Airbus 380
November 16th, 2017 at 3:45:11 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
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 300ER’s 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: 346 Posts: 12545 |
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:
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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 19th, 2017 at 7:06:51 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
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: 346 Posts: 12545 |
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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 21st, 2017 at 11:18:47 AM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
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.
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.
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: 346 Posts: 12545 |
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).
Well, air traffic hasn't decreased long term anywhere. So, yes. What hasn't increased are slot restrictions. That would impel the A380.
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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 24th, 2017 at 7:36:45 AM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 | 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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 24th, 2017 at 11:42:57 AM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
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.
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: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Otherwise known as wet leasing.
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. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 24th, 2017 at 5:30:32 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 | 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.
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 |