Waterbomber2 and friends, how about getting this through your heads, the 380 is a dead duck in terms of its appeal to BA, simple really. When I talk to the line engineers and heavy maintenance engineers about the 380, they all say the same things, it’s poorly built and requires a lot of extra unplanned work in comparison to previous Airbus aircraft and Boeing’s.
The upshot of this is that even my employer are looking for the exit sooner rather than later as in EK service the 380 has always been at best revenue neutral...and latterly calamitous with respect to fuel burn and expense v revenue.
Within EK flight Ops it is now no longer denied that the numbers of 380s in EK service are a problem, the stated intent in the last 6 months is all about fuel saving and utilisation rather than expansion and capacity.
Face facts, the 380s economics never really stacked up in the real world, it’s worth observing as well that little Timmy the 380s biggest fanboy has been noticeably quieter in recent times.
Quite interesting! Some questions:
1 The extra unplanned maintenance - on structure or like access panels, or devices, or in its systems.
2 On EK's birds, is there a big variation from the early to later planes.
3. Are there issues with the 5,000 psi hydraulics vs the far more common 3,000 psi hydraulics?
Why I note access panels comes from my experience with doors on buildings, the standard door is a no brainer, but get to a 5' x 10' door the hinges become massive, the frame is stout, the door weighs a ton, and they always need adjustment.
Do the RR trents handle the sandy environment as well as the EA engines?
I am sure BA figured in their maintenance costs in the review of what to purchase next.
To those whining about buying local. That is great to do, but once the cost to go local adds 5% or more, the economics have to over rule. Is it a government requirement that all planes in the UK are to be Airbus with RR engines. Why is it OK for AF to buy GE engines on 777's instead of RR engines. Isn't that a choice of the purchaser that is trying to make money on its investment.
First of all, EK's maintenance department is a mess in its own right. You should ask what they think about the B77W as a comparison.
Most are guys who started off at Biman, PIA or AI.
Having worked on aircraft, I can attest that most aircraft are utter pieces of junk anyway. You should see how some aerodynamic panels are held together on some aircraft. The fit is poor, there are gaps all over the place filled with filler pastes, and they constantly lose fasteners.
Not a week goes by without something major breaking down on most aircraft.
RR's save fuel over GP engines on the A380. But they suffer more from sand erosion. Give and take, no biggy considering that they can fly years between the replacement of eroded parts. The GP engines suffer from erosion too.
Not a factor for BA.
EK is not a profitable entity in my opinion and neither are EY or QR. They are vehicles to sustain the artificial economies of tbeir reapective countries.
That doesn't change the fact that they fly a lot of capacity into LHR, generating traffic that could be flying with BA instead.
Somebody mentionned seasonality as an issue for the A380. July vs. November demand.
If we follow that reasoning, BA should replace the B744's by A321NEO's on LHR-JFK. Why stop at B779's or B787-10's, why not go all the way down?
Why order B779's over the much lighter and just barely smaller A350-1000 or even B787-10's.
Why operate B787-10's when the B788 can do it at higher unit margin?
By now you realise that this smaller aircraft nonsense has no ground to stand on.
If you look at things in the greater scheme, there is no large enough aircraft for a hub as LHR.
The demand is there and you can decide to share that market with dozens of airlines that will drive the yields down for everyone, or you can start taking care of business.
Yield management is a joke at most airlines anyway.
Most airlines including BA overcharge for O&D and would rather spend more money flying lower yielding transferring pax from competing hubs despite that they could make more money by focussing more on O&D and their local market.
While BA is eating a lean piece of LH's lunch, LH is eating a lean piece of BA's lunch. It's mostly nonsense.