Rainboe,
Mate I don't doubt the numbers you say; however you miss my point. I am not thinking only of BA, but all the mid-size carriers. There are some city pairs where the market wants frequency - to use BA as an example, that's why EGLL slots get clogged by littlies doing zillions of runs a day to Paris, Zurich, etc. rather than just one jumbo a day at 9am.
To use the same example on longer runs, is there enough traffic to do three Bostons a day with A380s? No, there probably is for one, but the market likes the frequency.
As to the mid-sizers, I stick with my example of the Air NZs of the world. Will they fill an A380 on some of their routes? Maybe, but probably not reliably enough to be able to drag a half-full one around the rest of the time. For them, better a consistent 80-85% full 777, with excess demand meaning that they can hike prices, than an average 60% full A380. That's why they stuck with DC10s for years despite QF, PA/UA and others having jumbos on the Pacific runs and why they're now very happy to gradually phase out their 744s for long-halu twins.
Aer Fungus dropped their 747s for A330s, finding it better to offer a few (full) 330s a day across the pond, rather than a few jumbo runs. The 747s nearly bled them dry. They are not the only carrier to have retreated from very large (eg. 747) aircraft. Air Canada, Swiss, most US majors, SAS, TAP, Pakistan spring quickly to mind.
Airlines have gone to the wall with full aircraft in the past, where just to fill seats, they had to drop prices to where it became uneconomic.
Like I said before, the A380 does have a place. But so do the long-haul twins. The latter point is what your posts so far do not appear to appreciate.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 22nd Mar 2007 at 16:28.