Eyes Only,
In the interest of not writing in circles, I will highlight the three main problems with the A380 and leave it for you to refute.
1) The A380 is heavy. 277T Base Operating Weight (BOW) divided by any number of realistic seating configurations is not competitive with other large aircraft being marketed today. Use the floor space divided by BOW for a better metric if you wish.
2) Since it is heavy, it is either range or payload restricted. I believe you underestimate the value of belly freight on ULH routes. CX is especially adept at putting high yield, express cargo in passenger bellies. A recent update indicated that 50% of our total cargo revenue is carried in passenger bellies. That is significant when you consider that we have a freighter fleet comprised of 23 -400Fs. Significant cargo restrictions on ULH routes because the A380 cannot carry pax, their bags, and cargo will not fly at CX.
3) The A380 is NOT a good recession airplane. Yes, I did twice read your reference to Singapore A380s in lieu of 773ERs on the CDG route. That is all well and good, but what happens if during the next downturn there is not enough traffic to fill the 380s on the property. They either fly and lose money OR they sit on the ground and lose money. CX is rather picky about always making money by being well positioned for the next downturn - unlike Emirates, Singapore, and some of the other state-sponsored A380 customers. Other airplanes such as the 77/87, A33/50, and even the -8I have less downside risk than the A380.
Have the last word, but try not to revert to the same talking points you have been parroting this whole time.
Regards,
CXorcist
PS - I would rather have GEnx that misses its SFC than a Trent 900 that beats it and then proceeds to put holes in the wings...
