NY Times On The 380: Oversize Expectations Part 1

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:52 pm

Interesting article on the 380 this weekend in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/bu...ions-for-the-airbus-a380.html?_r=0

“It’s a commercial disaster,” Mr. Aboulafia says. “Every conceivably bad idea that anyone’s ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane.”

"Steven F. Udvar-Házy, an industry veteran who is chief executive of the Air Lease Corporation, which leases aircraft, calls the lack of interest in the planes “a very unusual situation,” especially among United States airlines. “I’ve never seen this before in a big program,” he says."

"Boeing, too, is facing lukewarm demand for its latest jumbo jet upgrade, known as the 747-8. The company has received just 51 orders for this big plane, which can seat about 460 passengers and lists at $357 million. By contrast, it has sold more than 1,200 twin-engine 777s, which sell for as much as $320 million"

"Richard H. Anderson, Delta’s chief executive, has said the A380 is “by definition an uneconomic airplane unless you’re a state-owned enterprise with subsidies.”"

"Bruno Delile, Air France’s senior vice president for fleet management, says that there are a limited number of routes in its network with enough daily traffic to justify the expense of such a big plane.

“The forecasts about traffic growth and market saturation haven’t exactly panned out,” he says."

SKAirbus · Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:58 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
"Richard H. Anderson, Delta’s chief executive, has said the A380 is “by definition an uneconomic airplane unless you’re a state-owned enterprise with subsidies.”"

Ask British Airways, a PLC with no state subsidies or ownership. Yes, at the moment the A380 is a niche aircraft but it is working for a number of airlines... BA, SQ, EK etc etc. It has become a destination aircraft that people go out of their way to fly on.

I'm saying the A380 has been the huge success it was made out to be, and there is no sign of that happening in the near future but this article seems just to be a sensationalist, blatant attack...

tortugamon · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:07 pm

I thought this was an interesting quote: "Once the whole plane is 85 percent full, its operating costs fall below those of a 777, he says."

That is from Sir Tim Clark at EK.

It certainly appears that from a financial perspective the A380 is not going to be a success but I am a big fan of flying on the aircraft.

tortugamon

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:11 pm

Before people think this article is just another "Anti-A380 Hit Piece", the author does seem to have made an attempt at actually researching the program and the environment.

Yes, he does quote a.net's favorite villain, Richard Aboulafia, but he also does note that the A380 did launch into the downward trend of the commercial aviation "boom and bust" sales and production cycle. He also notes how passengers have responded extremely favorably to the A380 and how it is a highly desirable airframe to fly upon. And rather than the usual tired claim that Emirates buys them buy the score because they're awash in oil money and funded by the Emir, he interviews Tim Clark and lets him explain how he is using the A380 to create a premium flying experience for premium flyers.

DarkHorse23 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:15 pm

Other than EK the A380 really is beginning to sink. The plane itself will fly for years thanks to the massive EK order, and likely replacements they'll need in the not too distant future, but the programme is potentially at the beginning of the end.

I highly doubt we will see the A380 get a stretch, it's too much plane already without more added in the middle. I can imagine SQ, BA and even QR eventually replacing their A380s with 779s and 351s and not reordering more whales. Qantas should get rid of theirs as soon as they can as well because EK have been eating their market alive from Europe and I'm sure 778s would be sufficient for making trips to the US (it is the better ranged of the two future 777s I believe?).

I've never flown on an A380, although I'm sure I will at some point in the near future because I intend to travel to Australia soon. It seems like a great plane from a passenger POV, but a terrible plane from a business POV. They were warned that not enough companies would be able to make the plane work.

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:18 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
I thought this was an interesting quote: "Once the whole plane is 85 percent full, its operating costs fall below those of a 777, he says."

That's an interesting number considering their system wide LF was 79% this year and last year.

AustrianZRH · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:27 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
Mr. Aboulafia says.

'nuff said.

Clydenairways · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:34 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):

That's an interesting number considering their system wide LF was 79% this year and last year.

So. Are you trying to imply that the A380 is running at 79% and the 777 is at 100% LF. Then you would have a point.

par13del · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Yes, he does quote a.net's favorite villain, Richard Aboulafia,

All of two sentences in a rather lengthy article, so we we throw out Richard Aboulafia, Steven Udvar-Hazy and Richard Anderson, are we left with something that is readable?
I think so after reading the entire article.

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
I thought this was an interesting quote: "Once the whole plane is 85 percent full, its operating costs fall below those of a 777, he says."

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
That's an interesting number considering their system wide LF was 79% this year and last year.

But even at a 79% LF, the A380 appears to print dinars for EK by the pallet-load. So for those flights that clear 85%, they just add a few more pallets to handle the extra cash.

Quoting DarkHorse23 (Reply 5):
I highly doubt we will see the A380 get a stretch, it's too much plane already without more added in the middle.

I am inclined to agree, at least for the time being, as the plane can go to 11-abreast while still providing top-level comfort.

Quoting DarkHorse23 (Reply 5):
I can imagine SQ, BA and even QR eventually replacing their A380s with 779s and 351s and not reordering more whales.

SQ has already ordered their first tranche of replacements and I expect they will replace the remainder with more new frames, as well.

BA was rumored to not take all their frames, yet have confirmed that they will. Their 747 replacement needs are large enough that they might take more, or they might not. Their Chairman has noted that the "777X is perfect" for them, but have yet to commit.

Quoting DarkHorse23 (Reply 5):
Qantas should get rid of theirs as soon as they can as well because EK have been eating their market alive from Europe and I'm sure 778s would be sufficient for making trips to the US.

QF have tied-up with EK so while they no longer need A380s to serve Europe (that can be handled by EK's A380s), they do need them for their operations to North America, South America and South Africa because Australian restrictions on EDTO/ETOPS inhibits the effectiveness of the A350 and 777X on long over-water missions.

Quoting DarkHorse23 (Reply 5):
I've never flown on an A380, although I'm sure I will at some point in the near future because I intend to travel to Australia soon. It seems like a great plane from a passenger POV, but a terrible plane from a business POV. They were warned that not enough companies would be able to make the plane work.

I've flown it as a passenger and I really enjoy it. And it does seem to be generally working for operators considering they have taken the significant balance of the frames they have on orders and of those yet to receive frames, only VS seems to be wavering.

[Edited 2014-08-11 08:53:24]

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
But even at a 79% LF, the A380 appears to print dinars for EK by the pallet-load.

EK doesn't have a very high operating margin, so not much of anything is printing dinars.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 8):
Are you trying to imply that the A380 is running at 79% and the 777 is at 100% LF.

No, I'm implying that on average the fleet is running 79% full, whether it's a 380, 77W, or 332.

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 7):

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
Mr. Aboulafia says.

'nuff said.

Well, him and everyone else. Plus so far he's been 100% right.

jetfuel · Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Australian restrictions on EDTO/ETOPS inhibits the effectiveness of the A350 and 777X on long-over water missions.

I dont believe this to be valid. Please explain. QF if they were hoenst would tell you they regret buying the A380 as they cannot consistently fill them

The A380 is the A340 of 2020. Sad but true. The 777-9X makes the A380 look like a financial dinosuar.

The A380 is a magnificent passenger plane but it makes sense for very few airlines

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:15 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
...Australian restrictions on EDTO/ETOPS inhibits the effectiveness of the A350 and 777X on long over-water missions.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 12):
I dont believe this to be valid. Please explain.

A number of Australian members have noted that the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority is very conservative when it comes to EDTO/ETOPS for Australian-registered carriers.

Unlike the FAA and EASA, who support EDTO of up to 330 minutes, it appears the current limit for ETOPS for a commercial airliner is only 90 minutes in Australia (based on this PowerPoint presentation), though it looks like they intend to approve (or have already approved) EDTO of up to 180 minutes.

The New Zealand CASA, which also appears to approve a maximum EDTO of 180 minutes, also appears to be looking at increasing the time allowed.

[Edited 2014-08-11 09:15:40]

Flighty · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:20 pm

The 747-100 wasn't that great, either.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 12):
The A380 is a magnificent passenger plane but it makes sense for very few airlines

At this time.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
"Richard H. Anderson, Delta’s chief executive, has said the A380 is “by definition an uneconomic airplane unless you’re a state-owned enterprise with subsidies.”"

That quote from Richard kind of puts an exclamation point on the growing consensus on the A388. I think Airbus still had it right, but instead of 2010, it is 2030. And instead of the A388, the 1.0 product, the definitive A380 (seating 750) is yet to come.

ozglobal · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Before people think this article is just another "Anti-A380 Hit Piece", the author does seem to have made an attempt at actually researching the program and the environment.....He also notes how passengers have responded extremely favorably to the A380 and how it is a highly desirable airframe to fly upon. And rather than the usual tired claim that Emirates buys them buy the score because they're awash in oil money and funded by the Emir, he interviews Tim Clark and lets him explain how he is using the A380 to create a premium flying experience for premium flyers.

Good to know. Shame the OP has not attempted to pass on any such balance from the artilce.

The A380 will be a modest medium to long term success financially, is a huge success already in certain market niches and in premium passenger experience : it is certainly achieving big success for EK, SQ, LH, BA and others.

Perhaps its greatest achievement however is in consistently making some of our US friend's brains explode

parapente · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:37 pm

Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes — no matter their feats of engineering — that make connections through huge hubs.

Tell that to Emirates?

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:42 pm

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 15):
Perhaps its greatest achievement however is in consistently making some of our US friend's brains explode.

While it is de rigueur to assume that only Americans hate the A380, based on posting histories, the A380 is not very popular in Australia and has it's fair share of European and Asian critics, as well. Wink

[Edited 2014-08-11 09:47:36]

JHwk · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:44 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
That quote from Richard kind of puts an exclamation point on the growing consensus on the A388.

No, that is just maintaining his talking points for politics sake.

The 380 is a solid aircraft as-is, although most airlines prefer other options, either to increase cargo or frequency, or to ensure the plane is fully and properly utilized year-round. In 20 years a 750-seat long-haul aircraft might make sense, but the time is not now.

PW100 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Before people think this article is just another "Anti-A380 Hit Piece", the author does seem to have made an attempt at actually researching the program and the environment.

Yes, he does quote a.net's favorite villain, Richard Aboulafia, but he also does note that the A380 did launch into the downward trend of the commercial aviation "boom and bust" sales and production cycle

I agree that he piece is fairly well balanced. However Mr. Aboulafia (again) makes an complete and utter fool of himself in this quote:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
Boeing, too, is facing lukewarm demand for its latest jumbo jet upgrade, known as the 747-8. The company has received just 51 orders for this big plane, which can seat about 460 passengers and lists at $357 million. By contrast, it has sold more than 1,200 twin-engine 777s, which sell for as much as $320 million

Does he really need to be reminded that the 747 sold over 1500? Or is he really trying to distort the picture (and make his work look like a 9-year old) by comparing the full family life of the whole 777 range to just that of one single member of the great 747 . . . ???

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

Quoting DarkHorse23 (Reply 5):I highly doubt we will see the A380 get a stretch, it's too much plane already without more added in the middle.
I am inclined to agree, at least for the time being, as the plane can go to 11-abreast while still providing top-level comfort.

Not so sure. The current A380 has too much wing and too much airframe basically for the payload it is lifting. Stretching it will dramatically increase revenue (remember, to decks, four aisles), with only minimum increase in operating cost.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
SQ has already ordered their first tranche of replacements and I expect they will replace the remainder with more new frames, as well.

Has it already been established that the latest 5 add-on orders from SQ are for replacement? Not being picking here, just can't remember anymore.

Thanks,
PW100

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:54 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 19):
Not so sure. The current A380 has too much wing and too much airframe basically for the payload it is lifting. Stretching it will dramatically increase revenue (remember, to decks, four aisles), with only minimum increase in operating cost.

The existing A380 frame has operating weight growth built into it as well as additional capacity growth by moving to 11-abreast in Economy.

As such, I don't think a stretch is a near-term need. I expect we'll see additional Weight Variants in the 580,000 to 590,000 kilogram range and a new engine before we see the A380-900 stretch (as both would help support such a stretch).

Quoting PW100 (Reply 19):
Has it already been established that the latest 5 add-on orders from SQ are for replacement? Not being picking here, just can't remember anymore.

Their first tranche of A380s will be reaching the end of their current operating leases in the latter-half of this decade. If they follow past patterns, those frames could be due for replacement having crossed the decade-mark.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 19):
Does (the author) really need to be reminded that the 747 sold over 1500? Or is he really trying to distort the picture (and make his work look like a 9-year old) by comparing the full family life of the whole 777 range to just that of one single member of the great 747 . . . ???

I believe that the author was using it to illustrate that large twin-engine platforms have become very popular in the past decade. He also notes the sales success of the 787 and A350 programs.

silentbob · Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 15):
The A380 will be a modest medium to long term success financially

For Airbus? I don't think the program will ever be a financial success. That assumes you factor in the related costs that they have written off and not just the costs that they have charged to the program.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
That quote from Richard kind of puts an exclamation point on the growing consensus on the A388. I think Airbus still had it right, but instead of 2010, it is 2030. And instead of the A388, the 1.0 product, the definitive A380 (seating 750) is yet to come.

It's hard to predict where we will be in 20 years, but I could see it happening. By that time China will likely have grown substantially and we could be seeing massive development in Africa. However, I would expect Boeing to develop an improved competitor if that market segment matures significantly.

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:02 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 16):
Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes — no matter their feats of engineering — that make connections through huge hubs.

Tell that to Emirates?

EK is the surrogate carrier for plenty of places (Pakistan, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc) that don't have competent local carriers and would require passengers to connect regardless. The additional garbage they get connecting from, say, CDG-BKK isn't paying its way.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 15):
Good to know. Shame the OP has not attempted to pass on any such balance from the artilce.

You obviously didn't read the article.

ORDfan · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Before people think this article is just another "Anti-A380 Hit Piece", the author does seem to have made an attempt at actually researching the program and the environment.

I totally agree. This doesn't read like a "hit piece" at all - rather, the author's thesis seems to be that the A380 has not changed the "way the industry operates" in the way Airbus and some of its operators had predicted back in the early 2000s. In fact, the article is as much as bout the nature and status of the long-haul airline industry as much as the A380's place/role within it. Inevitably I guess, the article's conclusion is merely something we all know: it's hard to predict the future!! Particularly when developing programs that have such long life-cycles in an industry which is highly-cyclical.

Very interesting read, overall.

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
While it is de rigueur to assume that only Americans hate the A380, based on posting histories, the A380 is not very popular in Australia and has it's fair share of European and Asian critics, as well.

Ummm ....flags on this board don't represent too much, read the phraseology, grammatical construction and vocabulary of
the English, much better methodology

Quite a lot of Ozzies get on them to go to Europe (they haven't got too much choice otherwise), as do SE Asians who do
have some choice (to avoid it)

My read on the article was more a justification as to why US airlines aren't buying (admittedly to a US readership)
the biggest PAX aircraft. After all biggest is best, is it not?

It appears that (one is led to believe) US citizens actually quite like it.

If they don't like it, then EK / BA / LH / AF / QF / SQ etc... etc must be mostly filling their planes with non US nationals ,
an argument which doesn't really hold water

The most non aviation oriented PAX has heard of Concorde and whilst the A380 is not quite in that league its better
known than many of today's planes which have sold 1000s more copies

SelseyBill · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
“It’s a commercial disaster,” Mr. Aboulafia says. “Every conceivably bad idea that anyone’s ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane.” "Steven F. Udvar-Házy, an industry veteran who is chief executive of the Air Lease Corporation, which leases aircraft, calls the lack of interest in the planes “a very unusual situation,” especially among United States airlines. “I’ve never seen this before in a big program,” he says."

I'm relatively new to these discussion boards; but there is one thing I do know for sure.
You count John Leahy out, at your peril. JL has a couple of more surprises for the airline industry, before he hangs 'em up. These reports of the early death of the A380 are somewhat premature..........

par13del · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:25 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 24):
If they don't like it, then EK / BA / LH / AF / QF / SQ etc... etc must be mostly filling their planes with non US nationals ,
an argument which doesn't really hold water

Why? EK for example, is the bulk of their OD traffic starting in the US or in the sub-continent, same for BA and the others mentioned.
I am inclined to believe that where there is a choice between US and Foreign carriers, the majority of US originating traffic will be on the US carrier, it's one of the reasons why they have so many RJ's etc. feeding their hubs, to keep their pax business for the entire trip..

ODwyerPW · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
That quote from Richard kind of puts an exclamation point on the growing consensus on the A388. I think Airbus still had it right, but instead of 2010, it is 2030. And instead of the A388, the 1.0 product, the definitive A380 (seating 750) is yet to come.

I actually agree with this. Regardless of what Canada is doing in the oil sands and the USA with the pipeline, instablility in places like the MIddle East, Venezuela and Russia (not that Russia is unstable by any means.. it's just that allot of the western world is not as confident in them as a trade partner as they used to be), higher demand in China, etc are all pushing us further down the path of really, really expensive oil.

We are at peak oil. Even with new exploration and production methods brought to Mexico, it will be a while before those production increases affect global pricing. Despite large gains in fuel economy for autos in the USA, the consumption has not waned. All of this points to eventually needing to fly big, packed planes to reduce overall operating expenses and keep flying affordable.
Everything changes when we start seeing $150 barrel oil.

The A380-800 might not be the solution in 2014... But the A380-900 with new generation engines may very well be a good option for a number of airlines in 2025. It's a gamble. But so much of the work is done and already accounted for. They need to move forward with the A389.

DfwRevolution · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
The 747-100 wasn't that great, either.

But Airbus isn't selling "-100" models of the A380. Today's A380 is certainly a "-200" model to use the 747 metaphor. The decision to brand an improvement as a new minor model is strictly a marketing decision.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 14):
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 12):
The A380 is a magnificent passenger plane but it makes sense for very few airlines

At this time.

Timing is a key element of product strategy. If now isn't the time for the A380, then it should not have been built.

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 24):
The most non aviation oriented PAX has heard of Concorde and whilst the A380 is not quite in that league its better
known than many of today's planes which have sold 1000s more copies

The comparison to Concorde is quite apt, as both are famous, but economically very difficult to operate.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 24):
It appears that (one is led to believe) US citizens actually quite like it.

People loved Concorde too.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 25):
You count John Leahy out, at your peril. JL has a couple of more surprises for the airline industry, before he hangs 'em up. These reports of the early death of the A380 are somewhat premature..........

Perhaps, but the economics of such a large plane make it impossible for almost all the world carriers whose name isn't Emirates. A bigger one will not help, no matter how efficient it is.

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:38 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 26):
I am inclined to believe that where there is a choice between US and Foreign carriers, the majority of US originating traffic will be on the US carrier, it's one of the reasons why they have so many RJ's etc. feeding their hubs, to keep their pax business for the entire trip..

The majority - you could well be right. As do the Brits prefer a British carrier, the Germans a German carrier, the French,
the Koreans etc etc etc.

EK - they have enough A380 (amongst others) to evacuate the entire Emirati population if a few weeks, so some other
nationalities must be getting on board, maybe some US nationals who quite conceivably might like what they find?

Who then in turn think to themselves, something like - shame this isn't a US airline

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:40 pm

Due to the size of the US market and the lack of cabotage, US-registered carriers are naturally going to have the advantage when it comes to international carriage of US citizens.

[Edited 2014-08-11 10:40:54]

goosebayguy · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:43 pm

Interesting because LHR today announced a rise in passenger numbers due entirely to larger aircraft being used.

Unflug · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
If now isn't the time for the A380, then it should not have been built.

To come to that conclusion you have to be able to predict the next 30 years. Are you?

PPVRA · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:47 pm

If Europe were to liberalize landing fees at its airports, I bet the A380 would see a flurry of new orders from current operators as well as a couple of new operators. Heck, it may even save the 747-8i.

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 29):
People loved Concorde too.

Yes but at a price most couldn't afford, the A380 they can afford (admittedly in Y)

dtw2hyd · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 32):
Interesting because LHR today announced a rise in passenger numbers due entirely to larger aircraft being used.

Yet A380 movements consist only 3% of LHR traffic. There was an analysis published by one of our members. This is at worlds worst slot restricted and most expensive airport.

Even at DXB, dnata cannot survive just on heavily discounted EK A380 ops, they need revenue from all other NBs to be profitable. Of course, perfectly parked A380s no doubt put up a good show.

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 36):
need revenue from all other NBs to be profitable

Errrr..... EK doesn't operate narrow bodies, even DOH is a WB n times a day

KWT even gets a A380 once a day

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:02 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 37):
Errrr..... EK doesn't operate narrow bodies...

The comment was about the overall profitability of Dubai International Airport, not Emirates (airline). flyDubai operates narrowbodies into and out of DXB, and I imagine they are not the only carrier to do so.

[Edited 2014-08-11 12:00:36]

MaverickM11 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:03 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 36):
Yet A380 movements consist only 3% of LHR traffic. There was an analysis published by one of our members. This is at worlds worst slot restricted and most expensive airport.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 37):
Errrr..... EK doesn't operate narrow bodies, even DOH is a WB n times a day

Fly Dubai, plus doesn't Dnata handle pretty much everyone?

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 35):
Yes but at a price most couldn't afford, the A380 they can afford (admittedly in Y)

Airlines have/had trouble filling either plane economically--Concorde because the operating costs were astronomical, and the 380 because the last incremental 1-200 passengers are at a bargain bin yield

dtw2hyd · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:06 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 37):
Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 36):
need revenue from all other NBs to be profitable

Errrr..... EK doesn't operate narrow bodies, even DOH is a WB n times a day

KWT even gets a A380 once a day

I know EK is two plane airline. What I meant is NBs from all other airlines. For all the show EK doesn't generate much revenue neither at DXB nor at LHR.

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
The comment was about the overall profitability of Dubai International Airport, not Emirates (airline). flyDubai operates narrowbodies into and out of DXB, and I imagine they are not the only carrier to do so.

Agreed didn't read carefully enough, but my feeling is the proportion of WB movements at DXB most probably outstrips most
of the world's airports

[Edited 2014-08-11 11:08:25]

diverdave · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:13 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
Airlines have/had trouble filling either plane economically--Concorde because the operating costs were astronomical, and the 380 because the last incremental 1-200 passengers are at a bargain bin yield

You're not really helping to build the case for the A389.

David

DarkHorse23 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:18 pm

Can I just say thanks for you guys not jumping on me, I'm still terribly new to being an 'avgeek' as such and I have an incredibly large amount to learn even about the basics.

Thank you Stitch for providing a very welcome answer to my post.

I would love the A380 to succeed, it is wonderful to see such a large aircraft cut through the air every day. I just don't understand how it can ever possibly be a success in a majority of airlines in today's climate. I'm sure as soon as the 778/9 series begin service the possibility of the A380 being successful will completely deminish. That's just the way the world is going, we've had the era of the majestic very large four holers and now we are entering the era of the majestic very large two holer.

bhill · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:25 pm

As an American, I think it it is a magnificent airplane! Kudos to Airbus for bringing it to fruition...see? My head did not 'splode. I suspect that with both the recession AND the history of US Airlines going bankrupt, they may not want to be left holding the kind of debt it takes to lease or buy one of these beauties when the financial music stops playing again...and it will... I would love to see it at SeaTac to boot!

sierra3tango · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:26 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
Airlines have/had trouble filling either plane economically--Concorde because the operating costs were astronomical, and the 380 because the last incremental 1-200 passengers are at a bargain bin yield

Maybe, maybe not but does that stop the PAX enjoying an experience they couldn't afford on Concorde?

Yield - if Y is full of 'bargain bin' what's upstairs like ? EK aren't all 'bargain bin' nor are the rest of the operators

At some point (maybe not too far away) many airports will evolve into LHR scenarios.

The OP (....M11) was commenting / asking for comments on the NYT article .... my feeling is that it was based on an
creeping perception/ justification as to why US airlines don't/ couldn't operate them (the biggest -therefore best) .....
but that is my opinion

avek00 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:34 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 45):
At some point (maybe not too far away) many airports will evolve into LHR scenarios.

No, they generally won't. Despite the hoopla and fuss, most major world economies are savvier than the United Kingdom when it comes to building/expanding/re-configuring airports as needed.

AADC10 · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:34 pm

Things were also really ugly in the early days of the 747 during the oil embargo. While the A380 is unlikely to achieve Airbus' projections, the fact remains that airline travel has yet to return to late 1990s levels. When travel returns and passes that level, peak slots at LHR, PEK, JFK, EWR and NRT become scarce and more expensive, then airlines are going to look at the A380 again. An A389 might help as it would further improve fuel burn CASM.

par13del · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:47 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 32):
Interesting because LHR today announced a rise in passenger numbers due entirely to larger aircraft being used.

To be fair, Gatwick also announced increased pax numbers and both airport authorities are using the numbers to bolster their claims for new runways and further expansion.
Article is also somehwre in the archives on the BBC site but the Daily R**** is still on the forefront.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...er-campaign-build-UK-s-runway.html

dtw2hyd · Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:50 pm

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 41):
Agreed didn't read carefully enough, but my feeling is the proportion of WB movements at DXB most probably outstrips most of the world's airports

DXB has 1000 aircraft movements a day. EK's entire fleet is 200+. Even if you consider medium haul round trips and regional flights with multiple movements EK's traffic at DXB is less than 30-35%. Most of the DXB revenue is from other airlines.

ATL had 930,000+ movements in 2012. What difference it makes even entire A380 fleet visits ATL every day.

LHR doesn't even make world's top 10 list in terms of aircraft movements in a days. Curfew makes it busy during operational hours. That's about it.

Stitch · Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:05 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
Airlines have/had trouble filling either plane economically--Concorde because the operating costs were astronomical, and the 380 because the last incremental 1-200 passengers are at a bargain bin yield

Based on studies I have seen, an A380-800 clears her trip costs at around a 55-60% load factor (thanks to the higher premium cabin seating the majority of operators install), so a significant portion of those incremental 1-200 passengers, even at "bargain bin pricing", are pretty much pure profit.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net