Originally Posted by Wino
The 380 was a white elephant from the day it was conceived. While everyone ooohs and aahhhs the size of the 747, the true revolution of the 747 was the RANGE, the size was an unfortuate byproduct of the range. Two thirds to three quarters of all 747s sold were purchased for range, not payload. for 30 years the 747s ruled the skys as the world's longest ranged airliners. If you take out aircraft that were bought for range, the program is a tremendous flop.
Infact the airplane that killed the 747 on the Atlantic was the b767/a300/a310/a330 and now even the 757s. While 3 or 4 A380s might find work between LHR and JFK, the reality is that no one wants to go there if they are going somewhere else. So if you want to go to dublin, just jump in a 757 and go direct from Newark or Boston. When the 777 came along, it killed the 747 on the Pacific as well. None of this is a sign of airlines clamoring for larger aircraft.
In reality, the manufacturer that makes the smallest aircraft that can fly half the circumfrence of the earth and make money will win. the 787 is going to wind up attacking the 777 not from the larger side, but the smaller side over equally long distances connecting more city pairs. Every city pair connected reduces the market for a 380 and any other aircraft larger than a 787. Yes there will be a FEW city pairs that can support a 380 on their own, but not enough to make it profitable.
Its no different than the atlantic, just the a little more water.
Cheers
Wino
Mate I generally agree, but I think there's a limit to the non-stop caper; Qantas' recent rejection of the strong possibility of being able to do YSSY-EGLL non-stop throws some doubt on part of your analysis. And A345s & the LR 777s aren't exactly running out the door.