Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 73): I think successful backbone operations in between hubs hinges more on frequency than size. The A380 was never built for that.

Explains why airlines typically use their smallest planes on long distance hub to hub routes. Or wait, they typically don't.

Quoting cmf (Reply 76): Explains why airlines typically use their smallest planes on long distance hub to hub routes. Or wait, they typically don't.

I was not implying that. I was strictly saying that is not the same to have 5 daily 777's or 3 A380's on a route.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 50): AF have bought the right aircraft in the A380 they just simply have not worked out how to make it work like EK has.

I don't think you change your route structure to fit your aircraft. I think the priority might go the other direction.
.

Quoting harleydriver (Reply 59): it appears their B747-400 replacements will be handled by the B777

Actually they have more A351s on order than 777s for 744 replacement.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 69): In the long run Airbus WBs will be successful on thick and short routes and Boeing WBs on thin and long routes.

All of the A350s are built for 8knm+. Even longer than the 788. The 787-10 will be more successfull on short/thick routes than long and thin.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 69): Like A333R, Airbus should have a regional version of A380.

No they shouldn't. I see offering derated versions for lowered cost but A380s are not built for short routes and if they have to use them for it its because they lose less money doing it rather than making more money. A380 is built for long routes, too much weight to carry only a short distance.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 69): Boeing's next gen should be of smaller capacity than B787 with same or more legs

No it should not. It will compete with the 787 if they do that. Airbus will not have a 250 seat aircraft for the first time in a long time and the A358 isn't exactly selling well at 270 seats. Airbus won't have much of any current generation aircraft (a poor selling A358) on offer that can fly more than 3,500nm and seat less than 300 in three class configuration. I think its Airbus that has the opportunity in this capacity range as the 788 is overbuilt and in 10 years time the engines won't be enough to get by on. But the 787-9 should be a very tough competitor at the higher capacity range.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 75): Otherwise single city countries have no reason to be world's aviation leaders.

In a world where borders matter less and less and more open skies agreements are being signed at record rates I completely disagree.

tortugamon

Quoting sankaps (Reply 71): Yet over the years as air traffic grew, the 747 went on to become a hugely successful aircraft.

The 747 sold so many on the basis of

1. Range. It could fly routes no other plane could PERIOD. So you buy a 747 you could fly non-stop between cities that the airlines with DC-8/707's are flying 1 or 2 stop. The Tri-jets didn't make the range either for many airlines.

2. prestige. It was a different time, when marketing was everything and price was most often fixed by regulations/collusion. Now where 30 seconds with a computer or smartphone can get you 6 different airlines' pricing.... Its... not so much marketing anymore.

3. Ignorance. Jet Airlines were still pretty young and still learning to navigate the ever changing conditions they operate in.

The 747 likely also KILLED more of its customer airlines than it saved. I really don't think Airbus wants the A380 to follow that example.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 56): But if a third runway is approved that problem will disappear (and values of the current slots dive!) ....

And Sasquatch and the Tooth Fairy will be at the press conference as well. There will never be a third runway at Heathrow while the present political climate is in place in the UK and in London. Even if this is approved by, some miracle, I don't see it happening for at least 20 years.

[Edited 2013-10-01 18:53:02]

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 79): 1. Range. It could fly routes no other plane could PERIOD.

astuteman had an excellent thread about this in Tech Ops. Was The 747 Really "bought For Its Range"? (by astuteman Jun 8 2013 in Tech Ops)
He showed that the 747 did have a range advantage during a 16/17 year window of operations (1976-1992). Although more 747s were sold in that window than in all other years combined, he isolates just 460 frames that truly had an advantage over comparable aircraft.

Be your own judge but I think that range mattered for many sales, and it did not matter for other sales (commonality, brand, and lower CASM could have meant success on other routes), and it should not have been purchased for other routes (namely routes undertaken by aircraft purchased after the mid/late 1990s).

Who would have known at that time we would have rising gas prices/September 11/ETOPS/SARS/Recession and other things that made it a liability.

tortugamon

I do think that Air France will emphasize more usage of the 777-300ER, since unlike LHR, CDG was designed to have way less landing slot restrictions. It will even more interesting now what large twinjet will AF turn to next after 2017, the 777-9X or the A350XWB-1000.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 20): For AF, there certainly are some routes where the VLA capacity is needed like JFK, YUL, etc.

AF didn't use the A380 at YUL even during the peak summer season this year. It has far too many premium seats for the YUL market.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 74): That was mostly due to the range the 747 offered and restrictive treaties.

In some cases it was. In others it wasn't. Remember that the 747 is sized based on airline request and had two passenger size increases, 9 to 10 abreast and extended upper deck. Neither would have happened if range was the driver.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 74): What is killing the VLA market is open skies and the range of midsize aircraft.

The VLA market isn't dying.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 74): What keeps VLAs flying at all are the existence of curfews and slots at some of the most important airports in the world.

What keeps VLAs flying is the need to transport plenty of passengers at preferred times efficiently.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 77): I was not implying that. I was strictly saying that is not the same to have 5 daily 777's or 3 A380's on a route.

A lot more expensive to have 5 x 777 than 3 x A380. Sometimes the first is better, sometimes the second.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 79): The 747 likely also KILLED more of its customer airlines than it saved. I really don't think Airbus wants the A380 to follow that example.

Do you have data to support this? Really interested to see it.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 72): What is killing the VLA market is open skies and the range of midsize aircraft.

It has definitely limited the A380 to trunk routes or routes that can be made into trunk routes thanks to its low CASM.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 44): According to AF corporate presentation, CDG is already ahead of FRA and buy a huge market ahead of LHR in connection opportunities.

For one airline? Maybe, but FRA is the most connected airport:
Airports With Greatest Number Of Connected Cities (by lightsaber May 14 2012 in Aviation Polls)

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 44): Orly is the domestic heart of AF network. Without being in ORY, AF would turn over market to people like EasyJet and Ryanair. For most local traffic ORY is much better and central than venturing out to CDG.

But that is the problem. ORY has those domestic connections that would benefit AF international. If ORY were to be closed and merged into an expanded CDG, AF would have many more convenient connections. Frequency would be fabulous.

I think you are missing my main point in that a split hub is missed connections. If AF had those domestic connections, far more of the seats on the A380 would be filled. I'm not saying AF could maintain a large enough subfleet of A380s... but it would be help their profit margin tremendously.

FWIW, I believe the minimum subfleet for long haul aircraft is 17. As AF has 9 with 3 more on order. If AF could expand sufficiently, they could have an economical sized subfleet of A380s.

Lightsaber

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 64): While I don't believe AF ordered the A380 due to political pressure, I wish folks would stop saying that politics never interfere with Aircraft purchasing and they only purchase based on solely on business needs every time.

Totally agree here. Look at how many a/c orders are sealed during political meetings involving US or European officials.
Though these political pressures mostly happen in developing countries in counter parts of investments in the country, let's face it.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17): Air France purchased the jets for the "glory" of France and support French industry.

Right.  
I guess they also decided to make the B777 (with GE engines, Rockwell IFE) the flagship of their long haul ops to be part of the American dream

Funny how AF is always linked to some kind of political involvement while LH or BA always take wise and independent decisions on their fleet renewal.

Well it is not the fault of the plane, when an airline buys one or two sizes too large.

I thought they're pretty packed on Montréal service....

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 83): FWIW, I believe the minimum subfleet for long haul aircraft is 17.

Can you create the derivation for that, or outline your logic and evidence? It seems awfully specific!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64): Quoting art (Reply 63):Any 3rd runway at LHR would likely not be operational for 10-15 years from now, so pretty much the only way to grow one's pax numbers in the next 10-15 years is to operate higher capacity aircraft. Not all of which needs to be at the top end when you consider 65% of daily movements at LHR were for domestic or European destinations, the vast majority of which are handled by single-aisle aircraft.

Your point? Where LHR slots are concerned I don't see that it matters what proportion of aircraft movements are long haul or short haul. A slot is a slot and they have all or nearly all been taken at LHR so the question is, how do you increase long haul pax numbers without increasing the number of pax per flight?

We are reaching post #100 and sill nobody has provided any further details. I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

The interview was with chief officer-long-haul passenger activity Bruno Matheu. What he says is

1) Some Airports cannot easily handle the aircraft. For example it took them 3 years to get traffic rights into Shanghai Pudong. They will switch Operation from Shanghai to Singapore.

2) The A350s and 787s are able to reach the same operating costs per seat as the A380, but Air France can offer more frequencies.

3) He expects that, if Air France plans to add more A380s, “it will be not tens of more.”

My opinion regarding

1) Strange. If it took them 3 years to get the rights, why would they give them up now if the loads were OK?

2) Astonishing. If the smaller aircraft reach the same cost per seat obviously they cannot fill the A380, I'd say. The point with frequencies depends on route.

3) No one ever expected AF to order tens or dozens more A380s.

In essence they currently seem to be struggling to fill the aircraft, but don't exclude ordering a couple of more at some time in the future.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

  

Amen, and thank you for that.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): We are reaching post #100 and sill nobody has provided any further details. I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

Yes, thanks for doing that.

The A380 makes sense on busy routes where ticket price makes a difference and/or slots are constrained and/or frequency does not matter.

Typically on CDG-JFK where there is a lot of business traffic it might be hard to fill it up while offering maybe 6-7 flights a day. Now given the length of the flight, it is probably better to meet upcoming growth in demand with larger aircraft than by adding frequency that do not make much of a difference any more. This applies to BA too on the LHR-JFK route, at terminal 7 at JFK the BA boarding calls never stop from 5 PM to 10 PM, they might be better off with less flights and a larger aircraft, or at least upgauging as demand grows rather than adding frequency.

And as was mentioned above, AF may make a killing with the A380 on the Martinique, Guadeloupe and Reunion routes, if that allows them to offer a 3 class service (Y, W, J) with competitive fares and high density in Y. Not sure this would be profitable though. even if they offer 2 flights a day, frequency does not matter there.

Same with ULH flights with lots of vacationers, Frequency does not matter so much so instead of having multiple flights one 380 a day may be enough. That would be Rio de Janeiro and maybe South Africa (French vacationers), and to a lesser extent Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai (Asian vacationers but also quite a bit of business).

Wow, a few days ago LH with their implicit admission that they're focussing on widebody twins in the mid-term, and now such a statement from AF. It seems even the long-time champions of the VLA concept are beginning to change their mind. (And yes, by "VLA" I do mean four-engine double deckers, i.e., A380 and 748, no matter how silly that term seems today in light of the 777X).

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

Thank you very much!

  

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): 2) The A350s and 787s are able to reach the same operating costs per seat as the A380, but Air France can offer more frequencies.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): 2) Astonishing. If the smaller aircraft reach the same cost per seat obviously they cannot fill the A380, I'd say. The point with frequencies depends on route.

IMHO nothing astonishing here. If I remember correctly, it has been said for a while that the 787 and A350 will reach about the same per-seat economics as the A380 at comparable load factors. (Some even say they're actually better.) That's the unstoppable march of technological progress.

This is exactly the reason why the business case for VLAs is rapidly imploding.




However, this will not stop the apologists from reiterating that they have concluded based on "pure logic" that the golden age of the VLA is only just dawning, if we only wait and see for yet another year, of course.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): We are reaching post #100 and sill nobody has provided any further details. I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

Thanks for that, as well as your summary of points from the article.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): In essence they currently seem to be struggling to fill the aircraft, but don't exclude ordering a couple of more at some time in the future.

Sounds fair enough to me and not really all that surprising.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 93): If I remember correctly, it has been said for a while that the 787 and A350 will reach about the same per-seat economics as the A380 at comparable load factors. (Some even say they're actually better.) That's the unstoppable march of technological progress.

If you compare an A380 fitted with 400 seats to an A351 fitted with 400 seats, the A351 will have better per-seat economics. I think you need to compare different aircraft based on equivalent seating breakdowns in terms of space per passenger to get a realistic comparison of economics.

Quoting art (Reply 95): If you compare an A380 fitted with 400 seats to an A351 fitted with 400 seats, the A351 will have better per-seat economics. I think you need to compare different aircraft based on equivalent seating breakdowns in terms of space per passenger to get a realistic comparison of economics.

Frankly, I do not believe anybody is talking about such skewed comparisons.

The sources I am able to pull up right now state real-life A380 consumption of between 2.9 and 3.1 L/100 km (or "less than 3L", respectively):

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/l...and-airbus-a380-death-match-152563
http://www.enviro.aero/A380casestudy.aspx
http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...r-vision-values/emirates-a380.aspx

LH says both the 787 and A350 (will) reach 2.9L / 100 km:
http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/the...eet-development/2-liter-class.html

Obviously, results will vary and only time will tell.

However, the VLA certainly has an uphill battle to fight from here, unless we assume 787/A350/777X figures to be entirely made up. And the recent orders speak for them themselves in this regard.

cost per seat does not mean yield per seat.

Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 96): cost per seat does not mean yield per seat.

That is true.

However, if the yield of the average VLA seat were so much higher that it could easily compensate for the drawbacks of the VLA (e.g., reduced flexibility), airlines would be ordering them in droves.

They are not. In fact, we see more and more airlines starting to turn their backs on the VLA.

So either these airlines are all bad at math, or the VLA concept is beginning to become obsolete.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): We are reaching post #100 and sill nobody has provided any further details. I got a bit annoyed and purchased a subscription to read the article quoted in the opening post.

I too am annoyed by all these comments based only on the title of an article, leading to surprising theories on AF management or on the future of the A380 ...
Thank you for your summary. Maybe the OP should have done it first.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 89): 1) Some Airports cannot easily handle the aircraft. For example it took them 3 years to get traffic rights into Shanghai Pudong. They will switch Operation from Shanghai to Singapore. 2) The A350s and 787s are able to reach the same operating costs per seat as the A380, but Air France can offer more frequencies. 3) He expects that, if Air France plans to add more A380s, “it will be not tens of more.” My opinion regarding 1) Strange. If it took them 3 years to get the rights, why would they give them up now if the loads were OK? 2) Astonishing. If the smaller aircraft reach the same cost per seat obviously they cannot fill the A380, I'd say. The point with frequencies depends on route. 3) No one ever expected AF to order tens or dozens more A380s. In essence they currently seem to be struggling to fill the aircraft, but don't exclude ordering a couple of more at some time in the future.

My opinion on these 3 points :

(1) Some Airports cannot easily handle the aircraft. Some AF strongholds are not A380-ready yet, or have not been until very recently. MEX is an example, GRU or ABJ as well.
As for PVG, I think something got lost in translation! AF switched A380 operation from SIN to PVG two weeks ago, they do not intend to reverse right now.
The traffic rights issue should not be overlooked. Reportedly AF wanted daily A380 ops to PVG, they have obtained rights for 3x weekly only. The current bilateral agreement does not allow them to send the A380 to PEK either...

(2) Not a surprise, we are talking of operating costs per seat. I fail to read any indications on the loads of their A380s here. With identical load factors, and other things being equal, the unit cost per seat of the A380 is not lower than the new generation twins. But it can carry more pax at the preferred timing or at slot constraint airports.
However I am not surprised that AF does not consider building its network solely on the A380s...No airline has done so. AF needs flexibility and only a limited number of routes from Europe can support the A380 all year long.

(3) Basically he is not ruling out to order more A380s in the future which clearly indicates there is a business case for the A380 in the AF network.
Many destinations served by daily or several daily 77Ws are likely candidates for future A380 expansion, subject to traffic rights / airport configuration : HKG, PEK, GRU, GIG, ABJ just to name a few, notwithstanding the leisure destinations served with the high density 468-seater 77Ws (PTP, FDF, RUN, MRU, BKK).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 83): Quoting mercure1 (Reply 44): According to AF corporate presentation, CDG is already ahead of FRA and buy a huge market ahead of LHR in connection opportunities. For one airline? Maybe, but FRA is the most connected airport: Airports With Greatest Number Of Connected Cities (by lightsaber May 14 2012 in Aviation Polls)

Your methodology is not 100% satisfying as it does not take into consideration the frequencies at each hub. The number of destinations is irrelevant to determine connectivity at one given airport. Frequencies do matter. You know this as you further state :

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 83): If ORY were to be closed and merged into an expanded CDG, AF would have many more convenient connections. Frequency would be fabulous.

See, we agree on frequency  
But how serious are you about closing ORY ? Do you mean closing the airport or AF axing all ops at the airport ? Well, neither is going to happen anytime soon I am afraid. ORY is Paris favorite airport due its location. In fact, AF plans to downsize ops at ORY and use the freed slots for Transavia.

[Edited 2013-10-02 03:14:54]