Airbus 380

Page 37 of 37« First<34353637
April 27th, 2018 at 7:37:28 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
The reality is ANA is operating the world's smallest fleet of A380s


From what I've read, Malaysia and Thai would have been better off with only 3 A380s, and Malaysia at least best off with none.

I think eventually other airlines will want these giant planes, but we're not there yet. For now, it's pretty much an Emirates airplane, with only niche positions elsewhere. So the possibilities remain a) Airbus eventually shuts down production of the A380 or b) demand catches up and they finally come up with an A380neo. Either way, it will take years.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
May 26th, 2018 at 9:36:14 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Airbus has delivered 600th four engine jet since their first one in 1993 (377 A340s and 223 A380s). As we all know not one was purchased by a US flagged carrier.

But the aversion to using a 4 engine carrier has been pretty much matched by the manufacturing sector. Although Boeing has taken hundreds of orders for both freight version and VIP versions of the B747 in the last twenty five years, they have taken only 10 orders for 64 planes from foreign airlines for passenger versions (non VIP) of the B747 .

1 Sep 15, 1994 Mandarin Airlines (Taiwan) eventually transferred to China Airlines (Taiwan) B747-400
5 Jun 18, 1995 Saudi Arabian Airlines B747-400
1 Dec 22, 1995 GECAS (USA) for Asiana Airlines B747-400

9 Dec 20, 1996 Virgin Atlantic Airways B747-400
2 Dec 30, 1998 South African Airways B747-400
6 Dec 19, 2000 Qantas (Australia) B747-400ER
4 Nov 28, 2002 China Airlines (Taiwan) B747-400

19 Dec 6, 2006 Lufthansa B747-8i
10 Dec 7, 2009 Korean Air B747-8i
7 Sep 6, 2012 Air China B747-8i


The air passengers worldwide surpassed 4 billion in 2017, and are expected to double in the next 20 years. Will we fly them in formation to break wind resistance like a bicycle pelaton, or will we finally go back to larger planes?


The biggest twin engine planes have an exit limit of 550 seats. Are we ever going to see a 2 engine plane with an 660 person exit limit? 770? 880?
Alternatively, will planes just stop getting bigger or will we return to the multi engine models.
The exit limit for an A380 is (538 on the main deck and 330 on the upper). B747s are limited to 110 seats on the upper deck.



February 14th, 2019 at 12:05:20 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
It's over.

Airbus announced that it will deliver its last A380 in 2021, and cease all production permanently. By that point, they will have manufactured only 250 of them. (To put that in perspective, Boeing built over 1,500 of their flagship 747s. They built over 9,000 of the much smaller 737s.) Not a single domestic U.S. airline flies the A380.

What killed the A380? It was too big.

Quote: Howard Slutsken
With 500 seats to fill in an average configuration, the A380 makes money when it’s full, but loses a lot of it when it’s not. And there aren’t many routes that can sustain that level of traffic year-round. So airlines opt to fly smaller planes but fly them with far more guarantee they’ll be full. The largest plane flying for American Airlines, the biggest airline in the world, barely cracks the 300-seat mark. Could AA fill an A380 on its busiest routes, say New York to London, most of the time? Yes, it could — but many airlines prefer to fly two 250-seaters a day on such busy routes rather than one 500-seater. The operational flexibility is greater, and the financial risk smaller.

The giant was killed by its very size.


I'm still a bit surprised that not a single U.S. carrier put them into service on the most popular transcontinental routes (NYC to LA/SF) where demand is high enough to fill every seat on every flight.
February 14th, 2019 at 4:17:36 PM permalink
Aussie
Member since: May 10, 2016
Threads: 2
Posts: 458
Cheaper to operate multiple smaller aircraft.
February 15th, 2019 at 4:20:40 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: reno
I'm still a bit surprised that not a single U.S. carrier put them into service on the most popular transcontinental routes (NYC to LA/SF) where demand is high enough to fill every seat on every flight.


It shouldn't have surprised you. USA airlines had stopped buying any four engine aircraft pretty much by 1996. Only a three replacement B747s were bought after that year. They never bought a single four engine jet from Airbus of any models.

The four engines is really the primary issue, although none of the B777x (the biggest two engine jets designed by Boeing have been ordered by USA airlines either). Much of aircraft maintenance involves engines, and two engines are much cheaper to maintain than four.

Total number of passengers on a given route is not really the deciding factor. There are some surprisingly small planes operated on the JFK-LHR route (the busiest international route over 2000 miles). Also keep in mind that foreign airlines dominate the Trans Atlantic and Trans Pacific routes, so the foreign airlines are much more likely to fly the big jets.

The USA airlines dominate the Latin American and Caribbean routes, but they are mostly within range of single aisle jets.

% of seats nonstops to various transoceanic routes to the USA on USA airlines for June 2018
33.87% Australia
36.13% China
39.99% France
33.13% Germany
33.63% United Kingdom
9.67% Denmark
0% Finland
68.33% Belgium


% of seats nonstops to various Western Hemisphere routes to the USA on USA airlines for June 2018
100.00% Costa Rica
69.44% Mexico
57.97% Brazil
52.36% Chile
February 15th, 2019 at 12:36:55 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: Pacomartin
Total number of passengers on a given route is not really the deciding factor.


JFK to LAX had 3,531,613 passengers in 2015, which averages out to 9,675 passengers daily. My argument was about risk of excess capacity. There's very little risk that a 480 seat aircraft won't fly the JFK/LAX route at capacity every day of the year assuming ticket prices (and schedule) are similar to the competition. Busy long haul routes are what Airbus had in mind when they designed this ridiculous beast.

But yes, I'm certain you're correct about the extra cost involved of maintaining 4 engines. Moreover, airlines love versatility and 737s are far more versatile because they can be used for short haul or long haul flights, (Southwest will soon be flying 737s to Hawaii). Plus there are exponentially more pilots certified to fly 737s, and a bigger market of spare parts considering that Boeing has already made 9,000 of them.

I have no doubt that the bean counters at United, Delta, & American did the math thoroughly. It's interesting that Emirates made the opposite decision-- they bought 123 of them. Dubai is a huge international hub, but its busiest route (London) actually has fewer passengers than JFK-LAX, which backs up your point.
February 16th, 2019 at 8:19:02 PM permalink
Aussie
Member since: May 10, 2016
Threads: 2
Posts: 458
Turnaround time is a lot longer for an A380 as well. Takes much longer to clean before the next flight. Boarding is also typically 45min or more before the flight. A narrow body can be done in maybe 15 min.
Also can not have as many takeoffs/landings due to the huge amount of wake they create compared to other smaller planes.
February 16th, 2019 at 10:07:35 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: reno
It's interesting that Emirates made the opposite decision-- they bought 123 of them. Dubai is a huge international hub, but its busiest route (London) actually has fewer passengers than JFK-LAX, which backs up your point.


Emirates was founded in 1985, the same year that Boeing introduced it's B747-400, the superstar aircraft of it's time. But the first class of the B744 is in the nose, and you climb to the upper deck through the main cabin. The upper deck is not really suitable for first class, and is always filled with business class seating. Emirates never showed any interest in the B744.

The A380 is ideally boarded from two levels which they have the capacity for in Dubai. Because the upper deck is so big you can fit both a first class and a sizeable business class in the upper deck. This gives you the feeling of exclusivity since you are not even mixing with the economy passengers in the boarding area. Emirates finds the jet to be profitable because they can capitalize on this exclusivity by charging more and filling a higher percentage of the luxury seats. The lower deck on an Emirates A380 is very crowded.

All of the European airlines and most of the Asian airlines put some economy seats in the upper deck. They are more concerned about efficiency than in fostering this feeling of exclusivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_configurations_of_Airbus_A380

When the Airbus engineers designed the A380 they were thinking about the efficiency of being able to put over 700 seats on a single aircraft. Not just fuel efficiency, but efficient use of air crew and of runways. But nobody configured an aircraft with more than 520 seats except for a handful of Emirates jets configured to fly to the more egalitarian destinations like Copenhagen with no first class and 615 seats.

The exit limit is of the B777-9 is only 475 passengers, down from 550 in the B777-300ER. The only airline that cam close to putting the maximum number of seats was JAL which configured some with 500 seats for busiest domestic routes.

As for USA airlines I don't think we will see a jet configured with more than the current top limit of 366 seats in upcoming decades.

The Boeing 7478i had an FAA exit limit of 605 seats. Boeing is considering building a single deck B777X with an exit limit of 605 seats for the future, but right now it doesn't see the demand.
Page 37 of 37« First<34353637