NZ321 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I suppose we could see BA, QF, and AN take up some of their A380s at some point in time, with KE/OZ as a real wild card.

Of all the above, I'd be the most surprised to see QF bring them back.

Simple dude; Pacific rim. SYD, SIN and HKG and LAX are heavily slot restricted at prime times, to name a few.

Remind me about that time when LAX had slot restrictions....

But again, as stated prior: if you're bypassing those with 787s and A350s; what then is the need for additional capacity. E.g. why would three A380s be needed at LAX over an equivalent mix of 787s/A350s, if JFK goes nonstop, DFW gets more frequencies from more destinations, and the likes of ORD and SEA are opened?

NZ321 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jagraham wrote:

It is cheaper to send 2 789s than 1 A380. But will QF get the slots in SIN, Tokyo, LAX? If not, it may be worthwhile to keep some A380s, as these are the places they can reach which have high traffic. If they can get slots, the A380s are gone

LAX is not, and has never been, slot restricted. Fairly certain SIN wasn't either.

As a traveller I recall many a time mid-late evening at TBIT when things were pretty darn busy with intl departures at LAX... with several QF and NZ 747s more or less in a line, not to mention the late evening Asia departure bank and other international departures.

That's fair, however, in the time since: LAX has more than doubled available gates in TBIT's main concourse, and now there's a satellite concourse (which wasn't available pre-Covid) adding even more gates-- and then there's Covid itself, which took out the excess in the market, likely for a half-decade or more, and removed an entire longhaul competitor from Aus-LAX.

By the time any of that (plus capacity issues at several other gateways, including even LHR) is resolved to the point where we're seeing 2019ish congestion, it's likely the A388s would've been nearing a need for replacement anyway.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Turns out there are a small number of cases where having the biggest possible aircraft makes sense.

This is the crux of the issue, the key phrase being a small number of cases.

^ This

ILNFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

jagraham wrote:

It is cheaper to send 2 789s than 1 A380. But will QF get the slots in SIN, Tokyo, LAX? If not, it may be worthwhile to keep some A380s, as these are the places they can reach which have high traffic. If they can get slots, the A380s are gone . .

The SYD side is also problematic with the night time curfew meaning there is a window where everyone wants to land or take off at the same time.


Turns out there are a small number of cases where having the biggest possible aircraft makes sense.

This is the crux of the issue, the key phrase being a small number of cases.

And one that can likely be easily and efficiently solved in the future with an a35K or 779.

LAX772LR wrote:

jagraham wrote:

It is cheaper to send 2 789s than 1 A380. But will QF get the slots in SIN, Tokyo, LAX? If not, it may be worthwhile to keep some A380s, as these are the places they can reach which have high traffic. If they can get slots, the A380s are gone

LAX is not, and has never been, slot restricted. Fairly certain SIN wasn't either.

In the days of LoCo carriers successfully vying for LHR, I'm bettering that QF wouldn't have much trouble getting whatever access it needs, just about anywhere.

I say 'slots' to keep the conversation simpler . .
LAX was pax restricted until a couple of years ago. Now it is gate restricted except for now. Were it not for the COVID restrictions, QF should have started the double daily LAX flights. But when will the restrictions come off? Same for SIN, although the mechanism is bilaterals as opposed to slots. Tokyo is more complex, especially with curfews on both sides. But it will be interesting indeed.

One option for long term survival of A380 is to form an alliance and have one large scale premium ACMI operator acceptable to AF,LH,BA and other airlines around the world.

If so called legacy premium carriers can check-in their egos at the door, so does EK, it could be the ACMI operator. And unions have to agree.

Seasonal upgrades stagger around the world, and it is a perfect plane. Keeping it throughout the year on books is a financial burden on any airline.

dtw2hyd wrote:

One option for long term survival of A380 is to form an alliance and have one large scale premium ACMI operator acceptable to AF,LH,BA and other airlines around the world.

If so called legacy premium carriers can check-in their egos at the door, so does EK, it could be the ACMI operator. And unions have to agree.

Seasonal upgrades stagger around the world, and it is a perfect plane. Keeping it throughout the year on books is a financial burden on any airline.

Amusing fan-fic that would likely never happen in the real world; as governments wouldn't allow the collusion, and unions would commit seppuku before they'd agree to such.

Revelation wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

One option for long term survival of A380 is to form an alliance and have one large scale premium ACMI operator acceptable to AF,LH,BA and other airlines around the world.

If so called legacy premium carriers can check-in their egos at the door, so does EK, it could be the ACMI operator. And unions have to agree.

Seasonal upgrades stagger around the world, and it is a perfect plane. Keeping it throughout the year on books is a financial burden on any airline.

It is far from a perfect plane. It is just barely workable on the few trunk routes that can support it at all.

Just to add:
Slots are not so precious to make the A380 needed beyond a few routes. 3X A350-1000 or 779 will do the same job as 2x A380.
Those 3x A350-1000 or 779 will cost less to fly

Assumes 779 meets goal of 10% lower cost per seat, that means less cost per seat than the A388:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... t-aircraft

Now I'm not getting into detail on the A350-1000 as that would just end up A vs. B, but what I will state is either could replace the A380, carry more people, more cargo, and save money.

Slots aren't so precious that BA won't give up A319 slots for more 777s or A350s.
Same with ANA or JAL in Tokyo (ok, ANA will probably fly their A388s for a few years, but only those)
AF already retired the type

The only airline to discuss A380 is the one wed to the A380, Emirates. They have no choice. They cannot afford to replace the fleet.

That doesn't bring in hub bypass. I do not want to hub. I cannot imagine anyone who does in this Covid19 world. When required, minimize the time in the hub.

As already noted:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Retaining

• China Southern
• Emirates
• Singapore Airlines

Retiring

• Air France
• Etihad
• Lufthansa

Unclear

• Asiana/Korean
• ANA
• British Airways
• Malaysia Airlines
• Qantas
• Qatar Airways
• Thai Airways

And of that last list, it is likely that around half won't return. It really is astounding how quickly COVID-19 has brought forward the shrinking of the fleet.

V/F

A few airlines retaining the type will be interesting. What will be fascinating is the maintenance costs going forward. The A380 is supporting two engines and isn't a high volume airframe, so vendors will demand a profit to supply parts and making low volume parts is pricey.


Emirates also is exiting Covid19 in a different world. In particular IST. The new IST now has three runways and a debugged operation.
The new Emirates will face Ethiopian also taking some of the Africa bound traffic
I'd write something about Indian airport construction, but I cannot find great evidence the airport projects are moving forward (Navi-Mumbai, Navi-Delhi, airport expansion).

I see airport expansion being used to exit the economic "funk" Covid19 caused. e.g., China will focus on Daxing. The US is expanding SLC, DEN, and other airports. Emirates has its role, but a lower cost per flight A350, 787, or A321xLR will be used to bypass all hubs.

Emirates has no choice. They cannot afford to replace aircraft too quickly nor build out DWC. So they will fly A380s. Now I think profitably. But not dominantly like before.

Lightsaber

Revelation wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

One option for long term survival of A380 is to form an alliance and have one large scale premium ACMI operator acceptable to AF,LH,BA and other airlines around the world.

If so called legacy premium carriers can check-in their egos at the door, so does EK, it could be the ACMI operator. And unions have to agree.

Seasonal upgrades stagger around the world, and it is a perfect plane. Keeping it throughout the year on books is a financial burden on any airline.

It is far from a perfect plane. It is just barely workable on the few trunk routes that can support it at all.

Just thinking out loud in the lines of Volga-Denpr. I know unions will make sure it never happens. Personally I don't like to see any air frame being scrapped, so much hard work goes into putting them together and there is so much empty land on earth, still they are cut into pieces.

If anything what surprises me is just how quickly the A380 has fallen out of favor with Etihad. Considering the Residences used to be the talk of the industry and helped make Etihad special, it's a bit surprising that when Etihad recently suggested the A380s weren't coming back no mention of the Residences was made, as if they suddenly wanted nothing to do with them. I don't know if this is entirely due to the pandemic or if they were already planning to move away from them following their strategy switch, but it's all weird to see.

lightsaber wrote:

Slots are not so precious to make the A380 needed beyond a few routes. 3X A350-1000 or 779 will do the same job as 2x A380.
Those 3x A350-1000 or 779 will cost less to fly

Assumes 779 meets goal of 10% lower cost per seat, that means less cost per seat than the A388:

...

The only airline to discuss A380 is the one wed to the A380, Emirates. They have no choice. They cannot afford to replace the fleet.

The one critique I would make to that is what portion of of that cost per seat delta is fuel related. If it's the majority, then we are making a significant assumption about what is in store for future oil prices in determining future profitability of 380 operations at EK. The low acquisition costs of the 380 at EK (acquiring them at almost the same price of a 77W) was a huge factor in their profitability during normal times.

What is in public record at least is that EK had not intended on replacing a 380 as each 779 arrived in the short-term. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, several of the 380 leases were renewed in late 2019 and early 2020. Instead of a 779 replacing a 380, what was planned was a 779 for 77W one for one replacement in 2020. Evidently, that didn't go to plan, and 77Ws exited the fleet regardless. Empirically, EK did the math themselves and determined that the economics made sense to keep the 380 over 77Ws in a pre-covid world. For what exact reasoning, we'll likely never know in the public domain.

dtw2hyd wrote:

One option for long term survival of A380 is to form an alliance and have one large scale premium ACMI operator acceptable to AF,LH,BA and other airlines around the world.

If so called legacy premium carriers can check-in their egos at the door, so does EK, it could be the ACMI operator. And unions have to agree.

Seasonal upgrades stagger around the world, and it is a perfect plane. Keeping it throughout the year on books is a financial burden on any airline.

Hi Fly Malta already tried something like this by leasing one of Doric Aviations's (ex-SQ) A380's, but the business plan was unsuccessful. Over the 3-year lease period Hi Fly got some business wet leasing the A380 to Norwegian Long Haul when their RR-powered B787's had to be repaired. They also did a short wet lease for Air Austral during their peak tourist season in 2019. Finally Hi Fly used the A380 for some expatriation rescue charter flights during the early days of the pandemic. Hi Fly ended the A380 lease in November of last year and this plane is now stored at LDE.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... lta/ek8yve

Airlinerdude wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Slots are not so precious to make the A380 needed beyond a few routes. 3X A350-1000 or 779 will do the same job as 2x A380.
Those 3x A350-1000 or 779 will cost less to fly

Assumes 779 meets goal of 10% lower cost per seat, that means less cost per seat than the A388:

...

The only airline to discuss A380 is the one wed to the A380, Emirates. They have no choice. They cannot afford to replace the fleet.

The one critique I would make to that is what portion of of that cost per seat delta is fuel related. If it's the majority, then we are making a significant assumption about what is in store for future oil prices in determining future profitability of 380 operations at EK. The low acquisition costs of the 380 at EK (acquiring them at almost the same price of a 77W) was a huge factor in their profitability during normal times.

What is in public record at least is that EK had not intended on replacing a 380 as each 779 arrived in the short-term. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, several of the 380 leases were renewed in late 2019 and early 2020. Instead of a 779 replacing a 380, what was planned was a 779 for 77W one for one replacement in 2020. Evidently, that didn't go to plan, and 77Ws exited the fleet regardless. Empirically, EK did the math themselves and determined that the economics made sense to keep the 380 over 77Ws in a pre-covid world. For what exact reasoning, we'll likely never know in the public domain.

That’s interesting actually on the acquisition price of the 380s for EK and what that in turn does to the bottom line.

But let’s not forget also. The A380 came head to head with the 779 with BA and it couldn’t even compete from an operating cost of view. Whether it be second hand or end of the line brand new and we know Airbus was competitive. So that’s another angle as well

Airlinerdude wrote:

The low acquisition costs of the 380 at EK (acquiring them at almost the same price of a 77W) was a huge factor in their profitability during normal times.

I remember hearing that a while back myself. What was never clear was the cost referencing 77W list, or what EK normally pay for 77Ws... Either way is not terrible —the latter obviously being preferable— especially given the likely decent terms EK would be able to get for spares, trainings, etc...

Opus99 wrote:

But let’s not forget also. The A380 came head to head with the 779 with BA and it couldn’t even compete from an operating cost of view. Whether it be second hand or end of the line brand new and we know Airbus was competitive. So that’s another angle as well

And even that only got worse for the 380 as 350-1041s came online.

Revelation wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If anything what surprises me is just how quickly the A380 has fallen out of favor with Etihad. Considering the Residences used to be the talk of the industry and helped make Etihad special, it's a bit surprising that when Etihad recently suggested the A380s weren't coming back no mention of the Residences was made, as if they suddenly wanted nothing to do with them. I don't know if this is entirely due to the pandemic or if they were already planning to move away from them following their strategy switch, but it's all weird to see.

Seems the whole embargo thing changed EY's trajectory, I would think. COVID19 isn't helping either.

You are thinking of QR. EY’s significant financial losses, both from trying to keep up with the Joneses (EK/QR) and terrible investment choices, is what has made them change paths. They want to be a smaller, more niche, carrier now rather than EK 2.0.

Antarius wrote:

Your case isn't rested, lol. The point is that any downturn was going to leave them vulnerable.

And that's happened. Now they have 100 parked expensive inefficient jets that no one else ever wanted.

Oh my case is very much rested. They made money with the planes. They no longer own them as they are leased. MANY airlines have 100 parked planes that they are still making payments on and can't make money with them. Some airlines likely have or had far more than 100 planes parked. Regardless of the size of the plane. Did those airlines over commit? Did Delta over commit on their fleet?
https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-par ... -downturn/

LAX772LR wrote:

Somehow you managed to completely miss the forest for the trees, so let's break it further down:

No need to break it down. No airline is going to build their fleet for a temporary event like an economic down turn. The airline business is cyclical and parking planes in a downturn is not exactly a novelty. Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe. Something of this magnitude has never happened in our lifetimes. Basically what you are saying is that EVERY airline should never buy planes because by golly there's a down turn coming eventually, some day.
As long as people are buying ticket airlines are buying plane. When people stop buying tickets, airlines park the planes. It's always been that way, it will always be that way. The well run airlines will survive the down turn, the poorly run ones won't. Something tells me that EK will still be around after the Pandemic.

airbazar wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Your case isn't rested, lol. The point is that any downturn was going to leave them vulnerable.

And that's happened. Now they have 100 parked expensive inefficient jets that no one else ever wanted.

Oh my case is very much rested. They made money with the planes. They no longer own them as they are leased. MANY airlines have 100 parked planes that they are still making payments on and can't make money with them. Some airlines likely have or had far more than 100 planes parked. Regardless of the size of the plane. Did those airlines over commit? Did Delta over commit on their fleet?
https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-par ... -downturn/

LAX772LR wrote:

Somehow you managed to completely miss the forest for the trees, so let's break it further down:

No need to break it down. No airline is going to build their fleet for a temporary event like an economic down turn. The airline business is cyclical and parking planes in a downturn is not exactly a novelty. Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe. Something of this magnitude has never happened in our lifetimes. Basically what you are saying is that EVERY airline should never buy planes because by golly there's a down turn coming eventually, some day.
As long as people are buying ticket airlines are buying plane. When people stop buying tickets, airlines park the planes. It's always been that way, it will always be that way. The well run airlines will survive the down turn, the poorly run ones won't. Something tells me that EK will still be around after the Pandemic.

The poorest run ones will definitely be around. That's the only guarantee. Air India, PIA, Malaysia, Thai and other such clown shows will definitely remain.

With regards to EK, no one is saying that one should plan for a global pandemic. But one should have fleet discipline too. Any downturn would have socked Emirates badly.

Polot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If anything what surprises me is just how quickly the A380 has fallen out of favor with Etihad. Considering the Residences used to be the talk of the industry and helped make Etihad special, it's a bit surprising that when Etihad recently suggested the A380s weren't coming back no mention of the Residences was made, as if they suddenly wanted nothing to do with them. I don't know if this is entirely due to the pandemic or if they were already planning to move away from them following their strategy switch, but it's all weird to see.

Seems the whole embargo thing changed EY's trajectory, I would think. COVID19 isn't helping either.

You are thinking of QR. EY’s significant financial losses, both from trying to keep up with the Joneses (EK/QR) and terrible investment choices, is what has made them change paths. They want to be a smaller, more niche, carrier now rather than EK 2.0.

Hard to believe that it wasn't long ago that CAPA thought their investments were a good idea. I wonder if they've eaten their crow by now.

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Somehow you managed to completely miss the forest for the trees, so let's break it further down:

No need to break it down.

Apparently there is, because all you just did in this response, is double-down on something that's not completely logically nor logistically sound. For example:

airbazar wrote:

Basically what you are saying is that EVERY airline should never buy planes because by golly there's a down turn coming eventually, some day.



Yeahhhhh, that's why there's a need to break it down.

airbazar wrote:

No airline is going to build their fleet for a temporary event like an economic down turn.

Which is why airlines, more so than most, have a tendency to go bust within their particular industry's cycles.

airbazar wrote:

The airline business is cyclical and parking planes in a downturn is not exactly a novelty.

Which is one of the only paths available, when your fleet choices can only be described as anomalous, in comparison to essentially every other carrier out there.

airbazar wrote:

Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe.

Yet, and once again, you missed the *KEY* part: which is that the potential, the likelihood, and most of all the impending warning signs for that happening, were there.

And most carriers did little to nothing about it.

airbazar wrote:

Something of this magnitude has never happened in our lifetimes.

Who's "our?".... worldwide commercial jet travel has barely existed much longer than the span of "our lifetimes," so that's hardly a worthwhile measure.

airbazar wrote:

The well run airlines will survive the down turn, the poorly run ones won't.

Yet, the belabored point that you still don't quite seem to see, is that the jury's still out on whether buying 100+ A380s qualifies as "poorly run" or not, in the long term. A few years of profits during a boom cycle, doesn't place a period on that conclusion.

Antarius wrote:

With regards to EK, no one is saying that one should plan for a global pandemic. But one should have fleet discipline too. Any downturn would have socked Emirates badly.

Bingo. THAT is the point that's being made: having such an atypical fleet type, left this airline uniquely vulnerable to essentially any significant downturn, not the least of which being the worst downturn that the industry's ever faced, for which they had plenty of warning of the likelihood of occurring.

airbazar wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Your case isn't rested, lol. The point is that any downturn was going to leave them vulnerable.

And that's happened. Now they have 100 parked expensive inefficient jets that no one else ever wanted.

Oh my case is very much rested. They made money with the planes. They no longer own them as they are leased. MANY airlines have 100 parked planes that they are still making payments on and can't make money with them. Some airlines likely have or had far more than 100 planes parked. Regardless of the size of the plane. Did those airlines over commit? Did Delta over commit on their fleet?
https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-par ... -downturn/

LAX772LR wrote:

Somehow you managed to completely miss the forest for the trees, so let's break it further down:

No need to break it down. No airline is going to build their fleet for a temporary event like an economic down turn. The airline business is cyclical and parking planes in a downturn is not exactly a novelty. Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe. Something of this magnitude has never happened in our lifetimes. Basically what you are saying is that EVERY airline should never buy planes because by golly there's a down turn coming eventually, some day.
As long as people are buying ticket airlines are buying plane. When people stop buying tickets, airlines park the planes. It's always been that way, it will always be that way. The well run airlines will survive the down turn, the poorly run ones won't. Something tells me that EK will still be around after the Pandemic.

In general your assertions are valid but not applicable to the "well run" airline in focus. Here are few caveats.

Every other airline has fleet flexibility, but "well run" airline picked two largest now discontinued plane types, just to squeeze every drop of productivity from crew, no other known tangible benefit.
Airlines with fleet flexibility dumped this thing in a heart beat, not pondering while parked.
An airline with A320,B787,B777 and A380 has the ability to deploy right-size plane for the mission. One size fits all is a failed model.
Yes Emirates planes are leased and can be returned at lease-end which is far away. And no lessor extending Costco return/exchange policy to EK as it made believe here.
Other airlines have major "domestic" component which is going to come back sooner than "international".
As mentioned above thread, during pandemic people give preference to non-stop flights, works against sixth-freedom carriers, particularly city-state based ones.
Delta had close to $8Billion cash reserves going into pandemic and US Government is ready to bailout.
Delta never splurged on fleet, it bought old planes where it made financial sense, or purchased fuel efficient new planes when they are appropriate.

Yes, EK will survive the pandemic, but it won't be a market disrupter or game changer. Just a run of the mill city-state owned and subsidized airlines as it was always, without much fanfare. Deja Vu, Gulf Air.

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

Strato2 wrote:

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

228 before EIS and 250 after 12 years in service are very very different. I’m sure you can appreciate that

Airlinerdude wrote:

The low acquisition costs of the 380 at EK (acquiring them at almost the same price of a 77W) was a huge factor in their profitability during normal times.

You are comparing the A380 unit price after front end discounts AND retrospective credits, versus the 77W minus front end discounts only.

Boeing despised the A380 for taking 77 sales, and capping the value proposition of the 77X, resulting in barely cash flow positive sales to customers after launch and other discounts, plus retrospective discounts. And probably not since the DC10 / L1011 launch has such a high percentage of initial customer orders being treated as 'launch' customers.

Strato2 wrote:

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

mig17 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

Yes. I believe it is 202 as you said (191 (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing- ... delay.html) plus the recent 11 for SQ).

As for the constant dumping on by Strato2 - If the 777x ends production at 202, i'll be the first to call it a failure. But given that the aircraft isn't even flying yet and has 200 orders.. I'm willing to reserve judgement and see.

mig17 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

It was updated today. Last month 11 came back. This month 15 came back

Antarius wrote:

mig17 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

The writing is on the wall there are only 228 orders for the 777X now. That is much less than there are A380's delivered. The A380 will not get replaced by the 777X but by the A350-900 or 787-10.

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

Yes. I believe it is 202 as you said (191 (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing- ... delay.html) plus the recent 11 for SQ).

As for the constant dumping on by Strato2 - If the 777x ends production at 202, i'll be the first to call it a failure. But given that the aircraft isn't even flying yet and has 200 orders.. I'm willing to reserve judgement and see.

Singapore 11 was seperate from the 11 added onto the backlog

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

mig17 wrote:

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

Yes. I believe it is 202 as you said (191 (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing- ... delay.html) plus the recent 11 for SQ).

As for the constant dumping on by Strato2 - If the 777x ends production at 202, i'll be the first to call it a failure. But given that the aircraft isn't even flying yet and has 200 orders.. I'm willing to reserve judgement and see.

Singapore 11 was seperate from the 11 added onto the backlog

Then that's 213?

Who else is there for the 228 discussed upthread?

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

mig17 wrote:

228? Wasn't it 202 after Boeing ASC606 adjustment at 191 and SQ +11 ?
So if A380 is staying longer at EK and A350 and 787 are comming in, how many 777-9 are still comming at EK?

Yes. I believe it is 202 as you said (191 (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing- ... delay.html) plus the recent 11 for SQ).

As for the constant dumping on by Strato2 - If the 777x ends production at 202, i'll be the first to call it a failure. But given that the aircraft isn't even flying yet and has 200 orders.. I'm willing to reserve judgement and see.

Singapore 11 was seperate from the 11 added onto the backlog

OK,so 228 total would put Emirates' order at 79 777-9 remaining, assuming Etihad, Cathay and the unidentified customer are gone.

What about the two different engine types? Any chance one will soon be retired?
How many planes have which type? Which type is dominant with Emirates?

mig17 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Yes. I believe it is 202 as you said (191 (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/boeing- ... delay.html) plus the recent 11 for SQ).

As for the constant dumping on by Strato2 - If the 777x ends production at 202, i'll be the first to call it a failure. But given that the aircraft isn't even flying yet and has 200 orders.. I'm willing to reserve judgement and see.

Singapore 11 was seperate from the 11 added onto the backlog

OK,so 228 total would put Emirates' order at 79 777-9 remaining, assuming Etihad, Cathay and the unidentified customer are gone.

Total 777X are honestly hard to track until Boeing gives a number in a press release since Boeing lumps a lot of 77W/F and 777X data together. Numbers quoted are after ASC606 adjustments but those can change with no change to order book, the 777’s ASC606 number decreased (improved) by 15 just last month with no cancellations or orders, and people have a tendency to apply the entire 777 ASC606 adjustment to the 777X when they are probably not all 777Xs (I bet PIA’s 5 77Ws are part of those adjustments).

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe.

Yet, and once again, you missed the *KEY* part: which is that the potential, the likelihood, and most of all the impending warning signs for that happening, were there.

And most carriers did little to nothing about it.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are missing the key point? That perhaps, just maybe, an event of this magnitude was never predictable and that there were no warning signs?

Antarius wrote:

With regards to EK, no one is saying that one should plan for a global pandemic. But one should have fleet discipline too. Any downturn would have socked Emirates badly.

That's opinion, not fact.
There have been many downturns in recent history and well run airlines like Emirates handled it just fine.
My main problem is with people equating the current downturn with previous ones like the H1N1 Pandemic or SARS. That's basically the airline industry equivalent of saying Covid-19 is just like the Flu. It's ludicrous and anyone who does that immediately loses all credibility with their argument, IMO.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics ... -1980-2020

It may not be a case of an uncontrolled 77x delay, but rather that lease payments on the 388’s (and RR power by hour) were put off for 12-24 months in many cases. They weren’t cancelled though, so the 380’s are going to remain of course as they still have whatever was sitting on them in early 2020 remaining, plus some interest likely due to the groundings.

In other words, why proceed with a retirement plan when...you have to pay for them longer now and they sat around for 2 years? Seems like common sense to push the 77x out 12-24 months to me. EK might also have a tough time finding a new lessor/best financing rate if they did take them in a year anyway...

Honestly what other airlines would order the 777X? We know EK has trimmed their order after seeing that it’s too big for their needs, QR & EY are shaky to say the least, SQ probably wouldn’t be ordering more after their recent top up, nor do I see any of the other current orders being increased.

Sokes wrote:

What about the two different engine types? Any chance one will soon be retired?
How many planes have which type? Which type is dominant with Emirates?

One is old, one is high-maintenance, no clear winner there either. RR has better and more pressing issues than fixing A380 engines.

Retirement at will is not an option, retirement schedule is dictated by lessors/financiers, not by STC.

This is just an attention seeking exercise, when you are no longer biggest game in the town.

MrBryan86 wrote:

Honestly what other airlines would order the 777X? We know EK has trimmed their order after seeing that it’s too big for their needs, QR & EY are shaky to say the least, SQ probably wouldn’t be ordering more after their recent top up, nor do I see any of the other current orders being increased.

QR is not shaky according to their CEO. They want them ASAP according to him. 777X has a lot of potential customers. Especially in the Far East. Expect BA to to up. They have 24 options. I see Eva air - there’s a 2015 article saying they plan to do so in the future. I expect the Chinese carriers far into the future. I expect Korean air. I expect KLM. If they’re going all Boeing fleet like they’ve said they are then I mean it’s pretty much a given. I expect Saudia eventually. Iran air seems to be coming back very much into play. They’ve written to Boeing that they want to go ahead with the deal ASAP. 777X passenger variant will probably do around 400 orders. The freighter version will also bring in some business. Will it do as well as the second generation of 777s? I highly doubt. But it will do well enough

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Like you said there have been downturns before but NEVER have governments banned travel across the entire globe.

Yet, and once again, you missed the *KEY* part: which is that the potential, the likelihood, and most of all the impending warning signs for that happening, were there.

And most carriers did little to nothing about it.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are missing the key point? That perhaps, just maybe, an event of this magnitude was never predictable and that there were no warning signs?

Well, no.... because, as now explained to you three times: that would be an utter falsehood.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If anything what surprises me is just how quickly the A380 has fallen out of favor with Etihad. Considering the Residences used to be the talk of the industry and helped make Etihad special, it's a bit surprising that when Etihad recently suggested the A380s weren't coming back no mention of the Residences was made, as if they suddenly wanted nothing to do with them. I don't know if this is entirely due to the pandemic or if they were already planning to move away from them following their strategy switch, but it's all weird to see.

Hemmhoraging money will do that to a business. I think in the end they weren’t seeing the demand for them to justify the inefficiency the residences generated onboard, and cabin reconfiguration costs would have also been prohibitive. Don’t they still have 4xa350-1000 brand new in storage?