Alan Joyce has made claims at a conference today that QF expects to reactivate the A380 fleet once international demand returns, saying they’ve ‘spent lots of money on them’ and ‘once demand is their they’re going to be good aircraft’ he’s also claimed that when needed the fleet can be reactivated in 3-6 months.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... R8cAH1aDg0

I have a question, if you are maintaining your stored aircraft well why does it take up to six months to return them to service? I have no knowledge of operation requirements hence the question.

Might be from the actual go until the whole fleet is back in service. So pilots need training again and if they do one aircraft at a time, it might stretch the timeline.

readytotaxi wrote:

I have a question, if you are maintaining your stored aircraft well why does it take up to six months to return them to service? I have no knowledge of operation requirements hence the question.

Maintaining the aircraft well in storage doesn’t mean they are performing all the necessary maintenance to keep them airworthy for commercial services. Just that they are doing necessary checks for long term storage.

All crew have been stood down. By the time they’re needed towards 2023 many will be starting from scratch for certification.

readytotaxi wrote:

I have a question, if you are maintaining your stored aircraft well why does it take up to six months to return them to service? I have no knowledge of operation requirements hence the question.

Many A380 pilots have left the company, and those that may return or are still with QF will need retraining after likely 2+ years of not flying.

readytotaxi wrote:

I have a question, if you are maintaining your stored aircraft well why does it take up to six months to return them to service? I have no knowledge of operation requirements hence the question.

There are 12 A380s in the QF fleet and it will take a while to get them back up on line from long term storage. There are many hurdles to clear when placing an aircraft back into service after an extended period of storage for safety reasons and he may have meant the full fleet. I suspect we'll see half the A380 fleet come back on line and the rest will not, and eventually, QF will order a replacement and phase them out. The challenge is finances for a new order.

Given that they serve(d) several airports where adding frequencies is difficult due to capacity constraints (LHR, SIN, LAX) and an equally constrained home base (SYD), this is hardly a surprise. Same reason why BA, EK and SQ are keeping them.

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380. You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

If you read the original article (the source of Alan Joyce interview) carefully, it says by 2024...that is 3 years away and anything can happen. Currently in aviation world it is even extremely difficult to plan what would happen in 2 months time or a season, let along 3 years!

Agreed
A lot can happen..

And you've got to consider the financial impact of this.. Joyce can't say much else.

Qantas own all 12 outright afaik, no leases, no specific lien. While they've written them down substantially they've still got some value (and they've just spent more $$s refurbing 6 before Covid)

If they say publicly they won't return that probably triggers another write down. I doubt A380s even have much value as a parts bin these days.

Written down, they are still a very efficient aircraft if you can fill them.

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380. You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

Well, that's the thing: A380 CASM is comparable to a typical 77W config but it's a much bigger increment of capacity to fill. They get used on routes with a fairly low frequency, anyway, so just cutting frequency in half isn't a good option.

Qantas has no choice but to try to make it work. They don't have a sugar daddy ready to shower them with $ Billions to buy replacement 787s or A350s.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

I have a question, if you are maintaining your stored aircraft well why does it take up to six months to return them to service? I have no knowledge of operation requirements hence the question.

There are 12 A380s in the QF fleet and it will take a while to get them back up on line from long term storage. There are many hurdles to clear when placing an aircraft back into service after an extended period of storage for safety reasons and he may have meant the full fleet. I suspect we'll see half the A380 fleet come back on line and the rest will not, and eventually, QF will order a replacement and phase them out. The challenge is finances for a new order.

Three had been reconfigured and 3 were in that process. The problem is a huge gap down to the next size of long haul plane...the B789.

moa999 wrote:

Agreed
A lot can happen..

And you've got to consider the financial impact of this.. Joyce can't say much else.

Qantas own all 12 outright afaik, no leases, no specific lien. While they've written them down substantially they've still got some value (and they've just spent more $$s refurbing 6 before Covid)

If they say publicly they won't return that probably triggers another write down. I doubt A380s even have much value as a parts bin these days.

Written down, they are still a very efficient aircraft if you can fill them.

Thing is, STC also can't say much else. Sure, most of the A380 fleet is leased, but it will still take him all of the 2020s for the leases to unwind, and he can't stick it to the lessors since the main backers of the leases are the sovereign wealth fund and various high net worth Emirati.

MIflyer12 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380. You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

Well, that's the thing: A380 CASM is comparable to a typical 77W config but it's a much bigger increment of capacity to fill. They get used on routes with a fairly low frequency, anyway, so just cutting frequency in half isn't a good option.

Qantas has no choice but to try to make it work. They don't have a sugar daddy ready to shower them with $ Billions to buy replacement 787s or A350s.

As above, all that does is give STC even more rope to hang himself with. No wonder he was trying to retire a year ago. Unfortunately QF's management can't use their owners money to stay one step ahead of the hangman, they've got to deal with the issue in real time.

Great to hear this news is officially confirmed! I went out to VCV last week (Saturday, April 10), here are some Qantas A380 photos from that day if you're wondering what they look like now (in the 3rd and 4th photo there's a Qantas tail facing away from the camera in the middle/right portion of the image, that's VH-OQC readying to go to LAX before heading to Europe for maintenance):
https://www.instagram.com/p/CNpiHwfht-B/

I don't see VA returning to LAX. DL, UA and possibly AA will return but QF has always had the best Transpacific Product and is most preferred by Business Travellers. So a successful return of the A380 between SYD-LAX and MEL-LAX should be achievable.

The Kangaroo route to LHR is a bit harder to forecast, viability of A380 will depend on the level of competition, demand and slot availability at LHR. They may consider going back to a Scissor Hub at SIN with an A380 flying SYD-SIN-LHR with connecting traffic coming to SIN from ADL, BNE & MEL on a 789. Plus a 737 from DRW if they are feeling really ambitious. And reinstate 789 on MEL-PER-LHR.

Other options to use the A380 look a bit gloomy. Possibilities are HKG, DFW, SFO, HND, SCL and JNB in decreasing order of likelihood.

If EK or QR get into trouble then more capacity to LHR, CDG and FRA may be needed which could open the Door to more QF A380 flights to Europe. But both EK & QR probably have deeper pockets than QF.

It will also be interesting to see how many EK and QR A380's come back into service.

QF doesn't have slot constraints are Kingsford Smith like BA does at LHR. Everyone loves the A380 but are good for the future at Qantas ? QF's route map to the USA has become more direct with the 787-9 with more flights from Melbourne to San Francisco & Brisbane to SFO & LAX. The A380 is great for LAX to SYD & MEL but SFO to Brisbane is clearly a 787 route. QF needs to get more 787-9. Melbourne and Brisbane to DFW would help shorten times from the US east coast. The A380 has a role, the 787-9 and A350 have a bigger one reducing flying times with nonstops even if they do average 16 to 18 hours. The Red Roo nonstop to the US east coast, who would have thought ?

MIflyer12 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380. You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

Well, that's the thing: A380 CASM is comparable to a typical 77W config but it's a much bigger increment of capacity to fill. They get used on routes with a fairly low frequency, anyway, so just cutting frequency in half isn't a good option.

Qantas has no choice but to try to make it work. They don't have a sugar daddy ready to shower them with $ Billions to buy replacement 787s or A350s.

You're missing the point. It's not "no choice".The aircraft are all but written down. QF could soon walk away if they didn't see an upside. The issue is lack of slots and gates at key airports for optimum arrival / departure / connection at both ends of the equation - and it's jammed - minimal or no slots. Gees.. perhaps the A380 solves the access problem at congested airports?!

NZ321 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380. You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

Well, that's the thing: A380 CASM is comparable to a typical 77W config but it's a much bigger increment of capacity to fill. They get used on routes with a fairly low frequency, anyway, so just cutting frequency in half isn't a good option.

Qantas has no choice but to try to make it work. They don't have a sugar daddy ready to shower them with $ Billions to buy replacement 787s or A350s.

You're missing the point. It's not "no choice".The aircraft are all but written down. QF could soon walk away if they didn't see an upside. The issue is lack of slots and gates at key airports for optimum arrival / departure / connection at both ends of the equation - and it's jammed - minimal or no slots. Gees.. perhaps the A380 solves the access problem at congested airports?!

"A380 is paid down" ≠ "QF can finance their replacements"...

The list of routes that were viable for QF (or anybody else) pre-covid is not going to mean much in the future. Businesses have learnt to use Zoom and noted it can save them a lot of time and money. Holiday makers are extremely reluctant to venture far from home, having seen what a disaster being caught in a pandemic can cause. And people will be much less willing to take overseas jobs for the same reason. So routes like BNE-SFO, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD which were introduced or planned pre-covid and expected to be just viable with the arrival of the 789 are now not going to be viable again for quite a while. It could take 5, 10, 20 or more years for demand to be sufficient to make them work. I doubt QF needs more 789 anytime soon.

Pre-covid there were a few, but not many, Airports that were "jammed" to the point that A380's were a significant advantage. Now there are few if any Airports in the World with serious slot restraints. Maybe just LHR.

DFW-SYD is a route they used them on and will probably see them again once the route is again feasable.

Great news - I look forwards to flying internationally on one that's had the cabin refitted. With VA gone, the supply situation will have moved somewhat in Qantas' favour.

Amazing (yet not surprising ) to see a.net trying to turn some A380 positivity from a CEO that's been plenty critical of the plane in the past into something negative.

Nothing like an A380 on Sydney to Singapore/London, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Assuming a return to normality, there is basically no limit to the number of punters on these routes. Reasonably high yield too. I can absolutely see a case for Qantas keeping the A380.

NZ321 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Qantas has no choice but to try to make it work. They don't have a sugar daddy ready to shower them with $ Billions to buy replacement 787s or A350s.

You're missing the point. It's not "no choice".The aircraft are all but written down. QF could soon walk away if they didn't see an upside. The issue is lack of slots and gates at key airports for optimum arrival / departure / connection at both ends of the equation - and it's jammed - minimal or no slots. Gees.. perhaps the A380 solves the access problem at congested airports?!

Written down, but far from written off. Plus refurbishments over USD100m to-date and increasing, depreciated over 12 years on each aircraft. And engine maintenance contracts, even on the oldest run to at least 2023 (longer if QF has taken the RR Covid holiday offer).

Also floating charges over these aircraft securing funding lines.

QF is doing the best they can to avoid impaired asset write off, but at some point.............. They will either take another write off including the refurbishment, place them back into service, or combination of the two. Latter seems most likely.

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding efficiency, if the 77W is still viable in 2023 then so is the A380.

Where on earth are you getting that correlation from?

mxaxai wrote:

You just need routes with adequate demand, which QF does but AF or MH did not.

That ain't true at all. You seriously going to sit here and try to argue that Paris to places like NYC, Los Angeles, Montreal, etc didn't have "adequate demand?"

Nah, more along the lines of AF having relatively unconstrained hubs, a high cost structure, and overflight by a gigantic j/v partner.

As they sure about this? If was QF themselves saying that 2x 789 flights STILL cost less than 1x A388. The EU route is way too much competition including gov subsidy so increasing PER-LHR to 2x daily or launch PER-CDG or PER-FRA sounds about right not including Project Sunrise. The Americas route is a gold mine and I HOPE QF goes 1x 789 SYD-LAX/DFW/SFO/SCL. South Africa is in dire straights but I've heard there's a HUGE South African population in Australia so they should resume SYD-JNB and maybe launch PER-JNB.

x1234 wrote:

As they sure about this? If was QF themselves saying that 2x 789 flights STILL cost less than 1x A388. The EU route is way too much competition including gov subsidy so increasing PER-LHR to 2x daily or launch PER-CDG or PER-FRA sounds about right not including Project Sunrise. The Americas route is a gold mine and I HOPE QF goes 1x 789 SYD-LAX/DFW/SFO/SCL. South Africa is in dire straights but I've heard there's a HUGE South African population in Australia so they should resume SYD-JNB and maybe launch PER-JNB.

Are they sure? I think they are hopeful more than sure. But this is the hand they’ve dealt themselves, so they may as well play it. While 789s are cheaper on trip cost, they have the A380s on property and have already taken an impairment on them. Keeping them for a few more years once traffic recovers will be smarter from a capex perspective than buying more 787s to replace them. In due course, probably in the second half of the decade, I can see an A350 order, but on the short term minimising capex is going to be the priority.

Note than at no point have they said that all 12 are coming back. I think the 6 that have already been refurbished will return for a few more years while the 6 unrefurbished aircraft will be retired, but they don’t want to announce that yet for two reasons. Firstly, they will need to take a further impairment on those 6 frames, and second if demand does ramp up to 2019 levels in a couple of years they could still return them to service. If (and it is a big if) long haul demand from Australia returns strongly over the next couple of years then Qantas are going to want to keep all 12 A380s going until either more 787s and/or A350s arrive (again, not for five or more years IMHO) as they have retired the 747 fleet during 2020, with only 3 (?) 787s awaiting delivery.

x1234 wrote:

If was QF themselves saying that 2x 789 flights STILL cost less than 1x A388.

But that was at full purchase price.
Once you've taken a massive write down on the A380s things change.

Then suddenly the accounting profit or CASM plus depreciation/interest/lease makes an old A380 far more viable versus going out and buying more 787s or 350s/777s.

Obviously though you have to be able to fill the aircraft on a regular basis at decent yield though.

x1234 wrote:

As they sure about this? If was QF themselves saying that 2x 789 flights STILL cost less than 1x A388. The EU route is way too much competition including gov subsidy so increasing PER-LHR to 2x daily or launch PER-CDG or PER-FRA sounds about right not including Project Sunrise. The Americas route is a gold mine and I HOPE QF goes 1x 789 SYD-LAX/DFW/SFO/SCL. South Africa is in dire straights but I've heard there's a HUGE South African population in Australia so they should resume SYD-JNB and maybe launch PER-JNB.

At the same time QF have said since the start of the pandemic that they would return atleast some A380s to service when the time is right, I’m confident atleast 6 will return for SYD-LAX and SYD-SIN-LHR. They can’t and won’t exactly go out and spend billions when they don’t have the CAPEX on new aircraft when the A380 is perfectly capable atleast on trunk routes.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Note than at no point have they said that all 12 are coming back. I think the 6 that have already been refurbished will return for a few more years while the 6 unrefurbished aircraft will be retired, but they don’t want to announce that yet for two reasons. Firstly, they will need to take a further impairment on those 6 frames, and second if demand does ramp up to 2019 levels in a couple of years they could still return them to service. If (and it is a big if) long haul demand from Australia returns strongly over the next couple of years then Qantas are going to want to keep all 12 A380s going until either more 787s and/or A350s arrive (again, not for five or more years IMHO) as they have retired the 747 fleet during 2020, with only 3 (?) 787s awaiting delivery.

One A380 is currently being prepared to ferry to DRS in May/June for a 12 year check and refurbishment which will take the total refurbed to 7.

Pentaprism wrote:

Businesses have learnt to use Zoom and noted it can save them a lot of time and money. Holiday makers are extremely reluctant to venture far from home, having seen what a disaster being caught in a pandemic can cause. And people will be much less willing to take overseas jobs for the same reason.

Your point with Zoom/virtual meeting is valid but we really don't have any evidence to suggest that holiday makers will be reluctant to venture far from home or that people won't want to take overseas work. At the moment both of those things are simply not possible but once restrictions are rolled back and as the pandemic winds down I'm very confident people will be up and moving again. I don't think anyone is going to plan their lives on how to be in the best situation should a (hopefully) once in a generation pandemic come up.

If the current high demand for domestic leisure travel is any indication then international leisure at least should recover quickly once borders reopen. Not everyone is that interested in a domestic holiday.

Personally I intend to do some domestic this year but not anywhere as much as if I could travel internationally.

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk

Pentaprism wrote:

I don't see VA returning to LAX. DL, UA and possibly AA will return but QF has always had the best Transpacific Product and is most preferred by Business Travellers. So a successful return of the A380 between SYD-LAX and MEL-LAX should be achievable.

The Kangaroo route to LHR is a bit harder to forecast, viability of A380 will depend on the level of competition, demand and slot availability at LHR. They may consider going back to a Scissor Hub at SIN with an A380 flying SYD-SIN-LHR with connecting traffic coming to SIN from ADL, BNE & MEL on a 789. Plus a 737 from DRW if they are feeling really ambitious. And reinstate 789 on MEL-PER-LHR.

Other options to use the A380 look a bit gloomy. Possibilities are HKG, DFW, SFO, HND, SCL and JNB in decreasing order of likelihood.

If EK or QR get into trouble then more capacity to LHR, CDG and FRA may be needed which could open the Door to more QF A380 flights to Europe. But both EK & QR probably have deeper pockets than QF.

It will also be interesting to see how many EK and QR A380's come back into service.

The VA CEO said in an interview published yesterday that VA will be flying to the US (LAX) and Japan (HND) when possible, so when borders open and they have widebodies (which is currently under review).

brissypete wrote:

If the current high demand for domestic leisure travel is any indication then international leisure at least should recover quickly once borders reopen. Not everyone is that interested in a domestic holiday.

Personally I intend to do some domestic this year but not anywhere as much as if I could travel internationally.

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk

Once the border (eventually) opens I imagine there will be a short-term sugar hit from cooped up Australians who are looking to visit friends and relatives overseas or do that trip of a lifetime in Europe because they may not get another chance again. With the local economy doing well, there will be people with sufficient funds to pay above AirAsia/Scoot prices to travel, and will do so. But I would really worry about any routes that rely on large inbound travel from the countries that have taken the big economic hits as those travellers will likely be more price sensitive.

The hope of the airlines will be that business traffic recovers and the market reverts back to normal in the next 2-3 years, which it may but I wouldn't be so sure of. Those global businesses that have burned a stack of cash to stay afloat during COVID will likely rein in their travel budgets for the next couple of years, and will likely push more road warriors to meet virtually. If the wider economy starts to bubble up again, markets get competitive and companies become more optimistic in their outlook, that return may come sooner rather than later, but there is no guarantee.

Pentaprism wrote:

The list of routes that were viable for QF (or anybody else) pre-covid is not going to mean much in the future. Businesses have learnt to use Zoom and noted it can save them a lot of time and money. Holiday makers are extremely reluctant to venture far from home, having seen what a disaster being caught in a pandemic can cause. And people will be much less willing to take overseas jobs for the same reason. So routes like BNE-SFO, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD which were introduced or planned pre-covid and expected to be just viable with the arrival of the 789 are now not going to be viable again for quite a while. It could take 5, 10, 20 or more years for demand to be sufficient to make them work. I doubt QF needs more 789 anytime soon.

Pre-covid there were a few, but not many, Airports that were "jammed" to the point that A380's were a significant advantage. Now there are few if any Airports in the World with serious slot restraints. Maybe just LHR.

While the Zoom point is the mantra these days, I wonder if it's overblown. Sure, it's a band aid approach in the short term but everyone was forced to do it. A lot of business relationships, especially involving sales, are personal. Two things: 1) 5 or 6 years down the road, when some people on one or both ends of that zoom call have changed jobs, the new players won't know each other at all and that's not good. 2) As soon as one competitor breaks the trend and starts traveling, especially if they take business from someone else, business travel's back in a hurry. It'll shift from cost savings to revenue protection.

[url][/url]

Pentaprism wrote:

The list of routes that were viable for QF (or anybody else) pre-covid is not going to mean much in the future. Businesses have learnt to use Zoom and noted it can save them a lot of time and money. Holiday makers are extremely reluctant to venture far from home, having seen what a disaster being caught in a pandemic can cause. And people will be much less willing to take overseas jobs for the same reason. So routes like BNE-SFO, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD which were introduced or planned pre-covid and expected to be just viable with the arrival of the 789 are now not going to be viable again for quite a while. It could take 5, 10, 20 or more years for demand to be sufficient to make them work. I doubt QF needs more 789 anytime soon.

Pre-covid there were a few, but not many, Airports that were "jammed" to the point that A380's were a significant advantage. Now there are few if any Airports in the World with serious slot restraints. Maybe just LHR.

I would disagree that workers will not take jobs in other countries as I know many younger people that are doing just that. For many younger workers the 2 week quarantine was not as big a deal and a smaller issue. They are heavier users of social media to keep in touch with friends and family. Older workers that have families & heavy ties to homes and it is an issue.

While zoom works for some business meetings there are still many that will still need hands on approach. We will see some travel come back, just not as much as before. Smaller planes with more direct flights to airports such LHR will still cause slot limits that can open up space for some A380's.

jfk777 wrote:

QF doesn't have slot constraints are Kingsford Smith like BA does at LHR. Everyone loves the A380 but are good for the future at Qantas ? QF's route map to the USA has become more direct with the 787-9 with more flights from Melbourne to San Francisco & Brisbane to SFO & LAX. The A380 is great for LAX to SYD & MEL but SFO to Brisbane is clearly a 787 route. QF needs to get more 787-9. Melbourne and Brisbane to DFW would help shorten times from the US east coast. The A380 has a role, the 787-9 and A350 have a bigger one reducing flying times with nonstops even if they do average 16 to 18 hours. The Red Roo nonstop to the US east coast, who would have thought ?

They do have constraints for due to flight times and curfews that would affect US east/west coast flights & LHR service to/from SYD/MEL. They have to schedule more flights in higher laded time slots. The A380 is a good US-LAX airframe due to this. The A350-1000 ULR will be good to do NYC & LHR due to timing issues.

Where it works the A380 generates a lot of cash. And cash is king.

Aither wrote:

Where it works the A380 generates a lot of cash. And cash is king.

The problem is. There are now many planes that will generate as much profit (not necessarily revenue because of its size) but for much less risk

Opus99 wrote:

Aither wrote:

Where it works the A380 generates a lot of cash. And cash is king.

The problem is. There are now many planes that will generate as much profit (not necessarily revenue because of its size) but for much less risk

Companies die not before of lack of profits but because lack of cash.

Profitability is one thing, but absolute profits is also very important to cover the fix costs of the airline. There are several airlines I know where the A380 flights were accounting 70%+ of the profits, yet they complain these routes are "less profitable" than others......

The risk is also to leave too much demand for the competition which can increase frequencies.

Aither wrote:

Companies die not before of lack of profits but because lack of cash.

Profitability is one thing, but absolute profits is also very important to cover the fix costs of the airline. There are several airlines I know where the A380 flights were accounting 70%+ of the profits, yet they complain these routes are "less profitable" than others......

The risk is also to leave too much demand for the competition which can increase frequencies.

These are very interesting points and I agree with you. I guess the next thing to determine whether the particular A380 would return or not will be maintenance cost VS opportunistic cash generated. Some of the A380s will be approaching the critical stages of heavy maintenance, would operator be able to invest on the maintenance to generate enough cash or decide to write it off in case the future is not rosy?

Whilst there are some business travel and conference that would be replaced by zoom and video conferencing forever, most in similar time zones. There are others that involves different time zones, for examples, us in the far east vs meetings to be held in East Coast US, would you prefer either side to attend the zoom meeting almost midnight and might be dressed 'homely' or would the 72/96 hours stay in the actual location, with rapid test on departure/arrival worth the hassle? I agree a meeting say between Hong Kong to Shanghai/Singapore, there is no need to meet face to face, but with different (ooposite) timezone, is quite difficult

B-HOP wrote:

Whilst there are some business travel and conference that would be replaced by zoom and video conferencing forever, most in similar time zones. There are others that involves different time zones, for examples, us in the far east vs meetings to be held in East Coast US, would you prefer either side to attend the zoom meeting almost midnight and might be dressed 'homely' or would the 72/96 hours stay in the actual location, with rapid test on departure/arrival worth the hassle? I agree a meeting say between Hong Kong to Shanghai/Singapore, there is no need to meet face to face, but with different (ooposite) timezone, is quite difficult

I've attended far more conferences and participated in far more team meeting in the last year than I did in the five years because online conferences are cheap and convenient, and it's not even close.. Conferences have figured out that indeed they can make up the loss in attendee fees by volume. One conference I recently attended was used to seeing 500 attendees at $1200/head so $600k in attendees fees, instead saw 30,000 remote attendees at $50/head so $1.5M in attendee fees. They've already said the remote attendee option is not going away going forward even if/when they can do live conferences. You have to remember that doing all the stuff needed to do a live event costs them a lot of money. The down side is I think sponsors are hard to work into the on-line experience in a way they appreciate, and of course the 1-1 experience is extremely worthwhile, but in balance I think the online conference is never going away and employees are going to be pressured to use the online format wherever possible.

380VHOQK wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Note than at no point have they said that all 12 are coming back. I think the 6 that have already been refurbished will return for a few more years while the 6 unrefurbished aircraft will be retired, but they don’t want to announce that yet for two reasons. Firstly, they will need to take a further impairment on those 6 frames, and second if demand does ramp up to 2019 levels in a couple of years they could still return them to service. If (and it is a big if) long haul demand from Australia returns strongly over the next couple of years then Qantas are going to want to keep all 12 A380s going until either more 787s and/or A350s arrive (again, not for five or more years IMHO) as they have retired the 747 fleet during 2020, with only 3 (?) 787s awaiting delivery.

One A380 is currently being prepared to ferry to DRS in May/June for a 12 year check and refurbishment which will take the total refurbed to 7.

Is that actually the case? There will be a lot of aircraft to renter service around the same time which could cause delays due to demand down the line. QF have to be absolutely sure they will return to service to do that, like I say certainly the 6 refurbished birds for SYD-LAX and SYD-SIN-LHR I can see

Opus99 wrote:

Aither wrote:

Where it works the A380 generates a lot of cash. And cash is king.

The problem is. There are now many planes that will generate as much profit (not necessarily revenue because of its size) but for much less risk

But that risk is less relevant when you have a fleet of mostly written down A380s. Obviously it doesn’t go away, but the capital costs of new A350s or 787s can work in favour of keeping the A380s until their next major check.

I would love to believe this, but I'll wait and see. By 2024 the aircraft not have flown in several years, will long be out of production, and may be relying on scrapped aircraft for spare parts. Most maintenance facilities for the A380 will be winding down. I just see a lot of practical difficulties in a return to service even if demand rebounds.

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I would love to believe this, but I'll wait and see. By 2024 the aircraft not have flown in several years, will long be out of production, and may be relying on scrapped aircraft for spare parts. Most maintenance facilities for the A380 will be winding down. I just see a lot of practical difficulties in a return to service even if demand rebounds.

Airbus will provide full support for the continued operation of the A380.

Strato2 wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I would love to believe this, but I'll wait and see. By 2024 the aircraft not have flown in several years, will long be out of production, and may be relying on scrapped aircraft for spare parts. Most maintenance facilities for the A380 will be winding down. I just see a lot of practical difficulties in a return to service even if demand rebounds.

Airbus will provide full support for the continued operation of the A380.

Who will be the MRO? The issue is many will have repurposed facilities by 2024; and that will result in a slower return to I have no doubt Airbus will be "dial a friend" (as on call engineering support is known), but there is no longer production to ensure any surge of part demand is sitting on the shelf.

Small fleets are hard to support as the airframer priority is not the vendor priority. I have no doubt the A380s return to service. But, for example, RR will prioritize engine parts for the A350 over the A380 when push comes to shove. Due to industry downsizing, those calls will have to be made, in my opinion.

Lightsaber

ZK-NBT wrote:

380VHOQK wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Note than at no point have they said that all 12 are coming back. I think the 6 that have already been refurbished will return for a few more years while the 6 unrefurbished aircraft will be retired, but they don’t want to announce that yet for two reasons. Firstly, they will need to take a further impairment on those 6 frames, and second if demand does ramp up to 2019 levels in a couple of years they could still return them to service. If (and it is a big if) long haul demand from Australia returns strongly over the next couple of years then Qantas are going to want to keep all 12 A380s going until either more 787s and/or A350s arrive (again, not for five or more years IMHO) as they have retired the 747 fleet during 2020, with only 3 (?) 787s awaiting delivery.

One A380 is currently being prepared to ferry to DRS in May/June for a 12 year check and refurbishment which will take the total refurbed to 7.

Is that actually the case? There will be a lot of aircraft to renter service around the same time which could cause delays due to demand down the line. QF have to be absolutely sure they will return to service to do that, like I say certainly the 6 refurbished birds for SYD-LAX and SYD-SIN-LHR I can see

Yes, it's the case. The aircraft has been towed out from deep storage already and is being prepared in the coming weeks for departure from VCV.

Strato2 wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

I would love to believe this, but I'll wait and see. By 2024 the aircraft not have flown in several years, will long be out of production, and may be relying on scrapped aircraft for spare parts. Most maintenance facilities for the A380 will be winding down. I just see a lot of practical difficulties in a return to service even if demand rebounds.

Airbus will provide full support for the continued operation of the A380.

Airbus (and other vendors on the program such as RR) will provide full support. At what cost to the operator is another question.

EA powered frames will have the most difficult future. I’m sure PW and GE are both happy and eager to move on from that engine.

380VHOQK wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

380VHOQK wrote:

One A380 is currently being prepared to ferry to DRS in May/June for a 12 year check and refurbishment which will take the total refurbed to 7.

Is that actually the case? There will be a lot of aircraft to renter service around the same time which could cause delays due to demand down the line. QF have to be absolutely sure they will return to service to do that, like I say certainly the 6 refurbished birds for SYD-LAX and SYD-SIN-LHR I can see

Yes, it's the case. The aircraft has been towed out from deep storage already and is being prepared in the coming weeks for departure from VCV.

I have read that elsewhere aswell, a bit odd given that it won’t most likely fly for another 2-3 years. Are others expected to follow?