scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, well, it was only a year ago when we were being told that EK's order for 20+18 secured production for A380 through 2025 and beyond, then we'd have an A380neo with UltraFan that would become the aircraft of choice to move people on crowded Chinese airways.

Not one word of which was uttered by Airbus themselves. If you're taking a.netter's word as gospel, I have a bridge you may be interested in.

Swadian wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

Swadian wrote:

The MOM doesn't appear attractive to AA, who just ordered a load more 788. All accounts suggest AA makes a killing off their A321T, and a lot more than the inefficient 762 did.

788 was ordered for significantly different missions as it is a 763 replacement and has been from the start. Everyone makes a killing on NY->California (except Virgin), that wasn't what was being discussed so not sure why you brought it up. If you think AA is not looking at something that has more fuel efficiency than the A321T and offers greater passenger capacity, then I don't know what to tell you.

The A321T has tremendous fuel efficiency and optimized capacity. There is utterly no evidence to suggest AA is "looking at something that has more fuel efficiency than the A321T and offers greater passenger capacity".

Richard28 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

102 seats into slot limited JFK? Between SFO and LAX there are 19 nonstops from JFK. 1938 passengers total one way. total f = 160. total j = 380

UA EWR SFO 11 nonstops 2 78J 44j 40pp 253y 2 772 intl 8f 40j 218y 7 752 28j 108y 2158
UA EWR LAX 10 nonstops 1 78J 44j 40pp 253y 1 772 domestic 28j 354y 8 752 28j 108y 1671
SFO + LAX = 3829 total f = 16 total j = 620

AA leaves a lot of money on the table using 102 seat planes. The only real advantage is 160 first class seats. UA has almost twice as much J with only 2 more flights.

or perhaps AA are flying with higher load factors, meeting actual demand more efficiently, making more profit, leaving out lower yielding Y class fares, and hoovering up lots of yield at the pointy end with a great product on a brand new plane?

madpropsyo wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Has it sold as well as the 787 or A350 thus far? No.

At least the A339 has sold better than the 787-10. Despite being launched later.

The A339 competes with the 787-9, not the 787-10.

scbriml wrote:

The same way most, if not all EK's current fleet is financed? Seriously, if EK can get financing for hundreds of A380s, they'll have no issue getting finance for A339s. The very fact that EK is now on board the A330neo will immediately make it more attractive to lessors.

Or, here's an off-the-wall thought - the A339 actually does a job that EK needs planes for and the 787-10 wasn't sufficiently better to make a difference? Nah, couldn't be that, could it?

Revelation wrote:

Airbus is not highly motivated to shift A350s since it has no slots to offer till much later and a huge backlog to fill, while Airbus is highly motivated to shift A330neos since lessors are not placing them as planned even with a year delay in the schedule and are asking to defer deliveries. Therefore EK could not have simply asked for A350s unless it was willing to spend more and wait longer.

scbriml wrote:

[

Or, here's an off-the-wall thought - the A339 actually does a job that EK needs planes for and the 787-10 wasn't sufficiently better to make a difference? Nah, couldn't be that, could it?
.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, well, it was only a year ago when we were being told that EK's order for 20+18 secured production for A380 through 2025 and beyond, then we'd have an A380neo with UltraFan that would become the aircraft of choice to move people on crowded Chinese airways.

Not one word of which was uttered by Airbus themselves.

ewt340 wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

seabosdca wrote:

I will be very curious to see how the 339s are financed. I can't imagine that EK wants to hold on to them for the long term, but resale value is likely to be a challenge (which affects either conventional or lease financing).

I'm quite surprised that the 339 was included in the order and can only imagine that near-term capacity needs in the absence of either planned A380 deliveries or available A350 slots drove it.

AirCal737 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

Yes current 747s are not muchblarger than 777s but remember the 747 is still a way larger airframe in terms of weight(26% heavier)
And 747s are not maxed out. Boeing proposed 1000-seat versions in the 70s.
But what if the 747 line lives for another ten years when EK needs larger VLAs？
Will a 747-9 with new engines, 80m fusalage and a longer upper deck be feasible?
If air traffic really doubles in the thirties then current P2P routes will have enough demand to fill VLAs. (2xB787)

777PHX wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

For the masses the "Jumbo Jet" was always about transporting people not some cheap Chinese electronics flying from some obscure freight hub to another. The A380 indeed ended the plane that captured the imagination of people before - the 747 passenger with the last version utterly failing (47 orders for three airlines).

The market itself ended both aircraft. No one wants VLAs with a glut of good, efficient twins around.

klkla wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, well, it was only a year ago when we were being told that EK's order for 20+18 secured production for A380 through 2025 and beyond, then we'd have an A380neo with UltraFan that would become the aircraft of choice to move people on crowded Chinese airways.

Not one word of which was uttered by Airbus themselves.

"I would like to thank Emirates, Sheikh Ahmed, Tim Clark and Adel Al-Redha for their continued support of the A380,” said John Leahy, Chief Operating Officer Customers, Airbus Commercial Aircraft. “This aircraft has contributed enormously to Emirates' growth and success since 2008 and we are delighted that it will continue to do so. This new order underscores Airbus’ commitment to produce the A380 at least for another ten years. I’m personally convinced more orders will follow Emirates’ example and that this great aircraft will be built well into the 2030s.”

https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... 6-billion#

neutronstar73 wrote:

Whoops. Looks like someone stepped in it (not you klkla)....and multiple posters are pointing it out.

YellowJ wrote:

Swadian wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

788 was ordered for significantly different missions as it is a 763 replacement and has been from the start. Everyone makes a killing on NY->California (except Virgin), that wasn't what was being discussed so not sure why you brought it up. If you think AA is not looking at something that has more fuel efficiency than the A321T and offers greater passenger capacity, then I don't know what to tell you.

The A321T has tremendous fuel efficiency and optimized capacity. There is utterly no evidence to suggest AA is "looking at something that has more fuel efficiency than the A321T and offers greater passenger capacity".

The A321T has tremendous fuel efficiency over what it replaced, not upcoming aircraft. Also on what planet is 102 seats "optimized capacity" for the o&d of NY/California? If you think AA is not evaluating MOM (especially considering they will have nothing between the A321 and the 787), your in denial my friend; public statements or not from Doug.

ewt340 wrote:

AirCal737 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

Yes current 747s are not muchblarger than 777s but remember the 747 is still a way larger airframe in terms of weight(26% heavier)
And 747s are not maxed out. Boeing proposed 1000-seat versions in the 70s.
But what if the 747 line lives for another ten years when EK needs larger VLAs？
Will a 747-9 with new engines, 80m fusalage and a longer upper deck be feasible?
If air traffic really doubles in the thirties then current P2P routes will have enough demand to fill VLAs. (2xB787)

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Swadian wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

AirCal737 wrote:

Yes current 747s are not muchblarger than 777s but remember the 747 is still a way larger airframe in terms of weight(26% heavier)
And 747s are not maxed out. Boeing proposed 1000-seat versions in the 70s.
But what if the 747 line lives for another ten years when EK needs larger VLAs？
Will a 747-9 with new engines, 80m fusalage and a longer upper deck be feasible?
If air traffic really doubles in the thirties then current P2P routes will have enough demand to fill VLAs. (2xB787)

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

ewt340 wrote:

Swadian wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

It's basically like B767F right? They are still being built, but nobody ordered the Passengers version. Now, even though B777-9 is slightly smaller than B747-8i. BA could actually carry the same amount of people in B777-9 with B747-400 configs. So, B747-8i would be redundant. Especially since they know they could buy or lease second hand A380 for cheap on the market since nobody is buying it anymore. It's not like they don't like operating old aircraft.

Besides, No airlines today wants 4 engines aircraft, even EK converted their A380 orders.

lightsaber wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Swadian wrote:

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

It's basically like B767F right? They are still being built, but nobody ordered the Passengers version. Now, even though B777-9 is slightly smaller than B747-8i. BA could actually carry the same amount of people in B777-9 with B747-400 configs. So, B747-8i would be redundant. Especially since they know they could buy or lease second hand A380 for cheap on the market since nobody is buying it anymore. It's not like they don't like operating old aircraft.

Besides, No airlines today wants 4 engines aircraft, even EK converted their A380 orders.

An airline would now be able to receive 779 before 748I if they ordered tomorrow.

We can be a fan of the A35K or 779. Either will carry a passenger for less than the A388. New hubs will enable fragmentation. Even Tokyo is adding flights. Maybe I'm blase as DEN is a convenient hub. We need double deckers if that airport maxes out!

Lightsaber

ewt340 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

It's basically like B767F right? They are still being built, but nobody ordered the Passengers version. Now, even though B777-9 is slightly smaller than B747-8i. BA could actually carry the same amount of people in B777-9 with B747-400 configs. So, B747-8i would be redundant. Especially since they know they could buy or lease second hand A380 for cheap on the market since nobody is buying it anymore. It's not like they don't like operating old aircraft.

Besides, No airlines today wants 4 engines aircraft, even EK converted their A380 orders.

An airline would now be able to receive 779 before 748I if they ordered tomorrow.

We can be a fan of the A35K or 779. Either will carry a passenger for less than the A388. New hubs will enable fragmentation. Even Tokyo is adding flights. Maybe I'm blase as DEN is a convenient hub. We need double deckers if that airport maxes out!

Lightsaber

I assume we are talking about Haneda?
You see, JAL doesn't have any aircraft larger than B777-300ER. So B777-9 would just help them bulk up the capacity that currently being operated by B777-300ER. ANA recently have some A380 (3 to be exact) but only for Hawaii flights. Other aircraft are B777-300ER and B787 just like JAL. So B777-9 to bulk up capacity.

None of the airlines in Americas uses A380 or B747 anymore. Same goes for Africa and South Asia.
Emirates cancel A380 and both Qatar and EK doesn't have many A380.
Iberia, Alitalia, SAS, Air France, Swiss, Turkish and Aeroflot doesn't have any A380 or B747.
So now if you look into it, the market getting smaller and smaller. With EK canceling the A380 orders. The market just isn't there anymore.

So yeah. B777-9 would be the only VLA ruling the sky.

oschkosch wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

An airline would now be able to receive 779 before 748I if they ordered tomorrow.

We can be a fan of the A35K or 779. Either will carry a passenger for less than the A388. New hubs will enable fragmentation. Even Tokyo is adding flights. Maybe I'm blase as DEN is a convenient hub. We need double deckers if that airport maxes out!

Lightsaber

I assume we are talking about Haneda?
You see, JAL doesn't have any aircraft larger than B777-300ER. So B777-9 would just help them bulk up the capacity that currently being operated by B777-300ER. ANA recently have some A380 (3 to be exact) but only for Hawaii flights. Other aircraft are B777-300ER and B787 just like JAL. So B777-9 to bulk up capacity.

None of the airlines in Americas uses A380 or B747 anymore. Same goes for Africa and South Asia.
Emirates cancel A380 and both Qatar and EK doesn't have many A380.
Iberia, Alitalia, SAS, Air France, Swiss, Turkish and Aeroflot doesn't have any A380 or B747.
So now if you look into it, the market getting smaller and smaller. With EK canceling the A380 orders. The market just isn't there anymore.

So yeah. B777-9 would be the only VLA ruling the sky.

ummm sorry can u repeat? Ek does not have many A380? AF has none?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Swadian wrote:

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

Revelation wrote:

If you're referring to Airbus's claim that there would be an A380neo, I provided the quote on that as well.

Swadian wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

AirCal737 wrote:

Yes current 747s are not muchblarger than 777s but remember the 747 is still a way larger airframe in terms of weight(26% heavier)
And 747s are not maxed out. Boeing proposed 1000-seat versions in the 70s.
But what if the 747 line lives for another ten years when EK needs larger VLAs？
Will a 747-9 with new engines, 80m fusalage and a longer upper deck be feasible?
If air traffic really doubles in the thirties then current P2P routes will have enough demand to fill VLAs. (2xB787)

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

Swadian wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

AirCal737 wrote:

Yes current 747s are not muchblarger than 777s but remember the 747 is still a way larger airframe in terms of weight(26% heavier)
And 747s are not maxed out. Boeing proposed 1000-seat versions in the 70s.
But what if the 747 line lives for another ten years when EK needs larger VLAs？
Will a 747-9 with new engines, 80m fusalage and a longer upper deck be feasible?
If air traffic really doubles in the thirties then current P2P routes will have enough demand to fill VLAs. (2xB787)

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

Arion640 wrote:

Swadian wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Yeah no. Only Emirates need this kind of aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing cannot sustain this kind of VLA. Many airlines around the world are currently using smaller aircraft like B787-8/-9 or A350-900. In the future where the demand grows, they would just swapped this to B787-10, A350-1000 or B777-8/-9.

Emirates are cutting off capacity to increase profits.

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

As much as i’d like to see that happen. BA have chosen their 747 replacements.

marcelh wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Swadian wrote:

Technically, as long as Boeing keeps 748F in production, no one's stopping BA or someone else from ordering a large number of them.

As much as i’d like to see that happen. BA have chosen their 747 replacements.

And there is a reason LH didn’t take additional 748s but choose the 779 instead