Page 2 of 3

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 12:49 pm
by FluidFlow
marcelh wrote:
flee wrote:
marcelh wrote:
That “gone” will at least be 10-15 years from now. Also AC (After COVID19) there are enough routes to fill an A380 profitably. Not for their current fleet, but that was already planned.

A lot will depend on the price of oil - it will be gone quicker than 10 years if oil rises above USD 150 but it may stick around much longer than 10 years if oil prices are nearer USD 50.

Oil prices above USD 150 will mean there is something serious going on with oil production. In a “normal” world, the oil price won’t rise that high.


This could happen due to the actual pandemic though. The longer low demand will last the greater is the chance of high Oil prices in the middle of the decade. A lot of oil producers can not switch their wells just on and off. If there is no money made, the fields will get closed and you can not just reopen them. Then the jobs are gone the companies are gone and when demand picks up again, it will take a lot of time to restart production.
On top of that, massive producers like Iran and Venezuela are excluded from the market. This could lead to a big dependency on Saudi Arabia and Russia and they could, through OPEC, make the prices almost as high as they want.
Governments will not have enough resources to keep the producers in Europe and North America artificially alive, so they will fall first. Especially US-Oil is expensive to produce and right now producers are bleeding cash. If this goes on for a while there will be a high oil prize in the future, especially after the current storage is emptied and demand is bigger than production.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 12:57 pm
by seb76
chonetsao wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
OzarkD9S wrote:
The Whale killed by a microscopic virus. Among other factors of course...


The real whales - the 747s - are still alive as the cargo versions are busy, in part due to the virus.

I've never referred to the A380 as a whale - if forced into using a nickname, I'd call it Uncle Fester.


B747 is the Queen of the Sky, do you mind? A380 is the Whale of the Sky.


In the late 60's, ATCs in EU had another little name for the 747's. They used to call them "Softenon". Softenon was the commercial name of a medication (based on Thalidomide) prescribed massively to pregnant woman against the morning sickness and banned soon after it was discovered that this was causing lots of birth defects and all kinds of malformations for the surviving babies. Doctors would often qualify babies born with certain types of malformations as a "softenon baby" at that time.

So naming the 747 a whale is not that bad you know.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 2:46 pm
by flymia
Its been over for a while. Just a matter if any are retired much earlier than expected.

Still have not flown on one, will need to make a point to try to get on one in the next year or so and once all this madness is over.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:34 pm
by marcelh
FluidFlow wrote:
marcelh wrote:
flee wrote:
A lot will depend on the price of oil - it will be gone quicker than 10 years if oil rises above USD 150 but it may stick around much longer than 10 years if oil prices are nearer USD 50.

Oil prices above USD 150 will mean there is something serious going on with oil production. In a “normal” world, the oil price won’t rise that high.


This could happen due to the actual pandemic though. The longer low demand will last the greater is the chance of high Oil prices in the middle of the decade. A lot of oil producers can not switch their wells just on and off. If there is no money made, the fields will get closed and you can not just reopen them. Then the jobs are gone the companies are gone and when demand picks up again, it will take a lot of time to restart production.
On top of that, massive producers like Iran and Venezuela are excluded from the market. This could lead to a big dependency on Saudi Arabia and Russia and they could, through OPEC, make the prices almost as high as they want.
Governments will not have enough resources to keep the producers in Europe and North America artificially alive, so they will fall first. Especially US-Oil is expensive to produce and right now producers are bleeding cash. If this goes on for a while there will be a high oil prize in the future, especially after the current storage is emptied and demand is bigger than production.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:40 pm
by CALMSP
it will be interesting to see how EK rebounds from this. With no "small" planes in the fleet for quite some time, will it be years of red ink for EK? Closure of routes (something we don't see from EK)?

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 3:54 pm
by marcelh
FluidFlow wrote:
marcelh wrote:
flee wrote:
A lot will depend on the price of oil - it will be gone quicker than 10 years if oil rises above USD 150 but it may stick around much longer than 10 years if oil prices are nearer USD 50.

Oil prices above USD 150 will mean there is something serious going on with oil production. In a “normal” world, the oil price won’t rise that high.


This could happen due to the actual pandemic though. The longer low demand will last the greater is the chance of high Oil prices in the middle of the decade. A lot of oil producers can not switch their wells just on and off. If there is no money made, the fields will get closed and you can not just reopen them. Then the jobs are gone the companies are gone and when demand picks up again, it will take a lot of time to restart production.
On top of that, massive producers like Iran and Venezuela are excluded from the market. This could lead to a big dependency on Saudi Arabia and Russia and they could, through OPEC, make the prices almost as high as they want.
Governments will not have enough resources to keep the producers in Europe and North America artificially alive, so they will fall first. Especially US-Oil is expensive to produce and right now producers are bleeding cash. If this goes on for a while there will be a high oil prize in the future, especially after the current storage is emptied and demand is bigger than production.


Demand for oil will already go up in the second half of 2020. Sure, that won't push up the production already, but that will follow.in 2021. And although Venezuela and Iraq are exclued now, a new man in the Whit House may have other ideas. And just before the pandemic, we saw a clash between Saudi Arabia and Russia because of the oil production. When they are going to push the price above the 100 USD, US production will grow, because it will hurt the economic recovery. While US oil may be relatively expensive produce, it wasn't obviously when the oil price was well under 100 USD.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 4:43 pm
by flee
CALMSP wrote:
it will be interesting to see how EK rebounds from this. With no "small" planes in the fleet for quite some time, will it be years of red ink for EK? Closure of routes (something we don't see from EK)?

I suspect that in the early days of resumption, frequencies will be cut. But that will hurt connectivity at DXB. We will just have to wait and see - those highly paid EK managers will have to work hard for their money!

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Thu May 07, 2020 8:46 pm
by Northeast748
Strato2 wrote:
chonetsao wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

The real whales - the 747s - are still alive as the cargo versions are busy, in part due to the virus.

I've never referred to the A380 as a whale - if forced into using a nickname, I'd call it Uncle Fester.


B747 is the Queen of the Sky, do you mind? A380 is the Whale of the Sky.


747 is the Hunchback of Seattle.

Actually moreso the 767X :D

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:39 am
by airzona11
CALMSP wrote:
it will be interesting to see how EK rebounds from this. With no "small" planes in the fleet for quite some time, will it be years of red ink for EK? Closure of routes (something we don't see from EK)?


Do small planes work for EK? There is a reason they only have the 2 biggest flying planes. The smaller planes work for the hub airports not DXB. DXB needs the low CASM/high capacity planes. I think we see more coordination between FlyDubai/EK/Ethiad (yes I know not the same).

That being said, for the right price, demand will come back.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:00 am
by strfyr51
FluidFlow wrote:
marcelh wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
Very interesting article....I do expect Emirates to accelerate the fleets retirement
https://simpleflying.com/emirates-a380-is-over/


The correct and complete quote is:
“We know the A380 is over, the 747 is over but the A350 and the 787 will always have a place. They may not be ordered soon, they may have orders deferred and pushed back, but eventually they will come back, and they will be a better fit probably for global demand in the years post the pandemic,”

So no more than a clickbait title.


What is a bit worrying about this is, that there is no mention of the 77X. That the A380 is "over" and will gradually leave EK is no secret. Only a handful routes will be left at the end (LHR). But what will happen with the 777X? The 777s will be used as long as possible and will replaced with 787s and A350s but will the 777X have a place?

the real question? Who will really NEED the 777X-8 or -9 when this is all over?

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:53 am
by dtw2hyd
I wonder what aviation finance community thinks about his comments. Those are not his frames, or even Emirates frames. These are owned by banks and lessors who bet their farms on his misadventures. Now making it sound like Airbus couldn't sell enough or other airlines didn't buy enough to save the program. Such comments only reduce resale potential and value further.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:10 am
by Airlinerdude
dtw2hyd wrote:
I wonder what aviation finance community thinks about his comments. Those are not his frames, or even Emirates frames. These are owned by banks and lessors who bet their farms on his misadventures. Now making it sound like Airbus couldn't sell enough or other airlines didn't buy enough to save the program. Such comments only reduce resale potential and value further.


Lessors and banks made their own risk calculations when they elected to take on the burden of owning/financing EK's 380 fleet. Lessors hopefully calculated being able to make a return with the assumption of disposing of the aircraft at the end of their lease term. If not, that's their fault, not the fault of Tim Clark or Emirates.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:46 am
by Revelation
dtw2hyd wrote:
I wonder what aviation finance community thinks about his comments. Those are not his frames, or even Emirates frames. These are owned by banks and lessors who bet their farms on his misadventures. Now making it sound like Airbus couldn't sell enough or other airlines didn't buy enough to save the program. Such comments only reduce resale potential and value further.

Look at the bright side: STC spent two years twisting arms 2014-6 offering to order 50 A380neo if Airbus and RR would build them. Everyone involved would be much deeper in the red ink if STC had gotten his way.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:46 am
by CALMSP
airzona11 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
it will be interesting to see how EK rebounds from this. With no "small" planes in the fleet for quite some time, will it be years of red ink for EK? Closure of routes (something we don't see from EK)?


Do small planes work for EK? There is a reason they only have the 2 biggest flying planes. The smaller planes work for the hub airports not DXB. DXB needs the low CASM/high capacity planes. I think we see more coordination between FlyDubai/EK/Ethiad (yes I know not the same).

That being said, for the right price, demand will come back.


small planes as in 788/339. With so little flying going on, are they even gonna have a 25% load factor with 500 seat 380s?

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:01 am
by FrenchPotatoEye
dtw2hyd wrote:
I wonder what aviation finance community thinks about his comments. Those are not his frames, or even Emirates frames. These are owned by banks and lessors who bet their farms on his misadventures. Now making it sound like Airbus couldn't sell enough or other airlines didn't buy enough to save the program. Such comments only reduce resale potential and value further.


Well Airbus did bot sell enogh did they?

How is that EK's fault?

Again, your hatred of EK is very clear.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 5:36 am
by flee
Airlinerdude wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I wonder what aviation finance community thinks about his comments. Those are not his frames, or even Emirates frames. These are owned by banks and lessors who bet their farms on his misadventures. Now making it sound like Airbus couldn't sell enough or other airlines didn't buy enough to save the program. Such comments only reduce resale potential and value further.

Lessors and banks made their own risk calculations when they elected to take on the burden of owning/financing EK's 380 fleet. Lessors hopefully calculated being able to make a return with the assumption of disposing of the aircraft at the end of their lease term. If not, that's their fault, not the fault of Tim Clark or Emirates.

The finance community have made their own assessments - if it was not viable for them, EK and STC would not have gotten the financing deals for their A380s. For EK, the A380 clearly worked for them and they have very few problems filling them. Lets see whether they can still fill them post Covid-19.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 6:47 am
by ELBOB
OzarkD9S wrote:
The Whale killed by a microscopic virus. Among other factors of course...


Nah, the fate of the A380 was sealed in May 1994 when Airbus picked the conventional tube-and-wings configuration over a BWB.

At that point they threw away the possibility for unassailable double-digit improvements in efficiency. The battle was lost before it began. And that's not hindsight; plenty of people said at the time that was the wrong choice.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:32 am
by seahawk
Actually it happened when they designed in growth for a -900 or even -1000 into the base design.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:49 am
by flee
seahawk wrote:
Actually it happened when they designed in growth for a -900 or even -1000 into the base design.

Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 11:19 am
by dtw2hyd
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Well Airbus did bot sell enogh did they?

Airbus sold as many as they could in VLA category, without distortion from STC, they would have concentrated on planes which sell.
Like Revelation pointed out at least them and RR didn't waste few more $$Billions on A380NEO.
His distortion put Boeing also at risk with 777X, what a waste of money and talent.
Both A&B thought selling huge planes to STC is easy money, spent too much time and money designing huge planes.
Otherwise, narrow body performance would have improved much faster.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
How is that EK's fault?

They collectively missed Capacity Planning 101, unlike other airline managements. When ONE guy Mueller with capacity discipline skills shows up for work, they got him fired.
Other airline managers knew VLAs wouldn't work. Heck, even posters on a.net knew it wouldn't work.


FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Again, your hatred of EK is very clear.

I said this in the past. Emirates has the best airline owners in the world. Any other airline manager would dream to have them as owner.

Emir provided sources for unlimited financing(don't bring the oil discussion). No, STC didn't build world's largest international airline with two clunkers from PIA and $10 Million equity. That is just overpaid hyper PR talking.
Emir got the rights airline needed. No one would sign a BASA if STC shows up.
Other entities in Emirates Group sacrificed for the airline. Dubai Airports, Dnata, Oil Companies, Catering and Banks did everything possible for EK to grow, most of the time sacrificing their own profits.
Employees sacrificed by working brutal hours.

All STC have to do is buy right size planes, which he couldn't do.

But what STC did, when every other airline was struggling to make a living on bread crumbs, he wasted all the resources provided by owner.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:10 pm
by Vladex
flee wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Actually it happened when they designed in growth for a -900 or even -1000 into the base design.

Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:36 pm
by Vladex
dtw2hyd wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Well Airbus did bot sell enogh did they?

Airbus sold as many as they could in VLA category, without distortion from STC, they would have concentrated on planes which sell.
Like Revelation pointed out at least them and RR didn't waste few more $$Billions on A380NEO.
His distortion put Boeing also at risk with 777X, what a waste of money and talent.
Both A&B thought selling huge planes to STC is easy money, spent too much time and money designing huge planes.
Otherwise, narrow body performance would have improved much faster.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
How is that EK's fault?

They collectively missed Capacity Planning 101, unlike other airline managements. When ONE guy Mueller with capacity discipline skills shows up for work, they got him fired.
Other airline managers knew VLAs wouldn't work. Heck, even posters on a.net knew it wouldn't work.


FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Again, your hatred of EK is very clear.

I said this in the past. Emirates has the best airline owners in the world. Any other airline manager would dream to have them as owner.

Emir provided sources for unlimited financing(don't bring the oil discussion). No, STC didn't build world's largest international airline with two clunkers from PIA and $10 Million equity. That is just overpaid hyper PR talking.
Emir got the rights airline needed. No one would sign a BASA if STC shows up.
Other entities in Emirates Group sacrificed for the airline. Dubai Airports, Dnata, Oil Companies, Catering and Banks did everything possible for EK to grow, most of the time sacrificing their own profits.
Employees sacrificed by working brutal hours.

All STC have to do is buy right size planes, which he couldn't do.

But what STC did, when every other airline was struggling to make a living on bread crumbs, he wasted all the resources provided by owner.


US3 are masters at growth management and even bigger masters at going bankrupt during downturns as all that growth management can't square up with crisis management.
With all those hubs , right now they can't shut off flights and likewise are losing millions every hour of every day. EK and one hub airlines have to be more agile and nimble not just in upturn but in downturn as well.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:45 pm
by lightsaber
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Actually it happened when they designed in growth for a -900 or even -1000 into the base design.

Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.

The double deck wastes a lot of space and weight (stairs, elevators). To be efficient enough, the A380 needed to be longer. The 80m, if not Udvar-Hazy 85m was needed.

But that is moot. The current A388 is not competitive vs. A35K or 779. It is obsolete and too few sold for a NEO.

Lightsaber

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:52 pm
by Polot
Vladex wrote:
Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.


Those aren’t not advantages born from being a double decker, those are advantages born from being a larger aircraft. A theoretical single deck 90m long 15 abreast triaisle aircraft would also need only 2 pilots and only 1 slot while carrying a lot more passengers than a smaller jet.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:54 pm
by dtw2hyd
Vladex wrote:
...
US3 are masters at growth management and even bigger masters at going bankrupt during downturns as all that growth management can't square up with crisis management.
With all those hubs , right now they can't shut off flights and likewise are losing millions every hour of every day. EK and one hub airlines have to be more agile and nimble not just in upturn but in downturn as well.


With your permission, may I :rotfl:

How is EK paying for 250 grounded planes and 100K workforce, without any revenue. Of course Emir is writing checks from borrowed money.

Even Air India is in better position, most of its fleet is paid off.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 12:59 pm
by Vladex
lightsaber wrote:
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.

The double deck wastes a lot of space and weight (stairs, elevators). To be efficient enough, the A380 needed to be longer. The 80m, if not Udvar-Hazy 85m was needed.

But that is moot. The current A388 is not competitive vs. A35K or 779. It is obsolete and too few sold for a NEO.

Lightsaber


A380 has somehow outsold both of those or at least similar with 779 with a 20 year old engines as well. Efficiency is not something that happens at the start but it develops with time as in A320 and A330 that have gotten much more efficient and long range over time and yet double decker has more potential with larger ground clearance.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:00 pm
by Polot
Vladex wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Vladex wrote:

A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.

The double deck wastes a lot of space and weight (stairs, elevators). To be efficient enough, the A380 needed to be longer. The 80m, if not Udvar-Hazy 85m was needed.

But that is moot. The current A388 is not competitive vs. A35K or 779. It is obsolete and too few sold for a NEO.

Lightsaber


A380 has somehow outsold both of those or at least similar with 779 with a 20 year old engines as well. Efficiency is not something that happens at the start but it develops with time as in A320 and A330 that have gotten much more efficient and long range over time and yet double decker has more potential with larger ground clearance.

A double decker does not inherently have more ground clearance.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:12 pm
by ewt340
PANAMsterdam wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
350 seater is the largest one the aviation industry could handle realistically all year round.


*Sad Boeing 77W noises*

There are plenty of airlines that can profitably use their 777's year round. There's always There used to be always demand for flights to airports like LAX, JFK, ORD, LHR, FRA, JNB, PEK, HND and so on. The 777 does that job very well.


Actually, B777-300ER is within the 350 seater market. Some goes up to 400 seater. But the configurations for B777-300ER tend to stays in the low 300 to mid 300.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:45 pm
by FrenchPotatoEye
dtw2hyd wrote:
Vladex wrote:
...
US3 are masters at growth management and even bigger masters at going bankrupt during downturns as all that growth management can't square up with crisis management.
With all those hubs , right now they can't shut off flights and likewise are losing millions every hour of every day. EK and one hub airlines have to be more agile and nimble not just in upturn but in downturn as well.


With your permission, may I :rotfl:

How is EK paying for 250 grounded planes and 100K workforce, without any revenue. Of course Emir is writing checks from borrowed money.

Even Air India is in better position, most of its fleet is paid off.


Do research.

EK has over 6bn in USD cash. Staff taked a pay cuts. Revenue from Skycargo operations.

You have issues with ek that I can't follow or understandings.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 1:57 pm
by Polot
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Vladex wrote:
...
US3 are masters at growth management and even bigger masters at going bankrupt during downturns as all that growth management can't square up with crisis management.
With all those hubs , right now they can't shut off flights and likewise are losing millions every hour of every day. EK and one hub airlines have to be more agile and nimble not just in upturn but in downturn as well.


With your permission, may I :rotfl:

How is EK paying for 250 grounded planes and 100K workforce, without any revenue. Of course Emir is writing checks from borrowed money.

Even Air India is in better position, most of its fleet is paid off.


Do research.

EK has over 6bn in USD cash. Staff taked a pay cuts. Revenue from Skycargo operations.

You have issues with ek that I can't follow or understandings.

If you have done the research you will also note that it has been reported that EK is looking for billions in loans (from commercial sources) and Dubai has already publicly announced they will bailout EK if needed depending on EK’s success at securing loans.

It’s not like EK is just sitting around surviving on pre-covid cash in the bank. They too are bleeding millions everyday, pay cuts and cargo revenue is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:00 pm
by frmrCapCadet
Except for the 380 all the newer wide body planes and models are also cargo beasts. This must help make a number of routes profitable

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:02 pm
by dtw2hyd
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Do research.

EK has over 6bn in USD cash. Staff taked a pay cuts. Revenue from Skycargo operations.

You have issues with ek that I can't follow or understandings.


All are true for US3, they have more cash reserves, efficient fleet and workforce. They are still operating passenger flights on top of COVID-19 cargo flights.

Not being one-hub airline, they have lot more scope for revenue.

EK's cash burn rate is way higher than any other airline in the world, with all leased/financed planes and a 400:1 bloated employee plane ratio.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 2:08 pm
by x1234
They should buy the A350-1000 and launch MEX non-stop from DXB instead of the current routing via BCN. EK now flies to EVERY major city on the planet except for HEL (covered by QR and AY to Asia).

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:02 pm
by dtw2hyd
Looking at 2018-19 annul report, EK's fixed costs in Million AED.

Employee 12,623
Aircraft operating leases 11,964
Depreciation and amortization 9,680
Aircraft maintenance 2,413
Corporate overheads (including fx loss) 2,312

AED 38,992 Million, approximately $10.6 Billion.

EK had $6.3 as of March 2019. Even if it had the same cash reserves today, it is just enough for 6 months.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:22 pm
by flee
dtw2hyd wrote:
Looking at 2018-19 annul report, EK's fixed costs in Million AED.

Employee 12,623
Aircraft operating leases 11,964
Depreciation and amortization 9,680
Aircraft maintenance 2,413
Corporate overheads (including fx loss) 2,312

AED 38,992 Million, approximately $10.6 Billion.

EK had $6.3 as of March 2019. Even if it had the same cash reserves today, it is just enough for 6 months.

Depreciation is a non-cashflow item - should be replaced by finance leases or loan/bond payments, unless EK finances all owned aircraft internally.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:30 pm
by dtw2hyd
flee wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Looking at 2018-19 annul report, EK's fixed costs in Million AED.

Employee 12,623
Aircraft operating leases 11,964
Depreciation and amortization 9,680
Aircraft maintenance 2,413
Corporate overheads (including fx loss) 2,312

AED 38,992 Million, approximately $10.6 Billion.

EK had $6.3 as of March 2019. Even if it had the same cash reserves today, it is just enough for 6 months.

Depreciation is a non-cashflow item - should be replaced by finance leases or loan/bond payments, unless EK finances all owned aircraft internally.


May not be aircraft depreciation. I guess who cares about depreciation or even great IFRS standard practices, country is family owned and operated.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:38 pm
by seahawk
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Actually it happened when they designed in growth for a -900 or even -1000 into the base design.

Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.


The simple answer is yes. The market did not demand the capacity growth designed into the plane, which meant that the baseline version was not as optimized for its size as it could have been without the growths potential.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:52 pm
by flee
seahawk wrote:
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.

A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.

The simple answer is yes. The market did not demand the capacity growth designed into the plane, which meant that the baseline version was not as optimized for its size as it could have been without the growths potential.

Yes, the slot congestion problem was not great enough to demand such high capacity aircraft. Aferall, how many showers do you need on a flight?

I cannot help feeling that an A380-900 with Trent XWB engines would give pretty good CASM/CASK.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:54 pm
by FrenchPotatoEye
dtw2hyd wrote:

EK's cash burn rate is way higher than any other airline in the world, with all leased/financed planes and a 400:1 bloated employee plane ratio.


Your assu£ptions on costs/burn rate are not 100 percent facts.

Without the knowing of each figures, your claim that cash rate burnings highest in world is speculation.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 4:11 pm
by airzona11
CALMSP wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
it will be interesting to see how EK rebounds from this. With no "small" planes in the fleet for quite some time, will it be years of red ink for EK? Closure of routes (something we don't see from EK)?


Do small planes work for EK? There is a reason they only have the 2 biggest flying planes. The smaller planes work for the hub airports not DXB. DXB needs the low CASM/high capacity planes. I think we see more coordination between FlyDubai/EK/Ethiad (yes I know not the same).

That being said, for the right price, demand will come back.


small planes as in 788/339. With so little flying going on, are they even gonna have a 25% load factor with 500 seat 380s?


Buying new planes to meet the current depressed demand isn't going to happen. And even if it did, that would mean they pivot their model to go from highly connecting traffic via DXB to more O/D. Which would mean a much smaller EK.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 4:20 pm
by rbavfan
Arion640 wrote:
We’ve known the A380 is over for a while now. I’m not sure what’s changed.


It was cancelled due to lack of sales. But before Corona they could keep them operating for years yet to come.

Now they cannot keep them running due to cost at low loads. They could keep them ready in the desert for a return later. But that would require companies to keep the tooling for parts stored & restart parts production later. This would also be an expensive option as while we recover the larger twins will continue to get enhancements further lowering fuel burn, while the A380 will not. This will quickly destroy the last bits of advantage the high load factors could bring for the A380 vs smaller twins CASM.

So sadly the great smooth ride & comfort of the not so pretty A380 will go away well before it's time.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 4:36 pm
by dtw2hyd
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

EK's cash burn rate is way higher than any other airline in the world, with all leased/financed planes and a 400:1 bloated employee plane ratio.


Your assu£ptions on costs/burn rate are not 100 percent facts.

Without the knowing of each figures, your claim that cash rate burnings highest in world is speculation.


Are you saying EK annual report numbers are not facts? I just took fixed cost line items.

When Delta says it is losing $60 Million/day, means it is not generating revenue compared to last year. That's with 20% schedule still operating.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 6:39 pm
by CALMSP
airzona11 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

Do small planes work for EK? There is a reason they only have the 2 biggest flying planes. The smaller planes work for the hub airports not DXB. DXB needs the low CASM/high capacity planes. I think we see more coordination between FlyDubai/EK/Ethiad (yes I know not the same).

That being said, for the right price, demand will come back.


small planes as in 788/339. With so little flying going on, are they even gonna have a 25% load factor with 500 seat 380s?


Buying new planes to meet the current depressed demand isn't going to happen. And even if it did, that would mean they pivot their model to go from highly connecting traffic via DXB to more O/D. Which would mean a much smaller EK.


well, I never said buying new planes right now.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:00 pm
by huaiwei
The obvious conventional wisdom is that the A380 has no place in a post-Covid world due to reduced demand.

But I was wondering a few days ago while reading an article about the potential future of flying (at least in the next few years, probably before a vaccine exists), where airlines cannot sell the middle seats and hence mostly are unable to turn a profit. But what happens in the longer term as economies reopen and people do need to travel and demand picks up again?

I was thinking perhaps the stronger airlines, looking for a longer-term solution, will start considering reconfiguring their seating layouts and increasing the room for each passenger instead (and charging a premium of course, somewhat like an aircraft with only Premium Economy and above).

We might even see individual cabins no longer being just for the most high-end classes, but throughout the plane, similar to cruise ships and trains from yesteryear, in other to pack more people but avoiding direct contact.

Wouldn't it be ironic that it will be the larger planes needed for such configurations and to do this more economically? Perhaps the A380 is needed post-Covid after all? :shock: :lol: :duck:

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 7:09 pm
by CALMSP
huaiwei wrote:
The obvious conventional wisdom is that the A380 has no place in a post-Covid world due to reduced demand.

But I was wondering a few days ago while reading an article about the potential future of flying (at least in the next few years, probably before a vaccine exists), where airlines cannot sell the middle seats and hence mostly are unable to turn a profit. But what happens in the longer term as economies reopen and people do need to travel and demand picks up again?

I was thinking perhaps the stronger airlines, looking for a longer-term solution, will start considering reconfiguring their seating layouts and increasing the room for each passenger instead (and charging a premium of course, somewhat like an aircraft with only Premium Economy and above).

We might even see individual cabins no longer being just for the most high-end classes, but throughout the plane, similar to cruise ships and trains from yesteryear, in other to pack more people but avoiding direct contact.

Wouldn't it be ironic that it will be the larger planes needed for such configurations and to do this more economically? Perhaps the A380 is needed post-Covid after all? :shock: :lol: :duck:


already changing, even LH is going back to full seating.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 8:17 pm
by par13del
Well, when the current A380 operators start configuring their a/c for social distancing, those airlines who unfortunately do not have A380's and have no hope of buying them will simply have to go to the desert and reactivate some A380 lites to be competitive.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 10:15 pm
by JayinKitsap
seahawk wrote:
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.


The simple answer is yes. The market did not demand the capacity growth designed into the plane, which meant that the baseline version was not as optimized for its size as it could have been without the growths potential.


Yes, if the A388 was brutally optimized for the -800 size, considering only a range for payload stretch for the -900, probably also reducing the width by 16" (1 less across on main and 2 less on the upper) to make it more slender, it would have done far better in the market and would still be in production today.

Observe the US3, they have really avoided the 77W's, A350-1000, 747's, and A380's because they have been burned in the past by too big of planes in the inventory.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 11:18 pm
by hOMSaR
par13del wrote:
Well, when the current A380 operators start configuring their a/c for social distancing, those airlines who unfortunately do not have A380's and have no hope of buying them will simply have to go to the desert and reactivate some A380 lites to be competitive.


I fail to see how, if the A380 was largely seen as uneconomical by most carriers when they would have been allowed to sell all the seats, it would suddenly become economical to fly if they are only allowed to sell a limited percentage of seats. All the costs, half the revenue would be difficult for airlines to digest for any plane type.

I don’t envision airlines actually reconfiguring planes either. It would be an expensive proposition vs. something like just leaving middle seats open. You wind up with essentially the same available capacity either way, but without the massive costs of buying new seats, plus you keep the possibility of having families (who presumably wouldn’t need to socially distance) sitting together. If airlines do have to keep middle seats open, then 10-across planes actually wind up with the same available number of revenue seats per row as 9-across planes.

Otherwise, you’d be looking at a configuration that would be the equivalent of all business class, and if that struggled to work when the economy was going strong, again, how would it work when everybody is hurting?

If social distancing has to be maintained and enforced on planes, it will be difficult for any airline to survive, and no type currently out there is going to be the magic bullet that makes it work.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 10:58 pm
by Vladex
seahawk wrote:
Vladex wrote:
flee wrote:
Therein lies the inherent weakness of the -800. Its economics is bound to be poorer than the larger versions.


A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.


The simple answer is yes. The market did not demand the capacity growth designed into the plane, which meant that the baseline version was not as optimized for its size as it could have been without the growths potential.

Number of passengers had doubled in the past decade to 4.5 billion annually and it was very possible to double again to 9 billion pax by 2030 if not for Corona shutdown . No airplane is optimized in its entry otherwise it would be impractical, take too long to develop and be super expensive. A380 has been tested to be practical for single hub connecting airlines. A320/A330 on entry had something like half the range that they have now and a much higher fuel burn.

Re: Sir Tim Clark "A380 is OVER"

Posted: Tue May 12, 2020 11:21 pm
by Vladex
JayinKitsap wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Vladex wrote:

A380 was killed because it was too small and too big at the same time? I have never seen a coherent non contradictory anti A380 argument and there are so many of them. It's all mad conjecture which makes me think that there may be some life or resurrection left in it. Bare in mind that a double decker has some inherent economic advantages as it were such as only 2 pilots needed and only 1 slot needed the same as a typical business jet and ability to pick passengers at peak periods such as morning and afternoons.


The simple answer is yes. The market did not demand the capacity growth designed into the plane, which meant that the baseline version was not as optimized for its size as it could have been without the growths potential.


Yes, if the A388 was brutally optimized for the -800 size, considering only a range for payload stretch for the -900, probably also reducing the width by 16" (1 less across on main and 2 less on the upper) to make it more slender, it would have done far better in the market and would still be in production today.

Observe the US3, they have really avoided the 77W's, A350-1000, 747's, and A380's because they have been burned in the past by too big of planes in the inventory.


US3 are designed for short term profits and then bankruptcy after a crisis and a bailout. No stable airline can operate like that. I guess you can say that they are losing less money if they are flying empty narrow bodies than a double decker.