Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

[Mark in CA]

I enjoy the plane very much, as it is more comfortable than a 747. The cabin is pressurized at a lower altitude, the air is less dry, the seats are well designed and the entertainment systems are robust, and so even in economy, a 12-hour flight is more bearable. The flight profile is even more smooth.

Despite rave reviews by passengers, the plane is not selling well. Interesting business-oriented article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html

[PAXboy]

I stopped reading after I met the first recycled PR written cliché:
Since it started flying commercially seven years ago, the A380 has caught the imagination of travelers.Really??? I strongly suggest that is NOT the case! :hmm:

99% of travellers don't give a monkeys about the plane and have little idea as to what it is. If they listen to the security brief - where the aircraft make and model is given - I doubt they could repeat that five seconds later. :rolleyes:

The most they notice is if it's got props or not.

[DaveReidUK]

I stopped reading after I met the first recycled PR written clichéI got a bit further, but the alarm bells started ringing when Richard "Rent-a-Quote" Aboulafia was cited in evidence ... :O

[IBMJunkman]

Seats and entertainment system is dependent on the airline, not the airframe mfgr.

[PAXboy]

Indeed they are IBMJunkman! I was bored this afternoon and read more of the :yuk:.

They go on about the showers and suites - all of which are airline specific. So the article attempts to balance the PR with some other standard analyst report when this a/c will either make it's money (or not) across 20+ years.

I should say that I've not yet been on it and am indifferent to it, neither for nor against.

[ZFT]

even in economy, a 12-hour flight is more bearable

Today I cannot think of any airline or any aircraft where anyone in their right mind could use the words 'economy' and 'bearable' together when talking about a 12 hour flight.

[geeohgeegeeoh]

I normally turn left on longhauls (or do I now say "go upstairs" for 380s?) and found myself in emirates economy for a BNE-AKL leg. Its definitely a good seat pitch, and the load/unload delays for a dugong seem remarkably fast.

I would say the aisle width for the trolley-dollies (sorry) is perhaps a bit tight, I got nudged a few more times than I expected but that is probably my lard-arse and not their fault, or the aisle width per se.

Apart from better Air and seatpitch, the one thing I have noticed in 380s is the engine noise is at a different pitch. dB wise I don't carry a personal, internationally calibrated 'is it louder than a printer or not' meter. But it seems to me to be a few tones sweeter than a Jumbo, and certainly less noticeable. The vibration is different too.

I think AirBus has a winner. I don't think emirates can make them profitable alone, but the craft is good and I'm happy to board one. I am looking forward to my first 350 flight, and 787 likewise. I still fly the Qantas 747s and I dont particularly miss or dislike them, but the product has definitely moved on since the days of disco balls and upstairs piano bars.

I totally agree SLF promo is mostly about fitout issues and I think both the Qantas 'thunderbirds are go' boothettes for pax, and the Emirates bar down the back are a bit of a joke. They'll go when they stop having PR value

[joy ride]

"But it seems to me to be a few tones sweeter than a jumbo"

Interesting comment. I have not yet flown on an A380 but live on the flightpath to Heathrow where landing planes pass over at about 4,000 to 5,000 feet. I am where the northern and southern loops converge, so planes arrive from several directions and are at differing angles of bank and turn, so I get to hear all the different "cones" of noise.

380s are consistently quieter than 340s and 747s and even some older twin engine planes, but most noticeable is that the actual tone is more centered and neutral, less bass roar and less whine. No doubt in my mind that the sound is sweeter and less disturbing. I do not suffer from Airbus/Boeing bias, this is just my personal observation, and I have to say I am impressed that such a big plane does sound sweeter.

[Ancient Observer]

I seem to remember that the UK CAA published noise profiles of planes near LHR some years ago.(2005 or 6?)

The noisiest then were the BA 747s with RR engines.

As BA still use them, and probably have not fitted silencers, I guess they remain the noisiest at LHR.

[Andy_S]

I think AirBus has a winner.

From a point of view of passenger satisfaction - possibly, although that's very dependent on how the airline configures it.

Commercially? Very questionable. I think Boeing read the market better.

[Mark in CA]

Today I cannot think of any airline or any aircraft where anyone in their right mind could use the words 'economy' and 'bearable' together when talking about a 12 hour flight.

Have you actually flown on an A380, or are you just feeling too entitled to ever succumb to economy?

I've flown in all classes and on a range of airlines (LH, AF, UA, KL, SR), and specifically on flights between Europe and the West Coast, many times on both 747 and A380, and while certainly not ideal, at more than 60 years old I am perfectly happy in economy on an A380, especially if I am paying out of my own pocket, and think it is the most comfortable long-haul plane I have ever flown. Cannot comment on 787, as I have not flown one yet.

Also, the live video stream from the tail mounted camera is awesome. :)

[Andy_S]

.....I am perfectly happy in economy on an A380, especially if I am paying out of my own pocket, and think it is the most comfortable long-haul plane I have ever flown.

As someone who flies long haul economy a couple of times a year, I find 10+ hour flights in cattle class perfectly bearable with the right attitude and a bit of preparation.

I have flown on the A380, on a return flight from Heathrow to Singapore. 13 hours each way, and I found that the time slipped past quite easily. However, I would argue that had as much to do with a combination of shrewd seat selection and Singapore Airlines in-flight service than the aircraft type.

As others have said, different airlines will fit their 380’s out in different ways; seat design, seating configuration, IFE can all vary from carrier to carrier; I don’t recall external cameras on SQ, for example. If the carrier gets the product wrong, the metal you’re flying on becomes less relevant.

Personally, I would much rather a half full 747 with empty seats all around me than a full A380 any day of the week……..

[rgsaero]

I flew LHR, DXB, MEL, AKL return in February / March - my first A380 and also first time with Emirates anywhere. Although I fly only a couple of times a year now, having retired, I've flown long-haul on most types from Constellation and Argonaut thru' Comets, 707, almost every 747 variant, and I have to say that the 380 is the best economy "environment" (with Emirates) of any aircraft I've experienced.

Of course, a 747 is fine if you have a whole row of seats to sleep across as often happened in the "old days" but that's unknown these days I think.

Interestingly, a close friend went to Oz (not MEL) last year and the second leg was in a Qantas 380; he advised me against getting in one - his first leg Emirates experience being vastly superior in terms of fit, IFE, food provision etc.

As I shall probably go back to NZ again next spring I reckon I shall go the same way - cheaper than Air NZ via LAX (still yuk two years ago!) and must be a better bet that Cathay or Singapore in 777s. ( I still mourn the cessation of the ANZ LHR, HKG, Akl service) For sure I can bear two 12 hour+ legs each way in the 380 economy and I'm 75 and 6'1"!

If "customers" are disappointed in the 380, for sure it's the airline not the aircraft that's at fault in my book!

[SLFAussie]

I had my first trip on an A380 a month ago on a MEL-LAX-JFK trip in Wagyu class (premium economy ;) ). Transferred in LAX from an A380 to a connecting 747 and the difference was stark. Same airline and, from what I could see, identical seats and IFE in both planes but cabin noise levels were much lower in the 380 and air quality 'felt' (smelled?) better in the 380.

I had a similar experience flying MEL-HKG-LHR on an A330 MEL-HKG then a 777 HKG-LHR. I much preferred the 330's lower cabin noise levels.

All other things being equal I would choose a 380 flight over a 747 flight from now on.

[ZFT]

Mark in CA

Have you actually flown on an A380, or are you just feeling too entitled to ever succumb to economy?

Yes, many times and don't be so bloody condescending. I have the 'pleasure' of a god awful long haul in the back end of a B767 in a couple of weeks time.

[MG23]

The fundamental problem, as the article mentions, is that many of us will happily pay more to avoid flying through 'hub' airports. For example, while I'm happy to spend a few hours in a Frankfurt lounge on a business trip when I'm being paid to sit there, I absolutely dread going through the place otherwise, and will happily pay an extra couple of hundred dollars to avoid it if I can.

So the A380 is designed to serve a market that passengers don't actually want.

[DaveReidUK]

and [I] will happily pay an extra couple of hundred dollars to avoid it if I can.

So the A380 is designed to serve a market that passengers don't actually want.That's a non-sequitur.

You're implying that your preference for spending more money to save time is shared by all other passengers. Clearly it isn't, otherwise hubs wouldn't exist.

[MG23]

You're implying that your preference for spending more money to save time is shared by all other passengers. Clearly it isn't, otherwise hubs wouldn't exist.

No, that's why I quite clearly said 'many', not 'all'.

Is there anyone on the planet, other than dedicated plane-spotters, who prefers flying between hubs to flying direct from where they are to where they want to be? Most just don't have that choice, because so many airlines have switched to a hub system to try to reduce costs.

The big news at our local airport is they they're hoping to have direct flights to Europe soon, so we won't have to go through Toronto any more. You think they'd be doing that if passengers didn't want it?

And I can safely say those flights won't be using A380s.

[PAXboy]

Hubs save money and help the pax to route to a greater variety of places. When a particular city pair can support a direct link, then someone will probably do it. They might start with a small Turbo Prop or Regional Jet with x3 per week and it may grow a lot. Or not.

For the Hubs then the 380 is good. For those that have enormous demand (LON/NYC) then the 380 can merge two rotations into one and save money.

I am sure that the 380 will make it's money but it will take a bit of time as the global economy is in a flat spin (pun intended!) Does anyone remember the brinksmanship and risk of introducing the 747?

All the jostling between A and B was to decide who would build the big machine this time. It was obvious to all that the market could only support one such machine. No one wanted a repeat of the L1011 / DC-10 competition where both failed to reach critical mass.

It was probably always going to be Airbus to build the big one, as they had not done one before. Now both carriers have to talk up their choice - which is just old fashioned salesmanship.

Simples.

[DaveReidUK]

Is there anyone on the planet, other than dedicated plane-spotters, who prefers flying between hubs to flying direct from where they are to where they want to be? Most just don't have that choice, because so many airlines have switched to a hub system to try to reduce costs.That's exactly my point.

Hubs offer economies of scale, plain and simple, which translates into lower fares.

Yes of course most, maybe even all, pax would rather fly direct from A to B for the same fare as they currently pay to fly via C.

But the number of A-to-B routes where enough passengers are willing to pay a premium to fly direct, on the smaller aircraft that would have to be used, with their higher ASM costs, is a very small subset of all the possible A-to B routes that can be served via the hub.

[Andy_S]

All the jostling between A and B was to decide who would build the big machine this time.......It was probably always going to be Airbus to build the big one, as they had not done one before.

I think the story is a bit more complicated than that.

Boeing were never really convinced that there was a significant market for a VLCC. They actually contributed to a feasibility study with Airbus, but withdrew, concluding that they would never recoup the development costs of such an aircraft. In fact A and B had divergent views of the future of air travel, with Airbus deciding that the future lay with high capacity hub to hub traffic, while Boeing were convinced that point to point flights were the way to go. Obviously Boeing left the field clear for Airbus to introduce the A380, although it’s interesting to note that Airbus were subsequently panicked into developing the A350.

Will the A380 programme ever break even? I’m really not sure, especially when even the best customer for the aircraft is requesting a more efficient variant. If it does, I don’t think it will ever be a money spinner for Airbus.

[gdiphil]

Interesting discussion about using hubs. Two years ago I used Qatar to get to Bangkok from Heathrow, and of course that meant a change in Doha. The same on the return. I hated it. I felt that I was going back 30 or more years when all traffic to the Far East had to stop somewhere in the Gulf generally speaking, since the aircraft couldn't fly non stop to places like Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong. So, whilst I am happy to use the Gulf carriers and QF to get to Australia, regardless of price I want nonstop to the Far East. Indeed I've used EVA twice and SQ to get to Bangkok and Singapore respectively since that QR trip I've mentioned. A personal view I know but the airlines I use are those with the shortest trip time.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Good plane, good effort, commercially the answer would lie in the order chart. If someone has a comparative between 380 350 787 747-8 777 new orders in 2014 it should answer a lot of questions about the commercial viability as seen by the industry of hub and spoke and large vs medium as well as point to point....

As far as which is a better aircraft my vote goes to the Concorde, but then financially it was a lemon and never scaled!

[PAXboy]

I think the answer to the success of the 380 will not be clear for another 10 years. When the 747 was introduced it was the only one and it changed air travel - but that was by no means clear at the outset. We also have a totally different world situation now.

On the hub/direct issue we also have a choice and that is the old money:time equation. If you have a family of four on holiday, or you have a retired couple with a bit of money to spare, or if you are a biz client - you will travel accordingly.

It's like the LCCs - FR have a continual supply of new clients who are young and with no money, so they will prioritise money (yes, FR have other clients too!) and that is repeated across every carrier and route.

Let's just wait ten years. has anyone got a graph of the sales of the 747 from lauch? I'll bet a lot of folks thought it was a Turkey, or a Dodo.