Could it be? At the rate fuel prices are going, could the A380 be that mass public transit that will save airlines and possibly post a profit? I mean, yeah the 747's can do it too, but with fuel prices going through the roof, airlines particularly those in Asia might be taking a harder look at the "giant".

No.

As long as the focus remains on finding new ways to continue old habits as opposed to exploring fundamental lifestyle changes, it won't do anything besides look good on paper. We don't need 300, 500, or 1500 seat airliners filled with people who want to go sightseeing or travel 4000 miles to see Uncle Fred or go shopping for counterfeit Gucci bags. I believe that paradigm is very much a big part of the reason we ARE in the "fuel mess" we are in the first place. You want to talk seriously about fuel conservation and preserving our economies, we need LESS [fuel intensive] travel, not more of it. And the size of the plane makes no difference if it does nothing to chamge the fundametal mindsets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD-Delay, Deny, and hope for the best

Quoting Matt D (Reply 1): we need LESS [fuel intensive] travel, not more of it.

So what specifically do you propose? Walk, ride your bike, take the train, steamship, transporter beam?

Try telling a customer you can't meet his request for a face to face meeting at his office because the company you work for has gone green and no longer allows air travel. Spending most of a week on a train going cross country or a ship crossing an ocean certainly isn't viable in most circumstances.....

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 2): we need LESS [fuel intensive] travel, not more of it.

Well, that, combined with similar measures in other fields (less heating, widespread abolishment of aircondition, less powerful cars and so on) would signal the worst recession anyone of us has ever witnessed. That cannot be the solution.
One thing the air traffic needs in the short to mid-term is LESS flights with bigger aircraft using LESS fuel per passenger. Cut gas-guzzling extreme high frequency! We don´t need 10 flights a day to NYC from FRA or LHR with mainly 767/777/A330s/A340s when 5 A380s can do the same job with less pollution. By doing that the mostly restricted airports don´t need to be further enlarged. Also: no public flights within Europe under 300 kms, use the train instead.

Airbus' labeling the A380 as an overall green airplane due solely to fuel consumption per seat is very misleading. But that is typical of Leahy.

First, the A380 is a poor cargo carrier, so dividing fuel consumption per seat works in its favor. On the other hand, aircraft like the 747, 777 and even the A330 have relatively more space available to cargo. The ability to carry goods besides people should be considered when looking at fuel efficiency.

Second, one has to look at aircraft fuel consumption in term of overall passenger trip, and not simply fuel consumption per hour or km. If airlines went for massive purchases of A380s in order to be green, there would be fewer city pairs in the world served by nonstop flights. People would then have to travel on more circuitous routes with more stops. And that would further clog airports and runways. That would not be green at all.

Rising oil price, and it is only a question of days or weeks when we are at 100$, in first instance is good for ALL modern aircraft, to replace elder ones. Just the economics of using old planes no longer pays off.

Second, the two concepts of a) End-to-End versus b) End-Hub-Hub-End both are valid, and there are scenarios where in average the first is better and others where the second is better. The 787 is the right answer to a) and the A380 to b).
Many airlines, at least all the 744 operators, have models like b) currently. The high oil price invcreases the pressure to replace the 744, and this will be by A380 in most cases, or by changing to more a) type connection.

Quoting Mbj-11 (Thread starter): Could it be? At the rate fuel prices are going, could the A380 be that mass public transit that will save airlines and possibly post a profit?

Where a large efficient airplane like the A380 can help is that it's lower CASM allows airlines to shrink capacity and frequency as traffic falls due to both rising fares (driven by fuel prices) and less "disposable income" for travel, as more people allocate that money to pay for fuel-related costs of living.

Quoting NA (Reply 3): Also: no public flights within Europe under 300 kms, use the train instead.

I never thought about that, but it's an interesting idea! For example, no more Paris-London flights (maybe an exception for connecting passengers only). Now that High Speed 1 is ready, Eurostar should be able to handle it.

The A380 is only efficient for airlines that configure it with a high pax count and those who can keep every single seat full on every single trip. So no, the A380 is not the holy grail secret airplane to combat high fuel prices.
People keep on talking about how efficient the A380 is, sometimes failing to remember it's fuel burn is only theoretically lower per seat. The A380 carries significantly more people than any other commercial aircraft and its overall fuel burn is much more than any other aircraft for the same mission too.

Now about this as a solution, less flights with current sized aircraft? Forget catering to the pax who want to fly to Europe for $49. Cut capacity so you can raise prices and the airlines make more money. That seems to me to be a solution.

If you are traveling from London to Paris, then it is probably quicker by train already.

David

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8): People keep on talking about how efficient the A380 is, sometimes failing to remember it's fuel burn is only theoretically lower per seat. The A380 carries significantly more people than any other commercial aircraft and its overall fuel burn is much more than any other aircraft for the same mission too.

Well finally. An A320 is much more fuel efficient than an A380 if there are only 100 people onboard. Although I'm guessing that airlines wouldn't buy them unless they project that they could fill them up. However, I doubt that any flights will be cut (i.e. going from 2x777 to 1x380).

In Europe it work well with the train and road system. Most people (with exception of Germany)

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9): If you are traveling from London to Paris, then it is probably quicker by train already.

Getting to LHR to fly to CDG and then take a taxi into Paris is awful. You´ll easily spend two hours in a car or train just for the city to airport transport, then add the waiting times at the airport (lets say 45 minutes at LHR, 45 minutes at Paris), 20 minutes walking time in the airports, yes, you´ll probably even faster by train alone.
Here in FRA its a bit better as the airport is more conveniently situated as LHR or CDG. But even the 400kms on the FRA-MUC route is better by train, as MUC airport is far away from the city (3 or 4 times the distance of FRA airport from the downtown). FRA-TXL (Berlin) on the other hand mykes sense by a air travel.

I agree with the argument that we need larger aircraft and less frequencies. People will say, "no that isn't right because the business person wants the flexibility of being able go whenever they want, therefore we need more aircraft and more frequencies." More frequency isn't the answer since the flexibility of having a flight an hour on an ERJ quickly vanishes when you face ground delays at places like LGA go over the two hour mark. Larger aircraft and less frequencies is a win for the environment, for the ATC system, and finally the passenger.

Quoting NA (Reply 3): widespread abolishment of aircondition

I know what you mean. In addition, it would kill tens of thousands of people a year. The adoption of air conditioning in the USA has meant that heat waves that used to killed hundreds (and even thousands sometimes) now only end up killing a few stubborn octogenarians who refuse to turn it on even though they have it. That heat wave that killed thousands in Europe a few years would not have had the same result here, but 25 years ago, it might have.

Now, promoting less use and keeping you home warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter is another story. That's something everyone can do.

And one way to mitigate the need for the lower temps in office buildings is to dump the damn monkey suits in corporate environments. Wearing multiple longsleaved layers in the peak of summer is just stupid...  

Quoting MeanGreen (Reply 12): People will say, "no that isn't right because the business person wants the flexibility of being able go whenever they want, therefore we need more aircraft and more frequencies."

Business people are adaptable. If BA, for example, has to cut one frequency JFK-LHR and use A380s on two others, or even move a couple by one hour, if that's what the options are to the businessgal/guy, she/he will adapt accordingly.

It's even true with WN. Sure, people like that they can show up to the airport and there might be an earlier WN flight to take, but IF that flight didn't exist, if WN had 4 instead of 5 frequencies on a route a day, and used 739 instead of 73G to offer the same seats, the business pax would adapt.

They don't adapt now because they aren't being asked to.  

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8): Now about this as a solution, less flights with current sized aircraft? Forget catering to the pax who want to fly to Europe for $49. Cut capacity so you can raise prices and the airlines make more money. That seems to me to be a solution.

But then what happens to all the pilots, cabin crew etc that are no longer needed? Certainly short journeys should be done by train (it is probably quicker anyway!) But longer journeys still need the air travel.

Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 14): Certainly short journeys should be done by train

Journeys by train are great in Europe and Asia where the facilities are modern and upkept. In many areas of America the train is not convienient and the nearest station is sometimes hundreds of miles from major cities. It would probably take years for the US to update the train system that once was so great here.

The best thing for airlines, no matter what aircraft type(s) they operate is to have as many full flights as possible. Maybe some routes need to be cut back by one or two flights per day to ensure the other flights are closer to capacity.

Another thing would be for Airlines to retire the most inneficent aircraft in their fleets, however that is easy to say, not so easy to do. It isn't like you can pick up brand new 737s for next to nothing (unfortunately) and A & B can't exactly just whip out an extra 30 jets here and there as they so desire.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): Quoting Mbj-11 (Thread starter): Could it be? At the rate fuel prices are going, could the A380 be that mass public transit that will save airlines and possibly post a profit? Where a large efficient airplane like the A380 can help is that it's lower CASM allows airlines to shrink capacity and frequency as traffic falls due to both rising fares (driven by fuel prices) and less "disposable income" for travel, as more people allocate that money to pay for fuel-related costs of living.

...history has shown larger airplanes such as the B747 get parked first..the A380 will be no exception... 

Quoting Matt D (Reply 1): You want to talk seriously about fuel conservation and preserving our economies, we need LESS [fuel intensive] travel, not more of it.

A bit ahead of your time Matt. Sorry, try posting again in about five years time, much better reception then is my prediction.     

Ironic but no one has raised the issue on this thread that more and more people simply want to avoid hubs and fly direct.

Interesting comments from Jacobin777s comments about larger aircraft being parked first whenever we have a down turn in the economy.

How long before we see an A380 parked? One, two, three years?

Quoting Matt D (Reply 1): We don't need 300, 500, or 1500 seat airliners filled with people who want to go sightseeing or travel 4000 miles to see Uncle Fred or go shopping for counterfeit Gucci bags. I believe that paradigm is very much a big part of the reason we ARE in the "fuel mess" we are in the first place. You want to talk seriously about fuel conservation and preserving our economies, we need LESS [fuel intensive] travel, not more of it.

But we all know that's not going to happen, don't we?

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 5): Rising oil price, and it is only a question of days or weeks when we are at 100$,

So, if we have the same (or more) number of people wanting to go somewhere (and there's no point in telling them not to), and we have oil at $100+ a barrel, and as an added bonus, we have pressure to: 1) do less flights because of environmental/congestion/delays/ATC issues 2) cut short haul flights because trains are much more efficient and get to their final destinations faster

The answer, in terms of aircraft, seem quite obvious. In the end of the day, the only measure that counts for the environment is how much fuel did a single passenger use.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8): Cut capacity so you can raise prices and the airlines make more money.

Humm...Which makes more money? baking 100 cakes and selling them at $10 each, or baking only 50 to save electricity, knowing that you have 100 costumers for them, and selling them for $15?

And who is the first airline to do that? Or should the government regulate it?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17): ...history has shown larger airplanes such as the B747 get parked first..the A380 will be no exception...

True if, and that's a big if, demand for travel goes down (Recession, for example). But history has never encountered sustained environmental concerns, and congested airspace before.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 20): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17): ...history has shown larger airplanes such as the B747 get parked first..the A380 will be no exception... True if, and that's a big if, demand for travel goes down (Recession, for example). But history has never encountered sustained environmental concerns, and congested airspace before.

..but history has shown there to be periods in time when capacity exceeded supply... 

No, but it´ll turn many older widebodies into either beercans or cargohaulers.

For certain airport pairs the A380 makes since. However, most airports in the world cannot handle the A380 (I think there are currently less than 50 airports in the world that can handle the A380 without disrupting other air traffic due to wingspan issues).

In the vast majority of airports - going point to point is the most fuel efficient mode due to the fuel usage during takeoff.

I foresee a lot more point to point from midsized cities (Milwaukee sized markets) to other midsized cities where people commute to the regional midsized airport via small vehicle or train (where trains exist in the US). That is the more fuel and time efficient travel than flying to a large hub and packing an A380.

The problem with train service in the US is that, with very few exceptions, passenger trains run on the same tracks that freight trains run on. This limits the speed of passenger service and also means a rougher ride than for dedicated high speed rail for passenger service.

I once studied the concept of building a dedicated high speed passenger (and light high value cargo) rail system between Minneapolis and Chicago, consisting of two main loops: Minneapolis, Rochester, Dubuque, Rockford, Chicago; and Chicago, Milwaukee, North Appleton, Wausau, EauClaire, Minneapolis. Smaller side loops such as Rockford, Madison, Milwaukee would also be very plausible (in fact a loop of Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, Rockford, Chicago would be a very good start to the system).

Oh, and the end terminals would be reasonably close - or connected via rail - to the Minneapolis and Chicago airports (and perhaps to other airports as well).

Not cheap to build - and the political fight to build it would be huge (land condemnation for the route and terminal areas) ; but the long term payoff would be huge.

The real reason that such a system would not be built is the politics of the situation. Financially - it makes a lot of sense. From an energy used standpoint it makes even more sense.

Such a system would also substantially reduce the number of feeder flights to the larger airports (Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee) from the area.

One of the political factors was the effect on Amtrak in the area. I have ridden Amtrak a number of times on a number of long distance trips over the years - and am not impressed with the newer rail-stock (in fact, I no longer consider them viable for my trips). I do note that Amtrak has some nice business commuter trains that run on the east coast (Philly to Washington, etc; which are different than their longer distance trains).

Of course, similar systems could also be built in other areas of the US. I am really not sure if there is enough of a market to connect such regional systems - as I think that most people would say fly from Chicago, Milwaukee, or Minneapolis to another hub on a regional train system.

Quoting NA (Reply 3): (less heating, widespread abolishment of aircondition, less powerful cars and so on) would signal the worst recession anyone of us has ever witnessed.

Reduced consumption of energy would signal the mother of all recessions? I think you must be thinking of the USA. In Europe energy is expensive . People use relatively little (compared with the USA). We have the technology to make cars both more powerful and more fuel efficient at the same time. For example, cast iron blocks with side camshafts more or less died out in Europe a couple of decades ago.

Quoting NA (Reply 3): We don´t need 10 flights a day to NYC from FRA or LHR with mainly 767/777/A330s/A340s when 5 A380s can do the same job with less pollution.

   Apart from anything else, halving the number of flights halves the number of incidents of noise pollution.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4): Airbus' labeling the A380 as an overall green airplane due solely to fuel consumption per seat is very misleading. But that is typical of Leahy. First, the A380 is a poor cargo carrier, so dividing fuel consumption per seat works in its favor.

What's green about air cargo?

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8): The A380 is only efficient for airlines that configure it with a high pax count and those who can keep every single seat full on every single trip.

We will see if you are right in a year or two. Strong A380 orders in 2009 and 2010 would suggest to me that data gleaned from airlines without a particularly high A380 pax count and well short of 100% seat sales per flight will have proved you wrong.

Quoting Art (Reply 24): Reduced consumption of energy would signal the mother of all recessions? I think you must be thinking of the USA. In Europe energy is expensive . People use relatively little (compared with the USA). We have the technology to make cars both more powerful and more fuel efficient at the same time. For example, cast iron blocks with side camshafts more or less died out in Europe a couple of decades ago.

Actually, I disagree with both of your statements here:

All of the industrialized worlds lifestyle is based on energy usage. Any significant reduction in energy usage anywhere in the world will affect the economy and lifestyles unless it is done very gradually; as in over decades.

Europe does not have Superior or more energy efficient technology - and never has. There are many examples where Europe claims that - but it can be proven that the base inventions and ideas originated in America or more recently in SE Asia.

The key difference is that in Europe such technologies have had widespread adoption into the market place either because of government regulation requiring it - or because the culture of the northern european countries tends to value paying for good engineering and better manufacturing and materials over lower cost. It is very easy to sell a highly engineered - built of premium materials,long term durable, more energy efficient item in most of Europe regardless of price; while such an item within the North American market can only be sold in a niche market.

Here in North America, something half the cost that last 1/4 as long and uses more energy will outsell the higher quality more energy efficient item. This is really a cultural focus problem. People in America generally believe price is king - and success is measured by how many toys they have - and not the quality or durability of the toys. The result is that when US companies develop better, more durable, more energy efficient technologies... They are rarely sold here and the ideas are transferred to countries where they can be sold.

In essence: cast iron engine blocks exist in North America (and other places) because they are generally cheaper to build - and people do not value energy efficiency (In this case, cast iron blocks are the most durable engine block- but in general most American production items are not as durable as the best known way of doing it)