Airbus 380

Page 35 of 35« First<32333435
November 16th, 2017 at 3:45:11 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Nareed
I'd say they have saved the program twice already. Mission accomplished!
But, yeah, I understand their misgivings. They'll want more A380s later, and they'll want spares and support always.
In the end, though, Emirates is the only customer keeping the A380 alive. So it's a tough call for both.

A study of the Emirates fleet by Leeham says that fuel efficency is about the same for A380, B777-300ER, and B77-8i (within 5% dependent on configuration)
Airbus A380 48.9 lb/mi
Boeing 747-8 35.0 lb/mi
Boeing 777-300ER 30.4 lb/mi

The differences in direct operating costs are augmented by the 300ERís lower engine maintenance costs and the revenue side has a superior cargo capability.

Why, then, does Emirates tout the A380 as its premier aircraft? The answer is obviously the attraction of an all premium level on the aircraft means that Emirates gets a lot more revenue from premium passengers and higher load factors than for the B777-300ER.

The same article goes on to say that the operating costs of the B777X are predicted to be so much lower, that Emirates will make more money on that plane despite the lower prices.

Emirates has placed an order for 150 of these planes.
35 Boeing 777-8
115 Boeing 777-9

The bottom line is that if Emirates doesn't get what it wants, it may be able to build it's future fleet out Boeing aircraft. They may end up secretly relieved if Airbus shuts down the production line.

I don't see how Airbus can break even building 9 of these planes per year.
November 17th, 2017 at 6:45:58 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Quote: Pacomartin
The differences in direct operating costs are augmented by the 300ERís lower engine maintenance costs and the revenue side has a superior cargo capability.


The story is that US airlines don't want the A380 because they can't fill it year-round. At the high travel season in the summer, they'd have no trouble filling up A380s in transatlantic and transpacific routes. But the rest of the year they couldn't. So:

Quote:
Why, then, does Emirates tout the A380 as its premier aircraft? The answer is obviously the attraction of an all premium level on the aircraft means that Emirates gets a lot more revenue from premium passengers and higher load factors than for the B777-300ER.


And that they can fill all those spaces up as well. But then emirates has an all-widebody fleet. I wonder how that works out.

I wonder about premium seats, too. A lot are used up by frequent fliers and travel hackers using up accumulated miles and points, often obtained from other airlines. I have to assume the trade in miles and points leaves the airlines something.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
November 19th, 2017 at 7:06:51 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Nareed
The story is that US airlines don't want the A380 because they can't fill it year-round. At the high travel season in the summer, they'd have no trouble filling up A380s in transatlantic and transpacific routes. But the rest of the year they couldn't..


Article from December 1984 about first twin engin crossings of Atlantic Ocean (St Louis to Paris and to Frankfurt using B767s by TWA).
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/12/us/twa-to-begin-nonstop-flights-of-two-engine-jets-over-atlantic.html

Once it was no longer required to use 3 or 4 engines to cross the Atlantic, USA airlines United and Northwest only ordered 60 more B747s for their Pacific routes. Those orders were placed in 1985 and USA airlines have not ordered a tri-jet or quad-jet in the last three decades.

If you realize that US airlines basically shunned any four engine airplane unless it was absolutely necessary, it is no surprise that they didn't buy any A380s (or A340s).

The B747 was the last industrial era export for the USA. It was never that popular for our own use, although it has been heavily romanticized.

I think outside of Asia, the great disappointment of Airbus was that they didn't displace the large Boeing twin engine planes and the B747 for the major European airlines.

Current Fleets

British Airways
12 Airbus A380-800
41 Boeing 747-400
43 Boeing 777-200ER
12 Boeing 777-300ER

Lufthansa
14 Airbus A380-800
32 Boeing 747-400

Air France
10 Airbus A380-800
43 Boeing 777-300ER
November 21st, 2017 at 7:39:05 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Quote: Pacomartin
If you realize that US airlines basically shunned any four engine airplane unless it was absolutely necessary, it is no surprise that they didn't buy any A380s (or A340s).


Pan Am was the launch customer of the 747, and United operated it since its launch year until a few weeks ago.

Recent analyses claim what changed was the preponderance of hub-to-hub flying has decreased in favor of some hub-to-point routes which would have required connection in a hub previously. Especially the "long, thin" routes that are the staple of the 787.

then there's the 777, which is pretty much a single-deck 747 with a much lower fuel consumption.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
November 21st, 2017 at 11:18:47 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Nareed
Pan Am was the launch customer of the 747, and United operated it since its launch year until a few weeks ago.


I am not disputing those facts.

TransAtlantic Aircraft
B707 First flight December 20, 1957; Introduction October 1958 with Pan American World Airways( four-engine wide-body jet airliner)
B747 First flight February 9, 1969; Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan American World Airways( four-engine wide-body jet airliner)
DC-10 First flight 29 August 1970; Introduction August 5, 1971 with American Airlines ( three-engine wide-body jet airliner)
L-1011 First flight November 16, 1970; Introduction April 26, 1972 with Eastern Air Lines( three-engine wide-body jet airliner)

There is no doubt that USA operators ordered 125 B747s in the 1960s when it was the expected successor to the B707 for trans-Atlantic travel
Apr 13, 1966 33 Pan Am World Airways (variant 747-100)
Sep 3, 1966 15 TWA
Oct 3, 1966 22 United Airlines
Nov 1, 1966 16 American Airlines
Nov 11, 1966 10 Northwest Airlines
Jun 12, 1967 4 Eastern Air Lines
Jun 26, 1967 5 Delta Air Lines
Jan 10, 1968 1 Braniff Airlines
Mar 17, 1969 19 Northwest Airlines (variant 747-200B)

But only 19 B747 passenger planes of were ordered in the 1970's.
A final 2 B747-200Bs for replacements were ordered in the 1980's.
A last two orders of 60 B747-400s were made by USA airlines after twin jets got ETOPs approval for Transatlantic. Those are the jets you see being retired this fall (orders placed in 1985). As of today Delta still has half a dozen active of the final Northwest order. The European airlines were still ordering B747s for Transatlantic travel. After the 1960s the majority of the passenger B747s were sold to foreign airlines.


Quote: Nareed
Recent analyses claim what changed was the preponderance of hub-to-hub flying has decreased in favor of some hub-to-point routes which would have required connection in a hub previously. Especially the "long, thin" routes that are the staple of the 787.


I dispute that claim. I don't think the hub to hub flying has decreased, it just isn't growing quite as fast as it otherwise would have grown without the Dreamliner.

Quote: Nareed
Then there's the 777, which is pretty much a single-deck 747 with a much lower fuel consumption.


In terms of seating capacity, your claim is true.
But while there was a 23% reduction in fuel burn, there is at least a 12% reduction in passengers (maybe more depending on configuration). The lower fuel consumption is not so dramatic that you would retire your B747s.

1988 6,000 nmi (39.4 lb/mile) Boeing 747-400
2003 7,200 nmi (30.4 lb/mile) Boeing 777-300ER
2011 7,200 nmi (39.0 lb/mile) Boeing 747-8

15. May. 1995 United Airlines receives first delivery of B777
01. May. 2000 United Airlines receives last delivery of B747 (retired at 17.6 Years, so it may be resold)
November 21st, 2017 at 2:19:01 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Quote: Pacomartin
I am not disputing those facts.


Pan Am was a rather abnormal airline, holding a lot of the US-based overseas traffic. IMO, this distorted the market for long-haul, high capacity planes. The twins came on the scene while Pan Am was still in business (if not thriving).

Quote:
I dispute that claim. I don't think the hub to hub flying has decreased, it just isn't growing quite as fast as it otherwise would have grown without the Dreamliner.


Well, air traffic hasn't decreased long term anywhere. So, yes. What hasn't increased are slot restrictions. That would impel the A380.

Quote:
In terms of seating capacity, your claim is true.
But while there was a 23% reduction in fuel burn, there is at least a 12% reduction in passengers (maybe more depending on configuration). The lower fuel consumption is not so dramatic that you would retire your B747s.


The lower capacity is a selling point in contested markets. You don't have to worry about filling the plane as much.

More important, the 777 also has lower capital costs. It's newer and will be around longer. See the low sales of the 747-8. We all love the Queen, but her reign is played out. The Queen is dead, long live the Queen.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
November 24th, 2017 at 7:36:45 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Lessor Amadeo (Amedeo?) who owns several A380s and has "orders" for a few more (which leads one to think anyone can place an "order"), wants to lease their planes to several airlines at the same time

The article I read was rather fuzzy, but I gather they'd like to lease the A380 to, for example, Cathay Pacific and United (just as an example), so they could fly it from Hong Kong to London, and then from London to Newark, again as example.

While this would make for increased utilization, branding would be a huge issue.

Customers for this scheme, according to the article, would also include online travel agencies, and gig services like Airbnb. This I don't see ever happening.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
November 24th, 2017 at 11:42:57 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
Quote: Nareed
The article I read was rather fuzzy


ACMI ~ aircraft, complete crew, maintenance, and insurance

Airbus pitched this same concept in about ten years ago,but no airline was interested in taking on such leased time-shared A380 capacity for the fact that branding was very important and having a generic plane and 3rd party crew did not allow an airline to properly control the brand and product delivery.

Quote: Financial times
Dublin based Amedeo, with 12 A380 aircraft with under management and a further 20 on order plans to apply for an air operatorís license next year in order to offer ACMI charter leasing to airlines from 2022 onwards

Mark Lapidus, Amedeo chief executive believes that the best way to exploit the companyís assets is now no longer to just lease aircraft to airlines but to operate the A380 directly under what he believes could be a new model for air transport.

Lapidus believes that the air transport industry is ripe for disruption, with aircraft ownership and operation likely to become secondary to the brand-led services, price and convenience that airlines or others can offer to passengers. He is proposing to offer space on the worldís biggest passenger aircraft to a club of airlines and non-traditional aviation players, who would retain control over sale and distribution of tickets, but use his cabin crew.


Quote: Nareed
I gather they'd like to lease the A380 to, for example, Cathay Pacific and United (just as an example), so they could fly it from Hong Kong to London, and then from London to Newark, again as example.


So one plane could fly as
Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong to London
United from London to Newark
Code share from Newark to Hong Kong
But the cabin crew would all be employees of Amedeo(based in Dublin)
This plane would get around 9th freedom


HKG-LHR 5,995 mi
LHR-EWR 3,466 mi
EWR-HKG 8,066 mi
= 17,525 mi

Presumably that round trip would take 24 hours with layovers
November 24th, 2017 at 1:01:56 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11962
Quote: Pacomartin
ACMI ~ aircraft, complete crew, maintenance, and insurance


Otherwise known as wet leasing.

Quote:
Airbus pitched this same concept in about ten years ago,but no airline was interested in taking on such leased time-shared A380 capacity for the fact that branding was very important and having a generic plane and 3rd party crew did not allow an airline to properly control the brand and product delivery.


Branding is a killer. I can see small airline like TAP adding the odd wet lease of something big to fly when they need added capacity and lack capital for long-term commitments. But not an airline which puts so much effort in branding, like Cathay, JAL, United, Delta, AF, BA, Singapore, etc. (Actually BA took some Qatar A320s on wet lease, but that was during a strike).

A380s might be attractive to Saudia for the Haj. aside from that, most airlines have the capacity they need for high seasons, and wind up with extra capacity in the low seasons.

Now, if Amedeo were to lease their A380s on consignment, that might work. What I mean is they get paid per flight according to how many passengers come aboard, rather than a set fee. That's risky, but it displaces risk from the airline to the lessor.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
November 24th, 2017 at 5:30:32 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 763
Posts: 9026
https://www.dr-peters.de/en/asset-management/aviation.html
Dr Peter's Group is leasing 4 of the original 5 A380s to Singapore Airlines. As these planes were only under 10 year lease, they seem to have resigned themselves that cutting them up for parts is the only option.

Quote: Nareed
Now, if Amedeo were to lease their A380s on consignment, that might work. What I mean is they get paid per flight according to how many passengers come aboard, rather than a set fee. That's risky, but it displaces risk from the airline to the lessor.


Amedeo has some of the A380's that are being used by Emirates. I think they think this plan to wet lease the planes is risky enough, I doubt that they want to entertain a pay by passenger option.


Our airport had a virtual airline that operated for 6 years. They were based in Myrtle Beach (a golf resort) but they had 18 destinations. They wet-leased 5 planes. It seemed like they closed down operations in a matter of days.


Before that Hooters Airline wet leased 7 aircraft and also operated out of Myrtle Beach. They only were active for 3 years.

=================
SkyTeam has only 25 A380s
10: KOREAN AIR
10: AIR FRANCE
5: CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES COMPANY

SkyTeam A380 network


Perhaps a Sky Team wet leased plane which operates under Delta from JFK-LAX would be possible for a round the world flight


One World has only 38 A380s
Star Alliance has only 45 A380s
Page 35 of 35« First<32333435