User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:11 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Isn't the main of point to point travel to skip the hubs and continuing on direct to your destination? 787s and A350s are doing just that. This list is over 16 months old.

The 787 is used by many airlines to enhance their own hubs, it does eliminate a stop, but it is still solidifying a hub.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Air India: Delhi

Strengthening their DEL hub.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
ANA

NRT is an international NH hub

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
British Airways

A classic hub airline.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
China Southern

Hub

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Ethiopian

Hub

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Japan Airlines

Same as NH

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
LOT Polish

Hub

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Norwegian

This is by far the best example of point to point: DY is based in Oslo buy flies passengers from outside its base.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
United Airlines

US carriers are a mix, they have lots of bases, but don't start up that many long haul routes from cities that aren't their bases.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Air Canada

Hub, but AC are similar to US carriers.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Japan Airlines: Osaka Kansai

More like it: without the 787 JL wouldn't have been able to relaunch LAX from KIX.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 117):
Kenya Airways

Hub.

The bottom line is that for the most part, only LCCs are really using the 787 as a true P2P aircraft, the majority of long haul flights today are flown by flag/full-service carriers which will fly hub-to-spoke routes for the most part. The 787 is good at opening up new routes, it has opened up plenty, but it's used by hub carriers to add another string to their hub's bow. This is an evolution: the 767, A330 and in later years 757 have all done their part for opening up new routes due to their combination of smaller size and long range, although hardly comparable to the 787's range.
 
JayBCNLON
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:41 pm

Quoting JayBCNLON (Reply 7):
Nothing I read here is a REVELATION. I cannot see that anything could be discussed here that has not been discussed at length in numerous threads in this forum before. I propose closure of this thread.


145 post later I can say: I was right. I have not read anything that I did not read before in this forum. Nothing revealing in the contributions, and all in all the discussion is pretty stagnant. And this includes the many off-topic contributions.

Can we close this thread now?

[Edited 2016-06-09 10:43:20]

[Edited 2016-06-09 10:44:02]

[Edited 2016-06-09 10:58:13]

[Edited 2016-06-09 11:00:32]

[Edited 2016-06-09 11:01:29]

[Edited 2016-06-09 11:04:39]

[Edited 2016-06-09 11:05:25]
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:02 pm

Re above.I have to agree.The production numbers speak volumes and there are many examples of how long NEO,ing an aircraft takes.So all will have to be revealed in a year or two anyway.One way or the other.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:58 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 151):
The bottom line is that for the most part, only LCCs are really using the 787 as a true P2P aircraft, the majority of long haul flights today are flown by flag/full-service carriers which will fly hub-to-spoke routes for the most part.

There's no grounds to insist point-to-point means non-hub to non-hub, see #116 above.

[Edited 2016-06-09 13:16:44]
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:13 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 131):
Quoting parapente (Reply 130):
The problem with all of this is who is actually asking for these capacity increases? As best I know not even Emirates are these days.

It's correct. TC himself said in one of these interviews, that they are "interested" in a NEO but not in additional seat capacity.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 132):
Quoting parapente (Reply 130):
The problem with all of this is who is actually asking for these capacity increases? As best I know not even Emirates are these days.

Literally nobody. Only EK wants the NEO and, as you note, EK doesn't see a capacity bump being necessary.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 146):
The A388 in its present form is sub-optimal and there's no interest in a stretch.
Quoting parapente (Reply 149):
100% right.It's either got to be a 787 NEO engine or an A350 NEO upgrade engine to make it worth while.I am sure RR would prefer the former as it is older and they can grab competition engines- they already have 100% of the XWB market
Just don't think it would sit that well with Airbus.

How about an A389 with B787/A350 engines? It would be phenomenal in CASM, increase cargo and/or range as well as add a "small" increment in seats. I know carriers right now have said they don't need an increase in capacity but a small increase in pax with a much better CASM (and potential RASM) than the current A388 might be something to look into.

The A380 stretch was already "built in" so I believe costs would be minimal. Its really the NEO which would increase costs.
"Up the Irons!"
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:18 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 153):
There's no need to insist point-to-point means non-hub to non-hub, see #116 above.

Than the A380 would be to a big part be used as a point to point air frame. Emirates has one hub, the rest is spoke. With your definition, just a few flights by an airline running several hubs, would not be point to point, the flights between the hubs.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2493
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:28 pm

IMHO...Airbus needs to swallow their pride, kill the 380 program,
and focus their resources on the 350, because they have a winner
there.

Killing the 380 would also give A the incentive to proceed with the A350-1100/2000
as well
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 154):
There's no grounds to insist point-to-point means non-hub to non-hub, see #116 above.

That is the very definition however. In my opinion, the 787 used as Boeing envisaged would be an airline like BA opening up long haul routes from MAN, EDI, GLA etc., or LH opening long haul flights from DUS or TXL. If they used LHR and MUC/FRA, then they are not using it as a P2P aircraft, they are using it to strengthen their own hub. The 787 makes the routes possible, but it is still a hub-to-spoke tool if it is used from a hub.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:24 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 61):
Cattle-class redefined...
[quote=Sooner787,reply=157]IMHO...Airbus needs to swallow their pride, kill the 380 program,
and focus their resources on the 350, because they have a winner
there.

Killing the 380 would also give A the incentive to proceed with the A350-1100/2000
as well

What makes you think that the A380 is keeping Airbus from progressing the A350 programme?
The A380 isn't the resource hog it used to be when the wiring issues had to be sorted - as evident by the fact that Airbus are now actually making a profit on each one delivered for the first time. Besides some incremental improvements that are basically results of ongoing support and maintenance (which is due under contracts and wouldn't stop even if Airbus stopped making the A380 tomorrow), there is no engineering needed there. Remember the A380neo hasn't been launched (yet).
So with that in mind, if there's something they should do but don't about the A350 (which I don't think there is to begin with), it's not because of the A380.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 156):
Than the A380 would be to a big part be used as a point to point air frame. Emirates has one hub, the rest is spoke. With your definition, just a few flights by an airline running several hubs, would not be point to point, the flights between the hubs.

  

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 158):
That is the very definition however. In my opinion, the 787 used as Boeing envisaged would be an airline like BA opening up long haul routes from MAN, EDI, GLA etc., or LH opening long haul flights from DUS or TXL. If they used LHR and MUC/FRA, then they are not using it as a P2P aircraft, they are using it to strengthen their own hub. The 787 makes the routes possible, but it is still a hub-to-spoke tool if it is used from a hub.

Indeed. If the argument was "higher frequencies", I would actually say A330/787 size planes certainly enable those compared to 747/A380 or even 773ER. But P2P? As you point out, quite a lot of frequencies are added to hubs. And as I predicted at the time, I still can't get a direct flight from PAD to, say, PHL. Or even from HAM to PHL, or HAM-MIA, or HAM-DFW, or ORK-DFW. That just isn't happening.
New routes instead tend to (mostly) be opened to/from hubs and using smaller equipment that A330/787. EI's use of 757s is probably a good example of that.
42
 
JayBCNLON
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:20 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 157):
IMHO...Airbus needs to swallow their pride, kill the 380 program,
and focus their resources on the 350, because they have a winner
there.

I believe your statement is as good as "America and its airlines should swalllow their pride and accept that the largest, most reliable, most sophisticated and customer friendly airliner currently available is the A380 - and that it is a product of Europe."

The A380 has earned Airbus competitive strength, experience and not the least revenue. Without the A380 program Boeing would still have the edge - with the A380 program, however, Airbus has finally reached eye-level, which it has been leveraging successfully selling its other types. The A380 iself and its future derivatives will be around for decades to come and find more customers, even among US airlines.

Having been around long enough, I have a memory of the vehement forces that worked towards keeping Airbus out of the US market in the 70s and 80s, f.e. on the basis of claims that the A300's was too heavy for the runways and taxiways at JFK. More recently, we had a politically forced reversal of the US Airf Force's tanker decision. It appears these forces, albeit less successful now than previously, are still at work.

And having been in this forum for many years now I have to say that the attitude towards the A380 is boringly predictable from the flag of the respective poster.

And if it was up to me we would not have had this A vs B thread as I explained in posts #7 and #145.

[Edited 2016-06-09 15:21:22]

[Edited 2016-06-09 15:21:57]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:25 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 156):
Than the A380 would be to a big part be used as a point to point air frame.

Given that A380 has gotten rid of a hop for many routes, it is, and seeing that EK is the biggest user of fhe A380 it is a large part of what the A380 does. That's ironic, no? Unfortunately for Airbus it isn't being purchased in the numbers they hoped (for instance, it didn't even capture the 747 replacement market), so they may have won the battle but lost the war. At the time the 777/A380/787 marketing wars were going on EK's presence had yet to be felt. No one anticipated EK would come along and castrate the traditional carriers. EK has been able to provide one thing customers want the most, cheap seats, at same time as providing the other thing they want, less hops. EK has taken a captured a lot of traffic that used to be spoke-hub-hub-spoke and made it spoke-hub-spoke which meets part of the vision Boeing was pushing, they just managed to do it so well that they are able to fly bigger planes than Boeing anticipated.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 158):
That is the very definition however.

Sure, it is a correct literal definition, but it isn't the totality of the thesis Boeing was pushing, it was that passengers would prefer long range flights more frequently on smaller airplanes with fewer hops, and that still is the truth. EK was an unanticipated (and very successful) distortion when it comes to the smaller airplanes part, but it doesn't change the fact that we see more small and big twins flying around (even from EK) than VLAs and that it was a better move to invest in 777 and 787 rather than A380.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 158):
In my opinion, the 787 used as Boeing envisaged would be an airline like BA opening up long haul routes from MAN, EDI, GLA etc., or LH opening long haul flights from DUS or TXL.

And it has to some degree. For instance BOS has flights to China and Japan it could not sustain before the 787 came along. It's just not the only thing you can do with a 787. And 787 isn't the only airplane that can fill the role. Clearly Airbus believes this too since it is investing in A330neo and A350 and not investing in A380neo.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:09 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
Sure, it is a correct literal definition, but it isn't the totality of the thesis Boeing was pushing

It's hardly far off. We have a concept of what P2P is, because it's a hallmark of most LCCs. The 787 has only been used that way by a few LCCs, DY and BY come to mind for me.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
EK was an unanticipated (and very successful) distortion when it comes to the smaller airplanes part, but it doesn't change the fact that we see more small and big twins flying around (even from EK) than VLAs and that it was a better move to invest in 777 and 787 rather than A380.

The twins have better economics, but it doesn't change the fact that they are mostly being used from hubs, with few airlines using them to establish new bases outside the hub and launching direct flights. They eliminate a stop at another hub along the way, but that's a secondary concern: the airline flying it is tapping into connecting traffic from the spoke just as much as O and D.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
And it has to some degree. For instance BOS has flights to China and Japan it could not sustain before the 787 came along.

Those flights are flown from hubs in China and Japan, which is evidence for my point.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
It's just not the only thing you can do with a 787. And 787 isn't the only airplane that can fill the role. Clearly Airbus believes this too since it is investing in A330neo and A350 and not investing in A380neo.

The A350's orderbook is still mostly hub airlines, the A330neo's is less defined, no big hub carriers yet, although TP and MH are hub carriers and DL is big.

The point I'm making isn't that the 787 doesn't open up new routes, it very clearly does. But if it is being used to strengthen a hub carrier's hub, then it isn't being used the way Boeing envisaged. I'm not expecting suddenly being able to fly from EDI to SJC, but EDI or GLA to New York or LA should be feasible with the 787, and yet not many airlines have done routes along those lines.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:37 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 162):
We have a concept of what P2P is, because it's a hallmark of most LCCs.

Yet what LCCs currently do isn't what Boeing was talking about. They typically aren't flying routes 3,000 miles or greater. And Boeing was talking about taking passengers where they wanted to go regardless of if an endpoint was a hub or not. To a LCC it's very significant that they are departing from LGW/STN/LTN instead of LHR, to Boeing's thesis it is not, what matters if the pax are getting where they want to go with the fewest hops.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 162):
The twins have better economics, but it doesn't change the fact that they are mostly being used from hubs, with few airlines using them to establish new bases outside the hub and launching direct flights. They eliminate a stop at another hub along the way, but that's a secondary concern: the airline flying it is tapping into connecting traffic from the spoke just as much as O and D.

I don't think it's about whether the airline gets to tap into connecting traffic, I think it's about a given pax getting where they want to go in the fewest hops. In my example BOS-PEK has a hub at both ends but the important part is that it isn't BOS-NRT-PEK any more.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 162):

The point I'm making isn't that the 787 doesn't open up new routes, it very clearly does. But if it is being used to strengthen a hub carrier's hub, then it isn't being used the way Boeing envisaged. I'm not expecting suddenly being able to fly from EDI to SJC, but EDI or GLA to New York or LA should be feasible with the 787, and yet not many airlines have done routes along those lines.

The thesis was that 787 would make it more likely to take EDI-LHR-LAX-SJC and make it EDI-LHR-SJC, not necessarily EDI-SJC, and I think we'll get there.

Not sure why you are focusing on strengthening a carrier's hub. A320s and 737s do that quite well but since they don't routinely fly 3,000+ mile routes (well, some get there, but most don't) they aren't part of the thesis. All the heavyweight early orders for 787 (ANA, JAL, NW, QF, etc) were from carriers that had huge hubs. I don't think 787 would ever have been launched if it wasn't going to be used from hubs.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:49 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 162):
But if it is being used to strengthen a hub carrier's hub, then it isn't being used the way Boeing envisaged

Here's the pith of your mistake: you're confusing mainstream media coverage and/or PR with how moderately sophisticated analysts, customers, and OEM's expected this to go.

No way Boeing's launch group customers, for example, anticipated doing spoke-spoke routes with O&D only. Boeing would have been intimately involved in route planning analysis when making the case for the sales.

The only folks who thought 787s would be used like Ryanair 737s were the least sophisticated and most common voices - the mainstream media.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 164):
No way Boeing's launch group customers, for example, anticipated doing spoke-spoke routes with O&D only. Boeing would have been intimately involved in route planning analysis when making the case for the sales.

The only folks who thought 787s would be used like Ryanair 737s were the least sophisticated and most common voices - the mainstream media.

And the Forbes article I quoted from 2006 ( http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/23/uns...advertising-cx_meb_0524boeing.html ) gives equal short shrift to the A380:

Quote:

(The A380) presumes that passengers will want to put up with the hassles of changing planes in exchange for the privilege of traveling in a jet-powered cruise liner.

Airbus had intimate knowledge of the routes the A380 would fly and the configs that the customer was interested in and knew the only way the economics worked was if A380 was nothing more than a scaled version of a standard airliner, not a "jet powered cruise liner". It's why EK can fly A380s out of places like MAN instead of premium heavy places like LHR.

That's why the only part of the article I used was what Boeing actually said, not what the writer regurgitated.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 165):
That's why the only part of the article I used was what Boeing actually said, not what the writer regurgitated.

Part of the problem may be that A/B don't correct simplistic/fantastical reporting, even if they don't directly push dumb ideas. Reporters are generally happy to speak on background about the subtler dynamics at play - if the source offers.

A willingness to tolerate these simplistic narratives probably, the OEM'S figure, puts more excitement about their products in the zeitgeist, maybe causing more customer interest and/or investor buy-in.

Still, forumers who have been here for years shouldn't be so credulous about the soundbite lines.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:55 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122):
What makes you believe they can't make money on production levels as low as 20 jets per month?

Isn't it Airbus' stated goal to break even at that rate? ~30 was the goal. 20 Would be an achievement, no?

Quoting speedbored (Reply 128):
So, even allowing for the fact that production will be significantly above 20 for at least the next 12 months, Airbus ought to be able to sustain production at at least rate 20 until at least mid-2020, even in the unlikely event that they cannot sell as much as a single additional frame over the next few years.

Who is going to buy 2023 A380ceos? I don't think there is enough dumb money out there to do that.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 143):
We already have 12 units from IR

Do you really expect those orders to be firmed and delivered this decade? I don't.

Quoting JayBCNLON (Reply 160):
And having been in this forum for many years now I have to say that the attitude towards the A380 is boringly predictable from the flag of the respective poster.

I am beginning to agree. Unfortunately I think we have opposite perspectives.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:56 am

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 157):
Airbus needs to swallow their pride, kill the 380 program,
and focus their resources on the 350, because they have a winner
there.

People seem to think canceling a program is an easy thing to do. Airbus would have to write off several billion euros, shares will plunge because the market will respond badly and gone is your cash flow. It will take years to recover, leaving no resources to invest into further projects.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Isn't it Airbus' stated goal to break even at that rate? ~30 was the goal. 20 Would be an achievement, no?

It's already below 30, see the conversion several posts above.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Who is going to buy 2023 A380ceos? I don't think there is enough dumb money out there to do that.

Who buys an 20-year old A330? Airlines keep buying older planes because the OEM keeps investing into the products. There are ongoing improvements.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Do you really expect those orders to be firmed and delivered this decade? I don't.

Every A380 order seem to be questioned.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:10 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 162):
Those flights are flown from hubs in China and Japan, which is evidence for my point.

BOS is a hub as well.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Who is going to buy 2023 A380ceos?

Emirates.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Isn't it Airbus' stated goal to break even at that rate? ~30 was the goal.

It was and the next goal will be to get costs down to where 20 per year is profitable. Then 15. If Boeing can keep the 747 line ticking over at 6 per year...
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:03 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 169):
It was and the next goal will be to get costs down to where 20 per year is profitable. Then 15. If Boeing can keep the 747 line ticking over at 6 per year...

  
Don't forget that the Boeing Brass insists that the line will be profitable at rate 6. I never see this contested on a.net. So why is it so many insists that Airbus can never make the A380 line profitable at rate 20?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:28 am

Hypothetical question:

-Suppose that the current non-EK real backlog is ~18, and that no further non-EK orders will come
-Suppose that after ~2020, Airbus has orders for only ~12 A380's/yr, and that it loses money on each frame

...I don't find these suppositions extravagant, though I wouldn't predict them precisely. You may disagree, fine, this is a hypothetical...

Under this hypothetical, what do you think Airbus should plan for now and do after ~2020?

-end production to avoid losses? (And not replace the A380)
-keep producing at a loss in hopes for, idk, a second EK somewhere or traffic growth to save it?
-plan a more substantially-revised A380 than the NEO that hasn't made sense to Airbus yet?
-replace the A380 with something new
-something else I haven't thought of?

...if you're going to fight the hypothetical ("those suppositions are wrong!") I'm going to ignore you. It's a hypothetical - if you don't want to play then don't play.

But I'm curious to see where folks think this story goes if the downside projections about the A380 come true.

Again, my question isn't about which projections are true, it's about what you think happens if the downside projections are true.

[Edited 2016-06-10 02:35:46]
 
Unflug
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:03 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):
Hypothetical question:

That's a weird reasoning. Of course you are free to make any assumptions leading to the desired outcome, but what's the value of such a discussion?

But anyway:

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):
-something else I haven't thought of?

They will further streamline the production to avoid losses. Shouldn't be that much of a task producing for one single customer.

Oh wait, that is not allowed. Ignore me  
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:19 am

Quoting Unflug (Reply 172):
what's the value of such a discussion?

I am truly privileged to have a field and a social circle where I interact with folks who can have an intellectual debate for its own sake, can do it correctly, and enjoy it. Being on this forum reminds me how insular my life can be.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):
though I wouldn't predict them precisely

Oh go on, stick your money where your mouth is. Make a firm prediction. Shouldn't be too difficult for someone who claims to have been right on everything to do with the A380 so far.

I'm pretty certain that the assumptions behind your hypothesis are wrong but, just for fun, let's go with it:

What Airbus should do is carry on with exactly what they are doing now - keep producing & marketing A380s, keep working on reducing production costs, keep talking to airlines about enhancements, consider reducing the rate below 20 as the breakeven point reduces below that, and make no decisions on whether or not to end the program until the production backlog gets close to the production lead-time, i.e. until at least the end of 2018.

Even with no further orders from any airline, including EK, Airbus has at least 2.5 years before they need to make a decision. With a further rate cut, that could be 5+ years.

You should have added another assumption to your hypothesis - that Airbus will not make any aftersales profits from any frame sold. In reality, even if frames were produced at a small loss, it could still be profitable overall for Airbus to continue to produce them, especially as it would avoid the very considerable costs of a program termination.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:40 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Isn't it Airbus' stated goal to break even at that rate? ~30 was the goal. 20 Would be an achievement, no?

Big achievement and they'll do it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Who is going to buy 2023 A380ceos? I don't think there is enough dumb money out there to do that.

Whoever buys the A330 ceo and 77W and A320ceo and 737 NG because they'll be on the cheap. Wow tortugamon is claiming that the likes of DL and SQ and UA have dumb money! News flash!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
Do you really expect those orders to be firmed and delivered this decade? I don't.

Of course. Even your friend from Forbes.com says the deal is being worked on as we speak.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):

They won't have 18 because EK are taking in so many A380s that the replacement cycle for these aircraft will be continuous each year. That will only increase in the next decade so Airbus will regardless make a loss on the aircraft to keep the line going especially as air travel demand goes up. Unless they replace the program with one that you describe for efficiency because there is no other aircraft that has that capacity.

There is another couple of years before the panic button does need be hit so right now their task is to find buyers. Whether it be tomorrow's deal or next year's deal. I am sure there are projections if there are no orders and projections for orders; any large company needs to be prepared.
Inspire the truth.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:07 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):
Hypothetical question:

Without access to the airline's demand projections, any debate here will not be intellectual, but basically rehasing of entrenched positions.

We cannot establish the practicality, the risk or the potential profit return of any of the options open to Airbus.


I expect what *will* happen is (A)continued PIP of the airframe and engines to keep existing EK happy and (B)refinement of the production system to a profitable 10-15/yr rate. Further down the line, with better knowledge of what any major engine/fuselage/wing refresh might bring to the table, Airbus and the airlines will have several discussions and a decision will be made whether to undergo a major refresh or continue with incremental PIPs on the A388 airframe.

[Edited 2016-06-10 05:12:56]
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:15 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 175):
They won't have 18 because EK are taking in so many A380s that the replacement cycle for these aircraft will be continuous each year.

This is a really good point.

Assume EK end up with a fleet of 140 and keep each for 14 years. They need 10 new ones a year simply for replacement, approaching half of the minimum Airbus needs to produce.

(I know deliveries have not been steady at 14 a year so far)
 
Unflug
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:34 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 173):
I am truly privileged to have a field and a social circle where I interact with folks who can have an intellectual debate for its own sake, can do it correctly, and enjoy it.

Congratulations!

We seem to have different understandings what an intellectual debate would be  
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:31 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 178):
We seem to have different understandings what an intellectual debate would be

That's probably because we have statistically inferior degrees*  



* in Matts mind.

[Edited 2016-06-10 06:33:28]

[Edited 2016-06-10 06:34:49]
 
JayBCNLON
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 173):
I am truly privileged to have a field and a social circle where I interact with folks who can have an intellectual debate for its own sake, can do it correctly, and enjoy it.

Good for you! Why are you wasting your time - indeed sooo much time - posting here then?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:57 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 171):
-end production to avoid losses? (And not replace the A380)

Its not that simple - Airbus can lose money on each airframe and still come out positive overall if they continued production.

How?

Because the cost-per-airframe being talked about does not just cover the actual physical production cost of the airframe, it also covers debt repayments scheduled per airframe as well (RLI, private loans with a per-airframe repayment plan etc).

If Airbus was losing revenue per airframe through reducing the rate of production (which would raise the production cost), so long as that loss is less than the revenue scheduled to cover the per airframe repayments for that airframe, then its a net win for Airbus as they can still pay down those debts.

The alternative to this is to pay those debts off in full at the close of the program, which really means a lot of outlay to close the program down.

So by keeping the A380 program running, even at a per-airframe loss, Airbus can lose less on the program than if they cancelled it.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:15 pm

The implications of Airbus not continuing the A380 nor building the A350-1100 (as also looks like the case) are very interesting. Notable then is that the new the top of the market is the 777X, and while selling ok, is yet to prove a blowout. The top end as a whole is slow.

So this means the VLA market is smaller than previously thought, so Airbus would be wise to concentrate on improving A330 and A350, both which are performing strongly There is plenty of sensibility to stopping a VLA effort that is tying up/not returning/losing working capital when that effort has multiple indications that the market is going / has gone away.

This issue is not about maximizing the return / minimizing the loss on the A380 program, it's about applying resources where the return to the company is the greatest.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:42 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 163):
Yet what LCCs currently do isn't what Boeing was talking about. They typically aren't flying routes 3,000 miles or greater. And Boeing was talking about taking passengers where they wanted to go regardless of if an endpoint was a hub or not. To a LCC it's very significant that they are departing from LGW/STN/LTN instead of LHR, to Boeing's thesis it is not, what matters if the pax are getting where they want to go with the fewest hops.

I'm talking about P2P at a theoretical level, where range isn't important. I'm just emphasising that true P2P does exist, as practiced by LCCs, so when I see few routes where the 787 is used in the same way, I come to think that it's not P2P, just an evolution of making new routes viable, something that happens with every new generation.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 163):
I don't think it's about whether the airline gets to tap into connecting traffic, I think it's about a given pax getting where they want to go in the fewest hops. In my example BOS-PEK has a hub at both ends but the important part is that it isn't BOS-NRT-PEK any more.

OK, I take your point, but I'd consider this to be a natural evolution of a hub model.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 163):
The thesis was that 787 would make it more likely to take EDI-LHR-LAX-SJC and make it EDI-LHR-SJC, not necessarily EDI-SJC, and I think we'll get there.

OK, it has done that, very well in fact. But I'd still expect a few more airlines to open up nonstop routes from large cities that aren't hubs. I'm thinking EDI-JFK, MIA, HKG... big cities. If A32X/737 size aircraft could fly as far as 787s we would see plenty of these.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 163):
Not sure why you are focusing on strengthening a carrier's hub. A320s and 737s do that quite well but since they don't routinely fly 3,000 mile routes (well, some get there, but most don't) they aren't part of the thesis. All the heavyweight early orders for 787 (ANA, JAL, NW, QF, etc) were from carriers that had huge hubs. I don't think 787 would ever have been launched if it wasn't going to be used from hubs.

Because that's what the 787 is being used to do. 787-size aircraft do suit pretty much every carrier, so it will of course be ordered by full-service carriers to operate on the same routes as their existing fleets. But I would have expected airlines to open up new bases using the 787, not just new routes made viable by a smaller aircraft with long range.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 169):
BOS is a hub as well.

Not for me, it's a big port for some airlines, but I wouldn't consider it a hub.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 164):
Here's the pith of your mistake: you're confusing mainstream media coverage and/or PR with how moderately sophisticated analysts, customers, and OEM's expected this to go.

That's probably true, but the fact that true P2P does exist at a large scale tells me that it's not horribly inaccurate to be underwhelmed with the number of P2P routes the 787 has opened up.
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:30 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 181):
How?

Because the cost-per-airframe being talked about does not just cover the actual physical production cost of the airframe, it also covers debt repayments scheduled per airframe as well (RLI, private loans with a per-airframe repayment plan etc).

Can you add the parts and any servicing down the line to that? Sell things at a loss but make a profit on spares / replacement parts.
300, 310, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 342, 343, 345, 346, 380, 707, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 742, 74L, 743, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 772, 77L 773, 77W, D10, AT46, AT76, AT75, 142, DH3, ER4, AR1, AR8
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:04 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 177):
Assume EK end up with a fleet of 140 and keep each for 14 years. They need 10 new ones a year simply for replacement, approaching half of the minimum Airbus needs to produce.

I'm sure Airbus would be happy for that to happen, but it remains to be seen how well EK can operate a fleet of 142 A380s. We're just barely past the half way mark (77). We have some very short term data saying EK's load factors and rate of growth has declined for the first time in a decade or so, but it's just short term data. In rough terms they are now operating 140 or so 777s and these will be replaced with larger 777Xs and of course the regional 787 or A350 order is supposed to be coming on line soon too. As they say, the only constant is change and it remains to be seen what the environment will be like when 2020 rolls around. Personally I would not pencil in EK taking 14 A380CEOs per year ad infinitum.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 182):
The implications of Airbus not continuing the A380 nor building the A350-1100 (as also looks like the case) are very interesting. Notable then is that the new the top of the market is the 777X, and while selling ok, is yet to prove a blowout. The top end as a whole is slow.

I'm sure Boeing will be quite happy to be able to sell 777X slots up against A380ceo and A350-1000, but it's clear to me we will see A350-1100/2000/whatever at some point.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 183):
OK, I take your point, but I'd consider this to be a natural evolution of a hub model.

Fair enough. I think I'm looking at things more of a VLA vs non-VLA point of view whereas you are looking at things as P2P vs hub point of view.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 183):
That's probably true, but the fact that true P2P does exist at a large scale tells me that it's not horribly inaccurate to be underwhelmed with the number of P2P routes the 787 has opened up.

Agreed. We'll see where things end up as we get further along in the 787 production run but it'll still be a challenge to get 270-ish pax who want to go from one smallish city to another on an on-going basis, especially if you need to cover mainline airline costs. Looking forward to see how airlines like Norwegian do.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 185):
We have some very short term data saying EK's load factors and rate of growth has declined for the first time in a decade or so

Growth has continued, load factor has declined.

Passenger carried up from 48,1 million to 51.9 million. 7.7% increase.
Load factor down from 79.6 to 76.5. 3.9% decrease.

As the fleet plan is developing, 777 seem to have largely topped out, new 777 replacing old 777, but the number of A380 are increasing, 79 as it is.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:17 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 173):
I am truly privileged to have a field and a social circle where I interact with folks who can have an intellectual debate for its own sake, can do it correctly, and enjoy it.

Then why do you bother to post here? Stick to your wonderful social circle.   

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 186):
Passenger carried up from 48,1 million to 51.9 million. 7.7% increase.
Load factor down from 79.6 to 76.5. 3.9% decrease.

Fleet capacity rose by 13% and passenger numbers by nearly 8%. Load factor would have to be a bit lower. The key measurement is that profit is up by a whopping 56%.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20879
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:14 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 186):
Growth has continued

My understanding is growth has continued (which is what you wrote) but rate of growth has declined (which is what I wrote). Again, I think it's short term data but we should monitor it going forward before making presumptions like EK will keep 142 A380s ad infinitum.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:01 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 188):
My understanding is growth has continued (which is what you wrote) but rate of growth has declined (which is what I wrote)

the last years starting with 2015-2016 ending with 2007-2008
7.7%
8.1%
13.1%
15.9%
8.1%
14.5%
20.8%
7.1%
21%

Quite a bit fluctuation, but if Emirates stabilizes at 8% growth, that would not be a very bad number, quite a bit above the industry average.

[Edited 2016-06-10 12:06:56]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:17 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 177):
This is a really good point.

Assume EK end up with a fleet of 140 and keep each for 14 years. They need 10 new ones a year simply for replacement, approaching half of the minimum Airbus needs to produce.

No, its not a very good point. Who replaces an aircraft with the exact same aircraft? The A380 is not being improved like the A330 nor the 777/777X nor the A320neo/737MAX are. They are trying to reduce spending on the aircraft to reach breakeven not spend more money.

Plus look at the replacement cycle for the A380 for EK. They have about 20 aircraft that would 'need' replacing based on a 12-year cycle by 2024. How is Airbus going to keep the line open with that production level?

I do not understand why people think EK will keep accepting A380ceos when 787s, A350s, and 77Xs will be available and are more economic while EK is transferring to DWC where it will have the flexibility to offer the most optimal aircraft for each route instead of the limitations that come with DXB. Surely smart airlines will be smart and not suddenly become stupid.

STC has already said that he will extend leases on existing A380s if the A380neo is not launched.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 186):
Growth has continued, load factor has declined.

Most people refer to a company growing based on its revenue. Which declined by over 4%
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b2c45...98-00386a18e39d.html#axzz4BD2gEd9x

Quoting scbriml (Reply 187):
Then why do you bother to post here? Stick to your wonderful social circle.

Proving his point that its hard to intelligent conversations around here because some people don't like the conclusion. Boring stuff but not unexpected unfortunately.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:29 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
Who replaces an aircraft with the exact same aircraft?

Emirates will replace 77Ws with more 77Ws.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
The A380 is not being improved like the A330 nor the 777/777X nor the A320neo/737MAX are.

It's not getting new engines, but Airbus are and have been improving it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
They are trying to reduce spending on the aircraft to reach breakeven not spend more money.

They still invest in making it better. it may not sell, but they still try to make it more attractive.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
I do not understand why people think EK will keep accepting A380ceos when 787s, A350s, and 77Xs will be available and are more economic while EK is transferring to DWC where it will have the flexibility to offer the most optimal aircraft for each route instead of the limitations that come with DXB. Surely smart airlines will be smart and not suddenly become stupid.

It's not as simple as that. You'd need a LOT of A350s and 787s to replace the seat capacity, assuming they meet the payload/range requirements (which arguably they don't), and EK can't just up frequencies to replace the lost capacity everywhere they go. Even if the restrictions of DXB aren't present, they're not going to up sticks and replace all the A380s with A350s and 787s, and even 779s may struggle. And there's also the problem of availability: getting 150-200 A350s or 787s? You'll be waiting a long while. Transitioning crew, maintenance and pilots to a different type is also a huge challenge.

I don't think EK will hesitate to top up A380 orders, maybe not to replace all 140, but to tide them over, maybe by then they'll know whether the A380neo is a realistic prospect.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:36 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
I do not understand why people think EK will keep accepting A380ceos when 787s, A350s, and 77Xs will be available

Because Mr Clark himself said so? Seems pretty clear to me.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:42 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 192):
Because Mr Clark himself said so? Seems pretty clear to me.

And anyone who can read (which seems to exclude some of our regular, tortuous posters).

The only plane that can replace an A380 at Emirates is another A380.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:43 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
Proving his point that its hard to intelligent conversations around here because some people don't like the conclusion. Boring stuff but not unexpected unfortunately.

It's difficult to have a chat when people keep running behind the facts. For example, some people keep saying the A380 needs to be produced at 30 units per year to remain break-even, even when Airbus said the break-even point has been lowered. It's exhausting to keep repeating the same in every thread. Sometimes I can literally copy/paste information from a previous A380 thread into the new thread, because people refuse to take new information into account.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
How is Airbus going to keep the line open with that production level?

It has been discussed above. Why does this question keeps returning?

[Edited 2016-06-10 14:02:02]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:32 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 191):
Emirates will replace 77Ws with more 77Ws.

How many? 77Ws start retirement soon but A380s replace 77Ws on nearly every route they are launched on. 77Xs come in 2020. It won't be many. They only have 35 left on order and the vast majority of that will be growth not replacement.

This is not a complete dismissal of your point though. I do think up until ~2022 EK could very well replace A380s with A380s but just not long term. Airbus will have to pony up Billions to make that happen.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 191):
It's not getting new engines, but Airbus are and have been improving it.

Of course they have but its not the same scale as the other aircraft mentioned. No one is going to replace an entire fleet of ~80 A380s with existing A380ceos that are 2-4% better than the ones they have. The other programs I mentioned are offering ~14% improvements on economy plus range and systems improvements.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 191):
You'd need a LOT of A350s and 787s to replace the seat capacity, assuming they meet the payload/range requirements (which arguably they don't), and EK can't just up frequencies to replace the lost capacity everywhere they go. Even if the restrictions of DXB aren't present, they're not going to up sticks and replace all the A380s with A350s and 787s, and even 779s may struggle. And there's also the problem of availability: getting 150-200 A350s or 787s? You'll be waiting a long while. Transitioning crew, maintenance and pilots to a different type is also a huge challenge.

A challenge sure but when the aircraft are smaller and more economical every time you do it your airline will make more money so why would a smart airline suddenly become stupid? Its pretty darn clear that EY and QR don't share the A380 love affair and their airports are growing and they will begin to eat EK's lunch with their 77Xs/A350s/787s they have on order if EK doesn't adopt the most economical business model. In the near term sure this can continue but in the 2020s? No way, not without a significant A380 improvement.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 192):
Because Mr Clark himself said so? Seems pretty clear to me.

And how long did he say he will do that for? I totally accept up until early 2020s (similar to the 77W) but this A380 program has a hard time reaching that timeframe with its dearth of orders with just EK orders and has no hope of even EK after that without significant improvements.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 193):
The only plane that can replace an A380 at Emirates is another A380.

With all due respect this one of the dumbest sentences uttered in this forum. Everything is replaceable. I agree that LHR will probably have essentially 100% EK A380s for the next 15 years. But with 140 on hand/order that won't be hard for them to do.

I don't get this tired mentality of everything that exists now will always exist. Its so short sighted given all the change we have seen.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 194):
It's difficult to have a chat when people keep running behind the facts. For example, some people keep saying the A380 needs to be produced at 30 units per year to remain break-even, even when Airbus said the break-even point has been lowered.

Alright, I was planning on getting back to your point on this Karel, I wasn't ignoring it. You absolutely have a point. Mine was just that they just established breakeven last year at the stated goal of 30; even though they still accomplished it without delivering that many. The point is that the 'low 20s' unit production breakeven is a stated goal of there's. Its not a sure thing that we can assume. They are working on that. It certainly is not happening this year.

And again this is not profit....this is a lack of a loss. Not exactly the gold ring on accomplishments and not its salvation. Hard to invest more billions in a program when you have to say to your board 'at least we aren't losing money on it?'
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...duction-efficiencies-delivery-rise

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 168):
Who buys an 20-year old A330? Airlines keep buying older planes because the OEM keeps investing into the products. There are ongoing improvements.

The level of A330 investment in its improvements is not typical it is extraordinary short of a new model. It is not representative of what has happened to the A380.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 168):
Every A380 order seem to be questioned.

When cheaper, more flexible aircraft become available, yes, every A380 order should be questioned. It has never been sustainable to offer a less efficient, larger, more expensive aircraft and I am not sure why we have to assume this is any different now.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
With all due respect this one of the dumbest sentences uttered in this forum.

Tell Tim Clark. He's the one who says EK will continue to buy A380s even if Airbus doesn't build a neo.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:51 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
And again this is not profit

I never said profits, I only mentioned the break-even point.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
Hard to invest more billions in a program

Who mentioned billions? We're not talking about an A380neo here, we're talking about ongoing improvements. Millions, not billions.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
The level of A330 investment in its improvements is not typical it is extraordinary short of a new model. It is not representative of what has happened to the A380.

I was not referring to the A330neo. Airbus invests some € 150 million each year into the A330 program.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
When cheaper, more flexible aircraft become available, yes, every A380 order should be questioned.

You never explained why the IR order would not be executed.

Between November 2013 and January 2016, when there were no new A380 orders, many people argued the program badly needs more orders. A valid point. Now we have three new orders in a row and people are shooting it down without at least providing some good arguments.

Can't have it both ways folks.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:56 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):

This guy / girl is laughable. From one point saying Sir Tim Clark is the best man in the world to now saying he will get dumber for continually order the A380.

1. The A380neo will be the most efficient aircraft for its time (especially -900 iteration) should it be one generation newer than a 777X.

2. DWC can solve all the slot problems but its purpose is growth, not cutting capacity as you suggest.

3. Every 777X order should be questioned if the A350-2000 is more efficient and larger. Wow no one dared suggest that! Shh!

4. EK extends leases on A380s but max 2 years.

5. Feels like EK is the only airline that offers A380? Last I checked SQ has them too? No? LH? AF? BA? Perhaps IB and EI soon??

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
Most people refer to a company growing based on its revenue. Which declined by over 4%

What's your area of study? Revenue can fall by 20% but if cost fell 25% and tax fell then overall profit is still up? Sorry am I being like a school teacher here?  


Don't be scared of fact and actually reply some fact.   Though I have the best time replying to these posters cause it's so much fun.
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:57 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
How many? 77Ws start retirement soon but A380s replace 77Ws on nearly every route they are launched on. 77Xs come in 2020. It won't be many. They only have 35 left on order and the vast majority of that will be growth not replacement.

Without a source, I'd wager roughly the number of 77Ws they received between 2005 and 2009 or thereabouts. You could however also use the example of MH replacing A333s with A333s, and LCCs very often replace older aircraft with newer ones of the same type. Would it be that outrageous if they order A380s to replace A380s?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
This is not a complete dismissal of your point though. I do think up until ~2022 EK could very well replace A380s with A380s but just not long term. Airbus will have to pony up Billions to make that happen.

I don't see why not: it would be an incredible upheaval on an unprecedented scale: the availability of other aircraft to replace the A380's capacity just isn't there.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
Of course they have but its not the same scale as the other aircraft mentioned. No one is going to replace an entire fleet of ~80 A380s with existing A380ceos that are 2-4% better than the ones they have. The other programs I mentioned are offering ~14% improvements on economy plus range and systems improvements.

Of course not: those aircraft are redevelopments. Not really fair to compare 4 re-engined (and more) projects to one that hasn't had.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
A challenge sure but when the aircraft are smaller and more economical every time you do it your airline will make more money so why would a smart airline suddenly become stupid? Its pretty darn clear that EY and QR don't share the A380 love affair and their airports are growing and they will begin to eat EK's lunch with their 77Xs/A350s/787s they have on order if EK doesn't adopt the most economical business model. In the near term sure this can continue but in the 2020s? No way, not without a significant A380 improvement.

The A350 and 787 aren't *that* much more economical than the A380, on a per seat basis. I'm not sure they're going to steal EK's lunch, EK will have A350s/787s and 777Xs of their own, but on certain routes, the A380 is a real money generator. And it's not as if airlines suddenly become uncompetitive if they fly older aircraft: the big US carriers often fly extremely old aircraft, but they are still making money, as are companies like BA. Late adopters of the 77W and A333 are making money even as A350s and 787s come online in large numbers. But EK can leverage some of the A380's advantages as they currently do, maybe they'll be a little less competitive in the future, but A380s vs A350s, 787s and 779s isn't as wide a gap as you imply. And I do find it hard to believe that an airline that has been so steadfast in its love for the A380 and has put money where its mouth is 140 times will have huge trouble competing with 2022-vintage A380s.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:17 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190):
EK is transferring to DWC where it will have the flexibility to offer the most optimal aircraft for each route instead of the limitations that come with DXB. Surely smart airlines will be smart and not suddenly become stupid.

This has been discussed before. Emirates can have even more capacity if they park DWC full with A380s.

Tim Clark has a vision and would love to fly 250 A380s out of DWC. The airport will be able to park 100 A380s simultaneously. A big investment; the airport is clearly being built with the A380 in mind. So unlike your argument, Mr Clark sees DWC as an opportunity to operate even more A380s.

All the signs are there the A380 at EK is here stay for a long time.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
And how long did he say he will do that for? I totally accept up until early 2020s (similar to the 77W) but this A380 program has a hard time reaching that timeframe with its dearth of orders with just EK orders and has no hope of even EK after that without significant improvements.

Tim Clark made it clear he would replace every single A380 with another A380. Be it NEO or CEO.

[Edited 2016-06-10 15:20:16]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.

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