in moving to Al Maktoum will drive EK to accept those frames and maybe even convert some of those options.

* Disclaimer: I don't have opinions either way. I'm just passing on this article. Please don't shoot me.

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The only option here is to move to larger aircraft.

Yet industry wide average aircraft size has been shrinking whilst passenger totals are rising due to that another option: bypass the airports that can't accept more flights.

The main tenet of A380 theology, the world has no other choice but use the biggest planes possible, is IMHO false.

Theology is an interesting word here: Not subject to proof by objective fact or reason. We keep being told that A380s are the best thing since French bread and yet they keep failing market tests.

If EK takes only the 6 per year to 2027 - and assuming they retire existing frames at Year 12 - how many are hitting 12 years old between now and then - when does the EK 380 fleet start shrinking?

If they don't firm the extra 20 what does it look like?

DfwRevolution wrote:

trav777 wrote:

lol a NEO...are we STILL talking about dumping billions into a program that ALREADY cost billions and failed?

The A380 NEO is probably doomed, but this isn't a proper way to evaluate the economics of a project. You are falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy. The billions that Airbus has already spent on the A380 are irrelevant to evaluating an A380 NEO. The only thing that matters when evaluating an A380 NEO is whether the incremental investment yields a positive net present value.

Wrong.

Sunk cost fallacy is those who continue to spend on a project because they've already gone in so deep they don't want to see their sunk costs go to naught. Abandoning a FAILED project because it is a failure regardless of how much you've dumped into it is the opposite of sunk cost fallacy. It's called being rational.

Anybody rational should see the a 380Neo would be the equivalent of New New Coke. A horrible business decision followed by an even worse one.

there was no demand for this aircraft when it had "competitive CASM," which I've said repeatedly is an irrelevant comparison metric (should be replaced by CASM/LF or something that shows a realistic seat cost vs expected load). Making a new one with again competitive CASM would similarly fail. The 779 is easier to fill at 400ish seats and it has not sold at all. The original 380 has not sold at all. It's been a monumental sales disaster. In an unsubsidized world this business move by AB was so bad it should have sunk the company.

Even the 35K has *not* sold at all. No new orders in forever. The 359 has had anemic sales since deliveries began. Sinking additional billions in to this program would probably finish AB as a viable competitor in the WB space. I'm serious- it will sink the company. This is a company that through bad strategic decisions and gross misreading of the market has put itself in a position where it has ONE model that can sell at all- the 359. And this model operates at a significant fuel burn disadvantage at every stage length up to 5000+nm vs its nearest competitor, the 78J. It now occupies a small niche in the sales continuum, which is reflected by frankly dismal sales since deliveries began.

trav777 wrote:

there was no demand for this aircraft when it had "competitive CASM," which I've said repeatedly is an irrelevant comparison metric (should be replaced by CASM/LF or something that shows a realistic seat cost vs expected load).

If we want to suggest valid metrics, I'd say CASM vs. expected RASM is the one to go with.

I can fill a 1000-seat A380-900 by selling tickets for $1, and have a 100% load factor. Or I could hypothetically sell a 10-seat A380 at $200,000 per ticket, only sell one, have a 10% load factor, and make a ton more money.

That's where the whole discussion of CASM needs better nuance. Carriers with higher CASM do fine if the RASM supports it. If the only way to lower CASM is by increasing seat count, then often RASM will go down with it (need to discount more seats and/or have them go empty). It's really the net change between CASM and RASM that matters, not the individual numbers themselves.

hOMSaR wrote:

trav777 wrote:

there was no demand for this aircraft when it had "competitive CASM," which I've said repeatedly is an irrelevant comparison metric (should be replaced by CASM/LF or something that shows a realistic seat cost vs expected load).

If we want to suggest valid metrics, I'd say CASM vs. expected RASM is the one to go with.

I can fill a 1000-seat A380-900 by selling tickets for $1, and have a 100% load factor. Or I could hypothetically sell a 10-seat A380 at $200,000 per ticket, only sell one, have a 10% load factor, and make a ton more money.

That's where the whole discussion of CASM needs better nuance. Carriers with higher CASM do fine if the RASM supports it. If the only way to lower CASM is by increasing seat count, then often RASM will go down with it (need to discount more seats and/or have them go empty). It's really the net change between CASM and RASM that matters, not the individual numbers themselves.

agree wholeheartedly. Trip cost vs trip revenue...projections of course. But not dividing fuel and fees by seats.

NBs in use today in NA have higher CASM than some widebodies according to analysis I read from professional consultants. But a 77W in domestic use would be exceedingly rare simply because it's riskier to fill. Full planes generate profits and no CEO gets fired (NEVER underestimate THIS point) by having profits. No executive doesn't get a bonus (again pay attention to this) by having profits. The stock goes up with profits. No business goes bankrupt if it has profits. The *self*-interest of the humans running the corporation is significant.

After the banks took over the airlines (see the credit card alliances with the US majors, that's bc those issuing banks underwrote a lot of the bk loans) this particular style of risk avoidance i think became predominant. Anyone who's flown throughout the past 30 years has seen the trend to smaller, fuller planes. The 380 went directly into that stiff wind and failed.

juliuswong wrote:

I guess once EK firms up their 20 A380 this year, they will take Amedeo (3) and Air Accord order (20).

Sorry I mean once EK order is firmed up, they would remove Air Accord and Amedeo order perhaps.

hOMSaR wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Perhaps QF could do what SQ has done and roll over the early-build 380's for new ones, after all, they should have performance improvements built into them after all these years. OQA especially is known to be a heavier frame after it's major repair work done.

I also thought that would be a possible scenario but it seems that it will not happen since they just started to refurb all twelve A380s:

Does QF own or lease their A380s?

SQ's planes were on 12-year leases, so it was relatively simple for them to replace old with new. If QF owns the planes, or has a lease with less favorable terms for replacing old with new, it wouldn't make sense.

It takes a lot of efficiency improvements to pay for a $150-200 million (even after discounts) new airplane.

Ah... I am not so sure maintanece has to be cheaper for the two 787. It's 4 engines, it's more structure and associated cost, but just one fuselage, one set of cockpit Windows, one flight control system, one nose gear, one apu....

I guess the 787s advantage is the ability to reduce from 2 to 1 daily flight in low season and it's usefulness on shorter flights.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

I also thought that would be a possible scenario but it seems that it will not happen since they just started to refurb all twelve A380s:

Does QF own or lease their A380s?

SQ's planes were on 12-year leases, so it was relatively simple for them to replace old with new. If QF owns the planes, or has a lease with less favorable terms for replacing old with new, it wouldn't make sense.

It takes a lot of efficiency improvements to pay for a $150-200 million (even after discounts) new airplane.

Ah... I am not so sure maintanece has to be cheaper for the two 787. It's 4 engines, it's more structure and associated cost, but just one fuselage, one set of cockpit Windows, one flight control system, one nose gear, one apu....

I guess the 787s advantage is the ability to reduce from 2 to 1 daily flight in low season and it's usefulness on shorter flights.

Best regards
Thomas

That and the fact you can send two planes to two different destinations at the same time.

juliuswong wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

I guess once EK firms up their 20 A380 this year, they will take Amedeo (3) and Air Accord order (20).

Sorry I mean once EK order is firmed up, they would remove Air Accord and Amedeo order perhaps.

The EK order was booked on 2/11/18

cledaybuck wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Does QF own or lease their A380s?

SQ's planes were on 12-year leases, so it was relatively simple for them to replace old with new. If QF owns the planes, or has a lease with less favorable terms for replacing old with new, it wouldn't make sense.

It takes a lot of efficiency improvements to pay for a $150-200 million (even after discounts) new airplane.

Ah... I am not so sure maintanece has to be cheaper for the two 787. It's 4 engines, it's more structure and associated cost, but just one fuselage, one set of cockpit Windows, one flight control system, one nose gear, one apu....

I guess the 787s advantage is the ability to reduce from 2 to 1 daily flight in low season and it's usefulness on shorter flights.

Best regards
Thomas

That and the fact you can send two planes to two different destinations at the same time.

Yup, that too. Makes sense to have only enough A380 for those destination where demand is stable, especially above the cheaper Y -fares, and one prefered small time window for arrival and departurs exists and commands a premium, just like slots at that time. For most even large airlines that would appear to be zero and for some a few.

Best regards
Thomas

SC430 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

I guess once EK firms up their 20 A380 this year, they will take Amedeo (3) and Air Accord order (20).

Sorry I mean once EK order is firmed up, they would remove Air Accord and Amedeo order perhaps.

The EK order was booked on 2/11/18

The airframe order was booked.

The engine order has not been booked.

The airframe order is contingent on the engine order.

See the A380 engines thread for more details.

DFW17L wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Pride aside - pride being the only thing keeping this whale afloat - how long can Airbus financially sustain such a loss leader?

How long, you ask? As long as 512.6 million EU citizens say so.

Can you explain that statement to one of those 512.5M? As I (or my government for that matter) am not sure how I can affect such.
Thanks.

Revelation wrote:

SC430 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Sorry I mean once EK order is firmed up, they would remove Air Accord and Amedeo order perhaps.

The EK order was booked on 2/11/18

The airframe order was booked.

The engine order has not been booked.

The airframe order is contingent on the engine order.

See the A380 engines thread for more details.

The air frame order is also subject to obtaining funding on terms satisfactory to EK, and a few others terms and conditions.

The A380 engine order is part of a much larger engine transaction, also involving GE. The critical path is the GE order for the 777X, not the 787 or A380 top up prospective orders.

Revelation wrote:

SC430 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Sorry I mean once EK order is firmed up, they would remove Air Accord and Amedeo order perhaps.

The EK order was booked on 2/11/18

The airframe order was booked.

The engine order has not been booked.

The airframe order is contingent on the engine order.

See the A380 engines thread for more details.

They did say they would be RR powered though.