20driver wrote:
The all B class 737 really represents a stealth threat to the A 380, and other wide bodies. For most routes the airlines are relying on a few B class passengers - 10% or so - to pay for the most of the flight. If those passengers get siphoned off it really is going to wack the route economics big time. I'm sure all business 787 service LHR_HKG is going to be far more attractive than waiting for them to load 550 bodies into an A380. I’m surprised Virgin hasn’t looked at this idea.
Virgin will not entertain this idea because it will not waste precious slots at Heathrow on low-capacity fringe-market exercises. It needs all the slots it has to operate its (generally full) 747s, A343s and A346s. Operating a new fleet for a few passengers would be economically highly inefficient. Were there slots to spare for such flights, an economic case
could be made - but it ain't gonna happen at LHR!
ManagedNav wrote:
I was not aware of the hefty contribution made by US suppliers to the A380 project. I also really don't care because really, where else are they going to get the engines and avionics from?
Most A380 customers have opted for the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine - which is British. There are some that have opted for a US engine, which takes the US contribution by value to around 40%. While there are avionic suppliers in Europe, I believe the A380 uses Honeywell avionics. I presume they won the contract on price and quality - which are the main criteria in any commercial, rather than nationlist, project.
ManagedNav wrote:
Let the individual operators pony up for the upgrades. It is the general concensus over here that the A380 is really too large for most of the markets that american carriers serve. It really benefits only a few if the government decides to provide the upgrades for a select few foreign carriers. What do you think will be the politically correct decision over here?
The A380 is, I agree, too large for the vast majority of US carriers and routes However, it will be used by non-US carriers (those for whom it will be economic) to US destinations. Those destinations will adapt their airfields rather than lose the trade. The airlines requiring those adaptations will ultimately pay for them through increased landing, parking and handling charges. The bill will not fall ultimately to the US taxpayer, but to those airlines - as it always has.
No airline will buy the A380 if it can't find an economic case to do so, but there are a large number of European and Asian airlines for whom the aircraft makes much sense. Equally, no airport will waste money it can't recover by building facilities that won't be used - and thus won't be paid for - by their airline customers. A few airports may decide that they'd rather (or they must) lose trade by not providing the facilities even though there is a demand, for reasons of loyalty to resident carriers, or because the demand is insufficient to be economic, or because there simply isn't the real estate available to expand sufficiently.
Finally, in my opinion there will be some US passenger carriers that will order the aircraft. Those that wish to continue serving the crowded European hubs, which have (and will continue to have) little or no capacity for increasing movements, will need an alternative to increasing frequencies as a a way of growing their market. If you can't fly more often, you
must fly more people in each flight. Boeing has effectively abandoned that market, therefore the A380 is now the only game in town for these airlines.