Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
flee wrote:A380MSN004 wrote:alfa164 wrote:1) You try to find 853 people who will reliably and regularly fill up the plane;
2) You handle to emergency evacuation test and see how long it takes to get 853 people off the plane.
Emergency evacuation test certified 873 participants (max capacity pax config + crew) back in 2006
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... -test.html
I am always sceptical of the evacuation certification test procedure. It always assumes that the aircraft is intact and in perfect condition. In many cases, when pax have to evacuate an aircraft, it is following some incident or crash. The plane will have broken bits and pieces as well as blockage to the emergency exits. It will take much longer to evacuate!
Sad to see the EK A380 go but this is a scheduled retirement - so no big deal. For me, the A380 is still the most comfortable aircraft to fly in and I will always try to book on an airline that operates to the destination I am travelling to.
Jetport wrote:Why did they repaint it white, seems like a waste of money? Even if this one is leased and the owner wants it white, you would think Emirates would split the savings of not having to repaint it with the owner and they would gladly accept since there is a 99.99% chance this aircraft gets scrapped.
SEPilot wrote:airhansa wrote:I still wonder why no airline has managed to make the A380 work as a low-cost cattle class plane? An all-economy seating A380 can host 853 passengers.
Around $30 per km in fuel.
ATH to SIN is about 5621km, making fuel costs around $168630. Divided by 853 it would mean $197 as a minimum ticket price. I didn't include staffing costs as a low cost country can provide cheaper staffing, but overall a ticket price lower than $300 doesn't seem that illogical.
For lower distance routes that are busy it's possible to have prices as lower than $50 in terms of fuel.
Though Emirates may not get away with it, surely India or a Eastern European country like Greece could?
Simple. No airline can reliably get 853 people to travel the given route at the same time day in and day out. Yes, it works great and makes money when full, but it bleeds badly when not. The risk is just too much.
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:9Patch wrote:Especially since the 'passengers' doing the test know in advance they are going to evacuate. They are much more likely to pay attention to the flight attendants safety and evacuation briefing.
During the evacuation test do the 'passengers' bring on carry-on bags that go in the overhead bins and under the seats to mimic a real world situation?
True that the test doesn't represent a crash condition, but it does cover a whole bunch of cases where the hull is intact. It's pretty realistic in that only half the exits are used, its dark, yes there is luggage in the aisle etc. Hard to believe it can be done, but the A380 did it in less than 80 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jSOkznc2dM
Because people get hurt in the testing, neither the FAA nor EASA want to do anything more aggressive. The regulatory agencies prefer "by analysis" for this type of testing.
The A380 required a test as evacuating two decks was new. Nothing may be extrapolated, it must all be interpolated. So a taller deck height requires a new test.
The high density A380 didn't take off, literally. The market went to smaller aircraft repositioned as needed.
Lightsaber
Jetport wrote:Why did they repaint it white, seems like a waste of money? Even if this one is leased and the owner wants it white, you would think Emirates would split the savings of not having to repaint it with the owner and they would gladly accept since there is a 99.99% chance this aircraft gets scrapped.
ELBOB wrote:Jetport wrote:Why did they repaint it white, seems like a waste of money? Even if this one is leased and the owner wants it white, you would think Emirates would split the savings of not having to repaint it with the owner and they would gladly accept since there is a 99.99% chance this aircraft gets scrapped.
Who said that they repainted it? Just peel off the Emirates decals and job done.
TC957 wrote:ELBOB wrote:Jetport wrote:Why did they repaint it white, seems like a waste of money? Even if this one is leased and the owner wants it white, you would think Emirates would split the savings of not having to repaint it with the owner and they would gladly accept since there is a 99.99% chance this aircraft gets scrapped.
Who said that they repainted it? Just peel off the Emirates decals and job done.
I stand corrected, but I doubt it's that simple to just " peel off the EK decals ". For one thing that would have left outlined marks where the titles and tail colours were.
cockpitherald wrote:Emirates will also likely remove two of its aging A380s, registered as A6-EDA and A6-EDC, that are stored at Dubai International Airport.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2020/06/14/emi ... tire-more/
cpd wrote:All the ones I flew on were usually very full. But I’m flying on the major very busy routes. On the flip side I’ve been on fairly empty B777s of Emirates.
cpd wrote:All the ones I flew on were usually very full. But I’m flying on the major very busy routes. On the flip side I’ve been on fairly empty B777s of Emirates.
I think it’s right for M some of those A6-ED* aircraft to go. The ED generation are pretty tired inside compared to their newer sister aircraft. They are still comfortable enough but a bit older in the entertainment systems.
Revelation wrote:I bet that it wasn't full and that it lost money for EK.
cpd wrote:Revelation wrote:I bet that it wasn't full and that it lost money for EK.
But how does that opinion (not fact) relate to my comment at all?
Revelation wrote:cpd wrote:Revelation wrote:I bet that it wasn't full and that it lost money for EK.
But how does that opinion (not fact) relate to my comment at all?
It highlights the idea that just because you were on plane X on route Y and it was full doesn't mean it was full on every flight nor made money on every flight.
mcg wrote:C'mon, Route Y is always packed!, you can look it up!
danipawa wrote:PepeTheFrog wrote:
its happening
smartplane wrote:And behind the scenes, don't rule out lobbying from another ME nation, able to demonstrate they have and are meeting their obligations, keen to see a competitor disappear, and deal out some payback.
Polot wrote:smartplane wrote:And behind the scenes, don't rule out lobbying from another ME nation, able to demonstrate they have and are meeting their obligations, keen to see a competitor disappear, and deal out some payback.
What other ME nation? Qatar, the nation whose airline is also trying to push out and defer deliveries?
smartplane wrote:Will Airbus and Boeing want to lower the 'order' bar in the current environment? A queue of customers are asking for the same generosity. Can Airbus even afford to forgive?
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:I be surprised if the Emirates ever takes another new A380.
They have the no need. Airbus will have to mothsballs them. Maybe the scrap?
Revelation wrote:smartplane wrote:Will Airbus and Boeing want to lower the 'order' bar in the current environment? A queue of customers are asking for the same generosity. Can Airbus even afford to forgive?
The Bloomberg link told us that the penalties for cancellation are $70MM per frame. Both sides will do the math. It's hard to see EK making $70MM off A380s delivered in 2021 and needing to fly 12 years or so in a world filled with A350, 787, and 777X and EK already committed to more A380s than it can use. Pretty clearly they have done the math and know the answer is they will not. Airbus will have to decide if the $70MM penalty covers what it will take to get the aircraft assembled and ready for delivery just to see EK cancel. Chances are it will not. Chances are they already have more than $70MM invested in them and going further is just going to add more red ink. It's not like there is a resale market for them.
Ishrion wrote:FrenchPotatoEye wrote:I be surprised if the Emirates ever takes another new A380.
They have the no need. Airbus will have to mothsballs them. Maybe the scrap?
They’re taking at least three of the eight A380s set to be delivered. One of them that’s completed already has the new Premium Economy seats.
Strato2 wrote:A380's pain is 777x's amputation. If EK is fighting for survival how are they gonna finance 115 new VLA's? They don't. Add in QR woes and it's not out of realm of possibility 777x's orderbook will be slashed in half before EIS.
Strato2 wrote:A380's pain is 777x's amputation. If EK is fighting for survival how are they gonna finance 115 new VLA's? They don't. Add in QR woes and it's not out of realm of possibility 777x's orderbook will be slashed in half before EIS.
airporthistory wrote:I can also imagine that under the current conditions, legacies will successfully lobby their governments to restrict access to the likes of Emirates in order to protect their home markets, and thus further deteriorating the case for the A380.
Opus99 wrote:They didn’t order the 777X to have them for 5 years and then buy the next thing. They are planes for 20-30years.
KingOrGod wrote:Opus99 wrote:They didn’t order the 777X to have them for 5 years and then buy the next thing. They are planes for 20-30years.
With the exception of the A310 which formed EK and flew for just under 20 years I think, they don't operate or plan to operate fleets that long.
Opus99 wrote:KingOrGod wrote:Opus99 wrote:They didn’t order the 777X to have them for 5 years and then buy the next thing. They are planes for 20-30years.
With the exception of the A310 which formed EK and flew for just under 20 years I think, they don't operate or plan to operate fleets that long.
*15 years then. But you raise a good point. Why does EK retire aircrafts after about 15 years compared to BA who use them till the very end? Is it the different conditions in which they operate. Does the desert play a factor?
KingOrGod wrote:Opus99 wrote:KingOrGod wrote:With the exception of the A310 which formed EK and flew for just under 20 years I think, they don't operate or plan to operate fleets that long.
*15 years then. But you raise a good point. Why does EK retire aircrafts after about 15 years compared to BA who use them till the very end? Is it the different conditions in which they operate. Does the desert play a factor?
I have no idea of the logic behind it, but it is well documented the A380's were leased on a 12 year term. That is not long by any means... Look at LH and their 744s...
Revelation wrote:KingOrGod wrote:Opus99 wrote:*15 years then. But you raise a good point. Why does EK retire aircrafts after about 15 years compared to BA who use them till the very end? Is it the different conditions in which they operate. Does the desert play a factor?
I have no idea of the logic behind it, but it is well documented the A380's were leased on a 12 year term. That is not long by any means... Look at LH and their 744s...
QR turns planes over on 10 year cycles. AAB shall not be outdone.
moa999 wrote:But going forward will lessors be as agreeable to 10/12yr terms for VLAs or will they require a significant premium.
As for the 380s, would anyone even finance them
JayinKitsap wrote:Bricktop wrote:lightsaber wrote:When oil spikes, I believe it will spike over $100/bbl. This will hurt the less official question of when. My opinion on oil is based on the fracking companies being in bad financial shape and thus unable to ramp. So just as EK needs new equipment, they will have old equipment at old efficiency standards.
Lightsaber
I should know better than to say never, but $100/bbl oil will not here be any time soon enough to "help" or "hurt" A380 economics. EK are going to have to fly them one way or another until new builds arrive. You have dance with the one that brought you, and for the next few years that's the B77W and A388.
Looking at the historical Oil pricing, it has averaged around $60/bbl for the period 1975-2020, with prices ranging from $19 to $145, huge swings in just a few years, making it tricky to even hedge on the price. We probably have a few years of lower than average, but as demand picks up a lot of idle wells will be shut in. I personally do not believe there will be a significant migration to energy sources outside of oil & gas, only gradual. Every airline must study what happens to their system across a full range of oil prices. It is the death knell for an airline to have less efficient, higher maintenance planes than the competition in a high cost environment.
As you noted elsewhere Lightsaber, competing a hub against direct flights requires a more efficient operation to compete on price against the convenience of the direct flight. The connecting flight has to be 10% cheaper for me to consider it, but I've paid 20% more before for the non-stop. If I have 77W's and their direct flight is on a 789, even with low prices its hard to match while remaining profitable.
You are right that any leases that can be returned, need to be unless the lessor will renew for a few years at great terms. EK is going to be battling their A380 lessors on the 50 that are on lease. On EK's network, the prospect of operating the 77W fleet may be easier than the A380 fleet., but staying for a decade with the current fleet will be quite painful.
Opus99 wrote:Revelation wrote:KingOrGod wrote:I have no idea of the logic behind it, but it is well documented the A380's were leased on a 12 year term. That is not long by any means... Look at LH and their 744s...
QR turns planes over on 10 year cycles. AAB shall not be outdone.
Now that 777X order makes sense. Only 10 years? I guess QR does a sale and leaseback on their aircrafts when they arrive and then does a 10 year deal and then they’re returned to the lessor
Opus99 wrote:They are not cancelling any orders for the 777X for those who are speculating from thin air.
mig17 wrote:Opus99 wrote:They are not cancelling any orders for the 777X for those who are speculating from thin air.
Not currently at least since Boeing seems to be delaying deliveries by itself.