Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Mon Aug 23, 2021 2:53 pm

TC957 wrote:
I wouldn't pay too much attention to what airlines say they want to do with their fleets in 5 let alone 10 years time. Far too many uncertainties in the world to plan that far ahead. No one really knows if air travel will boom or tank again.

Yet A380 retirements started happening pre-covid so it was challenging for some operators in what has to be seen as boom times.

Here is what AF CEO Anne Rigail said about A380 in 2019:

I don’t know if anyone would have been able to forecast it at the time, but the A350 and the Dreamliner just made the A380 totally obsolete, too expensive, too big. Operationally it has always been a very difficult aircraft, you need specific ramp equipment, you need to rebuild runways and taxiways, you need special boarding ramps. I say this because I was working at our CDG hub when the A380 arrived – operationally it has always been problematic. Because you even need special training for everyone on the ramp, I have never seen this before. In comparison, it’s so easy to train people to handle an A350. But when the A380 came to Air France in 2009, it replaced two aircraft types, so on the cost side, it wasn’t too bad. Since the efficiency of the A350 and the 787 is the same, but with less capacity and more flexibility, you can put them on any route. So, of course, the A380 is no longer useful. And we have all kinds of problems with it – related to the structure, the engines. And not only now when the aircraft get older – it has always been difficult with the A380.

And:

I like to see A380s in the morning when they take off. But now we feel it’s a constraint, but it’s a bit sad that Airbus now stops production. We still like this aircraft, but it’s not suitable to keep it while pursuing our strategy because you must put it on your busiest routes. The investment for cabin upgrades is huge – it would cost us €35m per aircraft, I did the research myself. ... we were quite committed to do it. But when you look at the overall investment when you add the refurbishment and the heavy maintenance checks due soon, the cost is so high that we think it’s better to renew the fleet. It is just more beneficial for the years to come to have new generation aircraft. I think the A380 is just outdated now.

Ref: https://www.airlineratings.com/news/air ... rone-a380/

I think KE's situation is closer to AF's then let's say EK or SQ. They've looked at the cost of cabin refurbishment and heavy MX and have decided not to do it and save their money for newer aircraft. They'll just run out the green time on the frames and send them into retirement.

It probably is not a difficult decision for KE, they have all the data and there isn't a lot of uncertainty in a five year window. If you read the quotes above, the decision probably isn't a close one. If anything, they may decide to retire them early because there's big savings when you can shut down an under-performing fleet and all its specialized equipment and spares and its specialized training and maintenance activities.
 
User avatar
XLA2008
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: KE to retire all quads in the next 5 years

Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:02 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
XLA2008 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
You're surprised that a thrice-warmed-over 1969 design is uneconomical in today's world, while freely admitting that a 2005 design is?

I'm struggling to find the logic behind your statement.


Pretty sure both Airbus and Boeing are selling thrice-warmed-over 1970’s products in today’s markets. Only NEW clean sheet designs are the A350 and 787… and the A220 but that wasn’t an Airbus product to begin with. So your point is pretty much mute.

First, the word is "moot." Second, no one was comparing entire product lines; it was simply remarking on the oddity of someone assuming that a multiple-derivative (which did absolutely terribly in the market) would boast an economic advantage over a relatively similarly timed clean-sheet (that also did quite poorly).

How you managed to turn that into an overall design philosophy debate, is anyone's guess.


:roll:
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: KE to retire all quads in the next 5 years

Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Will any of these 747-8is be converted into fire tankers to replace DC-10s?

Almost certainly not. Big airplanes cause a lot of wake turbulence. It's already a problem with the current ones. 747 would be worse. Its swept wing means it does not like to fly slow so it would not be good for refuelling certain types. It's out of production. USAF already has a huge investment in KC-46. It'd make far more sense to just buy more KC-46 than adding a new type to maintain, even if that made for some occasional challenges with basing which can be handled different ways.


He said FIRE tanker, not Air Force refueling.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2668
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: KE to retire all quads in the next 5 years

Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:18 pm

wedgetail737 wrote:
Short-sighted management. COVID still ravaging Korea and Asia with no real relief in sight.


Let me re-phrase that for you: COVID still ravaging the ENTIRE WORLD (save very few, rich, western nations) with no real relief in sight.

Hard to blame management for wanting to dump those white elephants when they are even struggling to fill A330s....
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KE to retire all quads in the next 5 years

Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:16 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Will any of these 747-8is be converted into fire tankers to replace DC-10s?

Almost certainly not. Big airplanes cause a lot of wake turbulence. It's already a problem with the current ones. 747 would be worse. Its swept wing means it does not like to fly slow so it would not be good for refuelling certain types. It's out of production. USAF already has a huge investment in KC-46. It'd make far more sense to just buy more KC-46 than adding a new type to maintain, even if that made for some occasional challenges with basing which can be handled different ways.

He said FIRE tanker, not Air Force refueling.

Sorry for missing that, thanks for yelling though.

The answer is still almost certainly not. The one and only 747 FIRE TANKER just got converted back to being a plain old freighter. Lots of issues that were detailed on this forum and elsewhere. It swept wing means it has to fly fast (just like USAF use case) so hard to get good ground coverage. High turn around time blocked other smaller planes from being re-provisioned with retardant and fuel. Can't operate out of small airports so it has to spend time flying to bigger airports. High trip costs. It never gained favor with the Forestry Service. Another VLA fail.
 
Lootess
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:10 am

Shouldn't be surprised many are still trying to hang on to the A380 with their dear lives, each new carrier that comes up with a plan to retire them in the near future brings out more irrational talking points. Simply put, these planes are now getting into refurb age, and the cost for those simply isn't worth the expense. AAB was right, it IS the wrong airplane for this era. Pre-COVID levels won't even make it re-sustainable.

Of course the 748i is going to live much longer than the A380. Regardless, the A350 and 777X have put those two planes on life support.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:24 am

Well there is a terrific opportunity for an upstart airline that can figure out how to make money with a A380 fleet. Hard to imagine, but with almost no capital cost, it could be done.

In every field there are the sweet spots in designs: capacity of power generators, height and size of buildings, length of trains, size of ships, and yes size of planes. At the current tech level the sweet spot in wide body planes is the B789 & A359 fleets, bigger than that it is hard to improve the economics. Prior to their arrival, the 747 and 777 were at a sweet spot until eclipsed by this latest generation.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:46 am

Will any 747-8i find a new life as part of the African hajj fleet to replace the current 747-300s and 747-400s in 10 years?
 
Strato2
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:48 am

Lootess wrote:

Of course the 748i is going to live much longer than the A380. Regardless, the A350 and 777X have put those two planes on life support.


Maybe at KE but not universally. 747-8i has sold a grand total of 36 planes for three airline customers whereas the A380 is widely approved with 251 planes sold. This makes for a ratio 7:1 that the Superjumbo has outsold the 747. As for the 777X it's fate will mirror what the previous VLA's have endured.
 
LTEN11
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:24 am

blacksoviet wrote:
Will any 747-8i find a new life as part of the African hajj fleet to replace the current 747-300s and 747-400s in 10 years?


My money if they don't get converted, is either as you suggested as a hajj airlifter, or end up with the secondary Russian carriers hauling Russian tourists to various beaches around the world. More confident that they'll find a niche to fill than the 380.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:28 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Well there is a terrific opportunity for an upstart airline that can figure out how to make money with a A380 fleet. Hard to imagine, but with almost no capital cost, it could be done.


Weren't HiFly on a power by the hour agreement for their A380? Their main use was replacing Norwegian 747s between JFK and Gatwick, did Norwegian or Rolls Royce pay much for all that extra space? Again it comes down to the high costs of operating the aircraft in environments where the yield and volume just aren't there. EK make it work with huge volumes of passengers at their DXB hub, BA make it work with their 100+ premium cabins between the worlds most premium heavy cities. Outside these uses there are just too many seats and too much revenue dilution.

I think the A380 is fantastic to fly on from a passenger perspective and it did allow Airbus to offer a round portfolio from 150 to 600+ seats, but the 787 and A350 are better options. I very much wanted the A380 to succeed and believed that it would. But it is just too big a compromise in almost every aspect, it's too heavy for the number of passengers it carries, it offers airlines more seats than they know what to do with, the cargo capacity is too small when it's full, it's too large for many airports. Most of these compromises are directly related to trying to fit the A380 into the 80m box and building capability for a -900. It is too constrained, too compromised and too small as a result.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:15 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
In every field there are the sweet spots in designs: capacity of power generators, height and size of buildings, length of trains, size of ships, and yes size of planes. At the current tech level the sweet spot in wide body planes is the B789 & A359 fleets, bigger than that it is hard to improve the economics. Prior to their arrival, the 747 and 777 were at a sweet spot until eclipsed by this latest generation.

In the 'father of the A380' interview mentioned earlier, Jurgen Thomas said the A380 did not scale as well as they had projected, and they found themselves using more expensive materials than planned to hit the targets that were in place for the program. He projected that a plane of greater than 800 pax nominal capacity would not be viable because the structures needed to transfer the lift forces from the wings to the fuse would become so heavy that resulting plane would not be viable. This would mean the end of the 'tube and wings' configuration that would make many forum readers happy.

Strato2 wrote:
Lootess wrote:
Of course the 748i is going to live much longer than the A380. Regardless, the A350 and 777X have put those two planes on life support.

Maybe at KE but not universally. 747-8i has sold a grand total of 36 planes for three airline customers whereas the A380 is widely approved with 251 planes sold. This makes for a ratio 7:1 that the Superjumbo has outsold the 747. As for the 777X it's fate will mirror what the previous VLA's have endured.

I guess we need to exclude 748 freighters to make a point even though they contribute to fleet viability, not to mention all the consumables that have been produced since the 747 first flew decades ago Then we have the two VVIP 748is being configured for USAF "Air Force 1" service that will help guarantee support for the type for decades to come. Turns out A380's sales ratio isn't helping it's longevity. It is now "obsolete", at least according to AF's CEO. The 777X will "endure" a market with the A380 rapidly fading away, blue chip customers SQ, CX, NH, EK, EY, LH, BA already on board and more carriers like KE almost certain to join, and a 77XF to replace 777F so any perceived emissions advantage A350F will be nullified.

BrianDromey wrote:
Weren't HiFly on a power by the hour agreement for their A380? Their main use was replacing Norwegian 747s between JFK and Gatwick, did Norwegian or Rolls Royce pay much for all that extra space? Again it comes down to the high costs of operating the aircraft in environments where the yield and volume just aren't there. EK make it work with huge volumes of passengers at their DXB hub, BA make it work with their 100+ premium cabins between the worlds most premium heavy cities. Outside these uses there are just too many seats and too much revenue dilution.

I think we know the answer when HiFly and Airbus did not extend the deal and now the aircraft awaits its fate. Apparently that business model failed for one or both parties. It's a shame as some have commented it would be useful for dealing with the Afghan exodus, but it seems other aircraft are filling the role.

BrianDromey wrote:
I think the A380 is fantastic to fly on from a passenger perspective and it did allow Airbus to offer a round portfolio from 150 to 600+ seats, but the 787 and A350 are better options. I very much wanted the A380 to succeed and believed that it would. But it is just too big a compromise in almost every aspect, it's too heavy for the number of passengers it carries, it offers airlines more seats than they know what to do with, the cargo capacity is too small when it's full, it's too large for many airports. Most of these compromises are directly related to trying to fit the A380 into the 80m box and building capability for a -900. It is too constrained, too compromised and too small as a result.

The comments of the AF CEO above echo all of this. They know the passengers love it, but the operators do not. She also mentioned things like it's need for specialized facilities and equipment, specially trained rampers and issues with both engines and structures as additional challenges. I guess we should recall it was AF's A380 that shed its fan over Greenland and ended up parked in Maritime Canada for a few days. This can happen to any airplane, but when A380 has a problem a lot of people are impacted and finding spares may be a challenge.
 
Lootess
Posts: 712
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:49 pm

Emirates can't even pack the planes to the gills anymore, and you really think taking $6B in losses to the chin is okay.

Saying the words startup and A380 is reaching in left field, like that's holding on for your dear life for a type.

There will only be 5 carriers operating this type after current retirement announcements materialize, not to mention the obvious further reductions as time goes by, along with the fact that the very last fuselage has been produced by the factory. The downhill is going to go faster, along with the material problem of being too high of a cost even for a profitable airline in these times. When there are more fuel efficient, and just-as passenger friendly options available or will be.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: KE to retire all quads in the next 5 years

Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
Longer term, EK, BA, SQ and QF seem to be willing to keep them going post-pandemic.

I would add NH, it seems a bit unlikely that they'd scrap a brand new aircraft. At least until the first major mx event, which is due in 12 years IIRC.
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ates-a380s

BA has recently renewed their A380 contracts with LH Technik including some heavy (12-year) maintenance. https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... nsion.html

Earlier this year, SQ confirmed that they'd be giving 12 A380s a new cabin (actually, 9 already received the updated product pre-COVID) so they're a solid candidate for continued A380 operations. https://onemileatatime.com/singapore-ai ... ew-cabins/

Likewise, QF proceeded with their cabin update for another aircraft, so they haven't given up on the type quite yet. https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/ ... 80.article

I have no idea what plans CZ has for their A380s but they're some of the only ones still flying regularly, though the utilization is pitiful. I suspect that politics may play a role in their decision.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:17 am

Revelation wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
In every field there are the sweet spots in designs: capacity of power generators, height and size of buildings, length of trains, size of ships, and yes size of planes. At the current tech level the sweet spot in wide body planes is the B789 & A359 fleets, bigger than that it is hard to improve the economics. Prior to their arrival, the 747 and 777 were at a sweet spot until eclipsed by this latest generation.

In the 'father of the A380' interview mentioned earlier, Jurgen Thomas said the A380 did not scale as well as they had projected, and they found themselves using more expensive materials than planned to hit the targets that were in place for the program. He projected that a plane of greater than 800 pax nominal capacity would not be viable because the structures needed to transfer the lift forces from the wings to the fuse would become so heavy that resulting plane would not be viable. This would mean the end of the 'tube and wings' configuration that would make many forum readers happy.


So true, I design building and similar structures that don't usually move and hopefully never fly. After 40 years at it I am still amazed at the effects of squaring and cubing does. A cantilever beam moment is M=wl^2/2 so doubling the wing span (with the same area per foot) increases the moment 4 fold. To resist that moment the structure gets heavier, requiring more wing, etc. With high rise buildings the most efficient measured by weight per SF is a 5 to 10 story high rise with an approximately square floor plan. A 60 story building will clock in at about double the weight per SF, the 100 story building could be triple if still the same footprint. Usually in a sky scraper the top most floor plan is decidedly smaller, reducing cost while satisfying ego.

In aviation the economies of scale are improving quickly going up from 150 passenger but are quite flat by about 250 passenger. With current technologies and design, the VLA plane is facing declining economics from that point and larger. Somewhere long ago when the largest plane box was decided at 80m x 80m, there was good reasoning that this was big enough without burdening future progress.

A big reason the 747 was so big was to obtain the desired range, a smaller plane couldn't hold enough fuel to make the range. It was the A340 and the B777 that allowed the desired range in a smaller plane, further improved by the B787 and A350. The A380 and B748i seemed to disregard this point, airlines couldn't as it greatly improved the competitiveness of the smaller planes along with simplifying operations.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Wed Aug 25, 2021 5:51 am

I always point out in these threads that what killed the market for the A380 and 748 was that the 77W, designed as a 742 replacement, ended up being so good (1000 miles more range) that it killed off the 744, 77E, A340 and any chance for the VLAs.

And that also lead to the launch of the 787 and A350 with crazy ranges because the 77W showed it was economically possible with a twin. Even with the most powerful engines ever put on a commercial aircraft.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8038
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:49 am

ikramerica wrote:
I always point out in these threads that what killed the market for the A380 and 748 was that the 77W, designed as a 742 replacement, ended up being so good (1000 miles more range) that it killed off the 744, 77E, A340 and any chance for the VLAs.

And that also lead to the launch of the 787 and A350 with crazy ranges because the 77W showed it was economically possible with a twin. Even with the most powerful engines ever put on a commercial aircraft.


Yes fair point. Like I said earlier if the A380 had been 10 years earlier it imo would have done significantly better than it did, particularly for airlines who wanted something larger than the 747 with long range, it would have taken some 744 orders that were placed in the late 1990s while possibly attracting 1-2 or more new carriers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:00 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
I always point out in these threads that what killed the market for the A380 and 748 was that the 77W, designed as a 742 replacement, ended up being so good (1000 miles more range) that it killed off the 744, 77E, A340 and any chance for the VLAs.

And that also lead to the launch of the 787 and A350 with crazy ranges because the 77W showed it was economically possible with a twin. Even with the most powerful engines ever put on a commercial aircraft.


Yes fair point. Like I said earlier if the A380 had been 10 years earlier it imo would have done significantly better than it did, particularly for airlines who wanted something larger than the 747 with long range, it would have taken some 744 orders that were placed in the late 1990s while possibly attracting 1-2 or more new carriers.

Unfortunately that concept is just not realistic, IMO.

Basically you'd be looking at product launch in 1990 instead of 2000, and at that point in time neither A330 nor A340 had flown yet, so Airbus would not have a lot of prior art to work with. The engines needed for a plane the size/weight of A380 didn't exist yet. Airbus had done CFRP tail planes for A300 but A380 had full CFRP from the rear bulkhead back and CFRP wing box, and these are crucial to keep the weight of A380 down enough to have a viable aircraft. Maybe 5000 PSI hydraulics aren't mandatory, but they sure do save weight on an aircraft as big as A380. And so on down the line, A380 relies on a bunch of technical advances that just hadn't happened in 1990.

Then if we stipulate that someone made engines with enough thrust and efficiency to be suitable for A380, clearly the response would be to put them onto a big twin even earlier than what we saw with 777. This means the market window for A380 was going to be small no matter when it appeared.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:31 pm

Tragic. Those 748s will be relatively young by the time they are retired. First delivered in what, 2016? Somebody's got to take them! Lufthansa? UPS?! Do something!!!
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:35 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
Tragic. Those 748s will be relatively young by the time they are retired. First delivered in what, 2016? Somebody's got to take them! Lufthansa? UPS?! Do something!!!


They'll be about 15 when retired, so not really that young. On the younger side of operational life, sure, but not young.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:37 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
Tragic. Those 748s will be relatively young by the time they are retired. First delivered in what, 2016? Somebody's got to take them! Lufthansa? UPS?! Do something!!!


They'll be about 15 when retired, so not really that young. On the younger side of operational life, sure, but not young.


Relatively young. Much like dying at 40 is "young".

I realize that'll be the end of those frames as there's nowhere near enough PAX 748s to warrant a conversion program.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 8038
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Thu Aug 26, 2021 9:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
I always point out in these threads that what killed the market for the A380 and 748 was that the 77W, designed as a 742 replacement, ended up being so good (1000 miles more range) that it killed off the 744, 77E, A340 and any chance for the VLAs.

And that also lead to the launch of the 787 and A350 with crazy ranges because the 77W showed it was economically possible with a twin. Even with the most powerful engines ever put on a commercial aircraft.


Yes fair point. Like I said earlier if the A380 had been 10 years earlier it imo would have done significantly better than it did, particularly for airlines who wanted something larger than the 747 with long range, it would have taken some 744 orders that were placed in the late 1990s while possibly attracting 1-2 or more new carriers.

Unfortunately that concept is just not realistic, IMO.

Basically you'd be looking at product launch in 1990 instead of 2000, and at that point in time neither A330 nor A340 had flown yet, so Airbus would not have a lot of prior art to work with. The engines needed for a plane the size/weight of A380 didn't exist yet. Airbus had done CFRP tail planes for A300 but A380 had full CFRP from the rear bulkhead back and CFRP wing box, and these are crucial to keep the weight of A380 down enough to have a viable aircraft. Maybe 5000 PSI hydraulics aren't mandatory, but they sure do save weight on an aircraft as big as A380. And so on down the line, A380 relies on a bunch of technical advances that just hadn't happened in 1990.

Then if we stipulate that someone made engines with enough thrust and efficiency to be suitable for A380, clearly the response would be to put them onto a big twin even earlier than what we saw with 777. This means the market window for A380 was going to be small no matter when it appeared.


Probably all fair points thanks for explaining.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:34 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
I always point out in these threads that what killed the market for the A380 and 748 was that the 77W, designed as a 742 replacement, ended up being so good (1000 miles more range) that it killed off the 744, 77E, A340 and any chance for the VLAs.

And that also lead to the launch of the 787 and A350 with crazy ranges because the 77W showed it was economically possible with a twin. Even with the most powerful engines ever put on a commercial aircraft.


Yes fair point. Like I said earlier if the A380 had been 10 years earlier it imo would have done significantly better than it did, particularly for airlines who wanted something larger than the 747 with long range, it would have taken some 744 orders that were placed in the late 1990s while possibly attracting 1-2 or more new carriers.

While it’s pointed out above the technology wasn’t there for Airbus ag that time, another problem that hit the A380 was worldwide deregulation and liberalization of markets. With huge increases in bilateral frequencies, complete open skies, and the sunset of Bermuda 2, the market case for the big VLAs weakened considerably.

Back then, cargo flights were independent of passenger frequencies in bilaterals so the goal was to get as many pax as you could on a frequency and let the all cargo flights deal with the excess cargo. It was often economically beneficial to allow an unbalanced cargo bilateral between two nations even if they had a balanced pax agreement.

But once skies opened, you could reduce your all cargo fleet, or eliminate it altogether, and replace it with more economical belly cargo, but that meant needing to have room down there. 10x 77W provides way more cargo lift after bags than 7x A380s, while also allowing the airline to distribute pax capacity more profitably over the week.
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: KE to retire A380 in the next 5 years, 747-8 within 10 years

Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:01 am

Strato2 wrote:
Lootess wrote:

Of course the 748i is going to live much longer than the A380. Regardless, the A350 and 777X have put those two planes on life support.


Maybe at KE but not universally. 747-8i has sold a grand total of 36 planes for three airline customers whereas the A380 is widely approved with 251 planes sold. This makes for a ratio 7:1 that the Superjumbo has outsold the 747. As for the 777X it's fate will mirror what the previous VLA's have endured.

Why would a replacement of the most produced wide body variant, 77W have to endure what 747-8 and A380 which are far bigger than 777 did? Currently almost all airlines that have announced 77W retirements (which is still quite few) have chosen as it's replacement too including the top A350 customers. It's a safe assumption that the 777X will always be outselling the other closest 77W replacement, A350-1000 like it has been doing since 2013 I believe.

Unless your comment meant the 777-9 will endure what the 747-400 did i.e get almost 700 total orders then yeah I guess there might be some chances that can happen if there's a 777XF. For the future "VLA"s, I personally expect around 500 total 777X orders and 300 total A35K orders (assuming there won't be freighter versions.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos