ANA order A380 [Archive]

galdian

1st Jan 2016, 10:06

and cynics would suggest this is the start of the "payoffs" required to allow the final resolution of the Skymark bankruptcy to the satisfaction of some of the players....and probably the dissatisfaction of some others.

As for the best resolution for Skymark - "sorry, don't understand the question, best resolution for Skymark maybe a consideration...maybe yes, maybe no, maybe maybe......"! :p

Be interesting (for the cynics, of course :ok:) to see how long "payoffs mk 2" take to begin and in what form.

Cheers all!

Scuffers

2nd Jan 2016, 07:17

I've said it before but I firmly believe the A380 is 8-12hr jet......whereas the 747-8i is a 12-16hr jet.

don't understand your point?

Used Qantas and Emirates 380's on LHR>SYD route many times, and compared with using 777 or 747's, I know which plane I would rather be on.

nohold

2nd Jan 2016, 08:18

"I guess these will be the 3 Airbus A380s stored at Toulouse that were destined for Skymark."

Rumoured to be the two ex Skymark and one ex Transaero, delivery to ANA from 2017 onwards if I remember correctly.

nohold

RF4

2nd Jan 2016, 08:30

I guess these will be the 3 Airbus A380s stored at Toulouse that were destined for Skymark.

If this is the case. it will provide a little short term relief for Airbus' books, however it does not change the long-term picture for A380 and B747-8.

Serial numbers 162 and 167 have been in storage complete with engines, at TLS for some time, since the Skymark bankruptcy. I believe that they will only need to go to the Germany for interiors.

Serial number 185 was stopped at partial construction, with parts all assigned, and should be a relatively quick delivery.

KelvinD

2nd Jan 2016, 08:36

if an aircraft projects survival depends on one airline and its orders in this case, the Emirates
Something like 18 airlines (not one!) have ordered 317 with a few options on the books. Hardly depending on a single airline!

Hogger60

2nd Jan 2016, 09:05

Something like 18 airlines (not one!) have ordered 317 with a few options on the books. Hardly depending on a single airline!

Maybe not one airline, but it looks by far and away dependent upon EK for the program.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/b0a532c5ae55bedfa82bad6748fa2fc5.png

Heathrow Harry

2nd Jan 2016, 09:19

Andy_S

2nd Jan 2016, 10:34

Something like 18 airlines (not one!) have ordered 317 with a few options on the books. Hardly depending on a single airline!

Yes, but the lions share have been ordered by a single airline......

TURIN

2nd Jan 2016, 10:56

A380 is a complete failure, if an aircraft projects survival depends on one airline and its orders in this case, the Emirates, its doomed there is no other way to describe it..

Hilarious! Made me laugh. Happy New Year.
Can we have more jokes same time next year please?

Skipness One Foxtrot

2nd Jan 2016, 10:56

The 380 is the only answer when you become slot constrained - which will increasingly become the norm

It took 11 years before the original 747 passed 317 orders and it went on to sell over 1500 airframes
The B747 survived the bad times of the 70s by necessity, the A380 is not getting orders in the relatively good years at the moment. As to "only choice" when constrained, well that was what Airbus said but those big twins are doing rather well and they carry way more cargo. The A380, as the sales graph shows, is a one man show at Emirates and niche at a few others.

To be clear, they managed to sell THREE all year. Great aeroplane but not going to sell mass market now.

The Dominican

2nd Jan 2016, 11:08

To be clear, they managed to sell THREE all year. Great aeroplane but not going to sell mass market now.

And at what price? I can assure you that in order to attract ANA (long standing Boeing costumer) and in order to inject some well needed adrenaline to the A380 program, they probably didn't make much money on those birds.

Andy_S

2nd Jan 2016, 11:14

To be clear, they managed to sell THREE all year.

And even that was down to a commercial tidying-up exercise rather than a conventional sale.

skylon

2nd Jan 2016, 14:21

To be clear, they managed to sell THREE all year.

Its even worst, they managed to sell THREE in THREE years and still not a single order from US market ! and China the worlds second largest aerospace market ordered only 5 not a bright outlook for the future and it will get worse once the new 777's become available around 2020. Mr. John Leahy is not worried about his future in the company since he turned 65 !

West Coast

2nd Jan 2016, 15:28

Trying to find common ground between the early 747 sales record and that of the 380 discounts too many factors to make it a fair comparison. If you feel compelled still, compare the 380's with the 747-800. Both will.be niche players till termination.

Boe787

2nd Jan 2016, 21:17

Skylon, if you describe the A380 as a complete failure, how would you describe the 747 800 passenger version?

Yes indeed Emirates have ordered a lot of them, but the 777X sales would not be looking very good with out the ME3 orders!

msbbarratt

2nd Jan 2016, 21:41

Maybe not one airline, but it looks by far and away dependent upon EK for the program.Yes, but the lions share have been ordered by a single airline...... The same applies to the 777x. Emirates are the largest customer so far, and are taking about half the total production (150 out of 306, sourced from Wikipedia today). Emirates so far have ordered 140 out of 317 A380s. It looks like the ME3 are here to stay, and that's how it's going to be for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and all the other airlines are just going to have to accept that.

Compared to Airbus and these three A380s, Boeing managed to sell just 10 777x in 2015. So far total orders for 777x are about the same level as total orders for A380s. So far, so Even Stevens.

It took 11 years before the original 747 passed 317 orders and it went on to sell over 1500 airframes

Given that there's a whole lot more aviation going on these days compared to the early days of the 747, presumably that is meant as a qualitative comparison!

In terms of future design developments, the 777x has very little left in it, whereas the A380 has got a few options (more seats, better engines, stretch, lighter materials) to play with none of which are hugely risky or expensive. As more and more airports become slot constrained, the A380 is there waiting to steal the show.

The thing with Emirates is that we all know that they want to buy another 200 A380s, provided the deal is right and they can persuade RR and Airbus to do it. Now that is a serious, serious deal...

Emirates seem to able to fill up their A380s all day every day, and that can only be down to the nice ride for the passengers. It's easy to see why EK want more of the same. It's not clear that the same level of passenger satisfaction will be provided by the 777x

msbbarratt

2nd Jan 2016, 22:11

Rumoured to be the two ex Skymark and one ex Transaero, delivery to ANA from 2017 onwards if I remember correctly.The Skymark orders had selected RR engines, the Transaero order went with EA. I can't imagine ANA would be keen to have a mixed fleet.

However:

Serial numbers 162 and 167 have been in storage complete with engines, at TLS for some time, since the Skymark bankruptcy. I believe that they will only need to go to the Germany for interiors.

Serial number 185 was stopped at partial construction, with parts all assigned, and should be a relatively quick delivery. I've no idea what order #185 corresponds to, but if it is Transaero maybe it didn't get too far down the line to be committed to the EA variant?

KelvinD

2nd Jan 2016, 23:39

#185 was a Skymark order A380-341 (RR)

#167, another Skymark order appears to be complete and is reported as having been rolled out minus engines.:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aircrafts/14443544174/in/gallery-55775480@N03-72157645815033528/lightbox/

#162 is complete and has at least the tail painted in Skymark colours.:
Photo Skymark Airlines Airbus A380-841 F-WWSL (http://planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=1290004)
As for the original remark re single operator etc etc:
The same applies to the B777x. The first series of orders at Dubai for 259 aircraft included 150 for Emirates. Two years later the total number of orders has grown to 306. 2015 saw 10 new orders.
Would this worry Airbus when their A350 order book currently stands at 775 across all variants?

The Ancient Geek

3rd Jan 2016, 00:42

We are approaching the interesting time when the early deliveries are due for replacement. The largest user seems to be holding out for a more efficient NG updated variant which may or may not happen.
Even a small number of used aircraft appearing on the market will have an effect on prices and may bring new secondary users into he picture.

The problem with having one very large user is that when they replace their fleet they will find it difficult to find homes for a batch of 50 or more used aircraft.

fdcg27

3rd Jan 2016, 00:46

EK uses the A380 because it suits their business model and because it allows them to provide a low-cost one-stop option for VFR travelers to a wide swath of the developing world to those who are very price sensitive.
Most of EK's passengers fly in the back of the bus and bought their tickets based upon price, not the promise of service or comfort.
If AI could ever get its act together, EK would loose a lot of its traffic.
It is not lost upon EK management that the airline comprises most of the A380 order book nor that they are the most likely source of future orders.
EK therefore feels entitled to tell Airbus exactly how the aircraft should be further developed and Airbus has little choice other than to listen.
Until and unless a larger group of carriers start showing serious interest in larger numbers of A380 aircraft, EK is the only real game in town for the A380.
Other carriers with less price sensitive buyers have nonstop flights to destinations developed world travelers actually want to go to and deal with slot constraints by charging higher fares for seats on smaller aircraft, which travelers more sensitive to time than price are willing to pay.

Dockwell

3rd Jan 2016, 01:17

A lot of the early Emirates examples are leased frames (10 year leases maybe ?) the question is what will the leasing companies do with these aircraft once they get them back? Do they still need to make a profit with them? or has the initial 10 year lease to Emirates paid back on the original outlay? theres lots of questionS that will only really be answered once these leases start to expire.

HighAndFlighty

3rd Jan 2016, 02:49

If AI could ever get its act together, EK would loose a lot of its traffic.

No fdcg27, the word you were looking for was not "loose", it was "lose". The two words look similar, but they have entirely different meanings.

Why, oh why, do Americans seem to have such great difficulty with the correct usage of these two words?

alainthailande

3rd Jan 2016, 09:00

I don't usually post much here, being only SLF with a bit more knowledge about civil aviation things than average, but...
it allows them to provide a low-cost one-stop option for VFR travelers to a wide swath of the developing world to those who are very price sensitive.
(...)
Most of EK's passengers fly in the back of the bus and bought their tickets based upon price, not the promise of service or comfort.
I'm definitely within this target, and the A380 precisely is what made me switch my own tiny business as a frequent traveller between Europe and S-E Asia from Etihad to Emirates. They offer roughly the same fares, plus or minus variations based on season and promotions, but the service on the A380 is so much better than on the A330/B777 Etihad uses on these routes. Roomier, so much quieter. And yes, they do seem to manage to fill them up so I presume that these flights make money.

Not that's relevant in any way, but I've got a complimentary upgrade to business class for my first flight after enrolling into their frequent flyer programme so I even had a chance to experience the fabulous business class seats on their A380s... definitely something a class higher than what I had a taste of on Etihad's B777

I do feel safer aboard quads too, despite a point based on statistics that someone made in another thread. The fact that QF32 made it to the ground in one piece after so much damage is a testimony to the resilience of this aircraft too IMHO.

skylon

3rd Jan 2016, 12:10

The thing with Emirates is that we all know that they want to buy another 200 A380s, provided the deal is right and they can persuade RR and Airbus to do it. Now that is a serious, serious deal...

Mate ,Airbus would never invest another how many additional billions of euro's in another Neo Project before earning the first dollar on their initial 25 billion dollars ( and counting) they spent on A380 ! Even the outgoing Airbus CEO Louis Gallois was far less optimistic than you..He said that A380 Project the only one we will continue to worry about ..According to many analysts the break even have risen to 700 planes( two years ago it was 450 ) and investing additional 5-6 billions in a new version before reaching that figure would be a disaster Airbus can't afford.
Would Mr Tim Clark participate in development costs? I don't think so? is he ready to sign a firm commitment for 200 aircrafts ? hardly , he might do that say for 100 aircrafts and that is not enough for Airbus to embark on another adventure and it seems that big Europeans Air France, Lufthansa, BA are no longer interested in A380 ..

Airbus would not go ahead with a new version because

1- No other Airline would commit itself at this stage and the biggest airline markets USA and China are still not very enthusiastic
2- The future belongs to twin engine wide bodies as the tremendous success of 777-300ER and A330 clearly demonstrates.

Few years ago, I talked to a Virgin Atlantic maintenance technician who told me
that his airline deeply regrets the decision to buy the A-340-600 instead of 777
and they were loosing millions in long routes like London-Hong Kong- Sydney as a result of this and when I asked him why ? he said that as the launch customer for this aircraft they were offered mouth watering discounts Mr .Branson couldn't refuse.

Well, there must be a reason why 777-300 ER shut down the assembly line of A340....

skylon

3rd Jan 2016, 12:19

It took 11 years before the original 747 passed 317 orders and it went on to sell over 1500 airframes

Mate, this is a very funny comparison I mean the time frames 1966-1977 and 2001-2012 in terms of volume of air travel ,passenger numbers ,aircraft demand ect ..

Heathrow Harry

3rd Jan 2016, 13:24

Westcoast - the only point I was making is that the original 747 was also considered to be sales disaster and a possible company breaker

Time will tell........

West Coast

3rd Jan 2016, 15:42

Fair enough. The similarities end there however.

skylon

3rd Jan 2016, 16:22

Skylon, if you describe the A380 as a complete failure, how would you describe the 747 800 passenger version?

Boe787..I'm afraid you are comparing apple with orange mate ..Boeing didn't even invest a fraction of the money Airbus spent on A380..The 747-8 is not an entirely new aircraft, most of the tools they use in assembly line belong to the old 747-400 so its is merely a different version of the old one which has earned its money many times over. The development costs of 747-8 is integrated in the old 747 program so that Boeing needs additional 30-35 aircrafts to sell in order to break even and they will achieve this in few years time as the freighter version of 747-8 is quite popular while A380 didn't build a freighter version ( as a result of John Leahy's arrogance , according to many aviation buff's , you are free to share or reject this view, I personally share it ).

But remember, even the new Air Force One planes will be 747-8 !

In a nutshell, Boeing will not leave any money on the table with regard to 747-8 .... Boeing is not worried about the future of 747-8, the only thing that could hurt Boeing would be a 3-4 years delay in 777xx..
Otherwise they are well prepared for the future with 787-8,-9 and -10
Airbus is worried about A-350-1000 they are still not sure about the final version especially after recent cancellations , one of them came form the Emirates !

fdcg27

3rd Jan 2016, 20:21

...and yet...
One airline has done very well with a large and growing A380 fleet.
The A380 is turning out to be more of a niche product than Airbus or anyone else anticipated.
Airbus may not want to invest any more money in this program and they may not have to.
Where else can Tim Clarke go?
The question is whether other carriers could take the plunge in a big way and hub large amounts of traffic through some given point using these huge aircraft.
Thus far, nobody else has had the vision or the nerve to try.

twochai

4th Jan 2016, 00:16

Sorry, no.

Its mostly a matter of geographical location on the earth's surface between major population centers (and providing exceptional service along with a shareholder prepared to take a risk, backstopped by a generous uncle alongside to share it!).

tdracer

4th Jan 2016, 02:20

Westcoast - the only point I was making is that the original 747 was also considered to be sales disaster and a possible company breaker
HH, I don't think you can make that claim either. The 747 was originally launched with a goal of only 200 aircraft being produced. The assumption being that it would be a short term stop gap until supersonic aircraft came on-line to take over the long haul market (which is also why it has the upper deck cockpit to facilitate conversion to a freighter).
Most of the money that Boeing hemorrhaged in the early 1970s was because problems with the JT9D engine held up the delivery of completed aircraft, and the cancellation of the Boeing SST meant the immediate write-off of the tens of millions that had already been spent.

Yes, Boeing very nearly went bankrupt in the early 1970s, but lack of sales of the 747 was not a primary factor.

Dan Winterland

4th Jan 2016, 02:34

The 380 would also do well in the slot constrained high density short haul scenario. Might be a replacement for the 747D.

JammedStab

4th Jan 2016, 04:01

Few years ago, I talked to a Virgin Atlantic maintenance technician who told me[/COLOR][/COLOR]
that his airline deeply regrets the decision to buy the A-340-600 instead of 777
and they were loosing millions in long routes like London-Hong Kong- Sydney as a result of this and when I asked him why ? he said that as the launch customer for this aircraft they were offered [COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#252525]mouth watering discounts Mr .Branson couldn't refuse.

As much as I like him overall, I still remember Sir Richard saying how he ordered the 340-600 to provide European jobs(sort of like the whole reason for Airbus's and especially the A380's existence which has cost so many good jobs elsewhere). Glad to see it come back to bite him.

WhatsaLizad?

4th Jan 2016, 04:25

FWIW

Boeing did a study years ago and found that a majority of 747 buyers (80%?) bought the jet for it's range and not the size.

Scratching my head at Emirates when they add A380 service to places like DUB. I also wonder how the numbers would work for AB and Emirates with an upgraded A380 replacing earlier versions with residual values near scrap metal prices.

I may be wrong, but is it a fact the double decker design prohibits and afterlife as a freighter?

Scuffers

4th Jan 2016, 06:55

But remember, even the new Air Force One planes will be 747-8 !

So what? like the US are ever NOT going to go with Boeing (see the farce of the KC-45 procurement)

Hell would have to freeze over before the US government stopped using Boeing (or other US co.) for anything they can.

No problem though, so long as the president does not mind being second best!

Boeing did a study years ago and found that a majority of 747 buyers (80%?) bought the jet for it's range and not the size.

?? A380 has far greater range than the 747 (bar the 747-400ER with 30% less seats)

(Qantas use the A380 on the Dallas to Sydney route, some 8,577 miles, currently the longest non-stop scheduled route).

keesje

4th Jan 2016, 10:31

ANA buying A380s is a natural network evolution I guess. 30-40% bigger then the 744 VLA's they used over the last 25 years. For the next 25 years, unremarkable.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ANA380.jpg

The've 140 widebodies and are one of the few 777-9 buyers too, so I guess they'll only buy 15-20 for connecting to the Star Alliance hubs (FRA, LAX, ORD) and major slots restricted destinations like JFK, LHR, CDG and the likes.

Boe787

4th Jan 2016, 16:01

Skylon, my question was A380 v 747/800 pax versions!

It is indeed lucky for Boeing that the 748 freighter has been popular!

Regardless of Boeings investment, sales of the pax version have been very poor!
Re Obamas replacement, as if the US would have bought anything else!
Also worth noting that the 747 is well and truly at the end of its lifetime, wereas the 380 program has plenty of growth prospects.
There are many simliarities in the early stages of the 747 and 380 programs, both required large outlays by the companies, and initial sales were not so good.
The return on Airbuses large investment in the 380, can only be judged in 15 years time!

kcockayne

4th Jan 2016, 16:03

I presume that you mean that ANA will only buy 15-20 A380s. If that is so, it will be a fantastic development for Airbus. I only had them down for an absolute maximum of 10 ! And, probably fewer than that.

RIGHTSEATKC135

4th Jan 2016, 17:03

Does anyone know the number of projected A380 deliveries necessary in order for Airbus Industrie to meet their startup costs for the aircraft?

alainthailande

4th Jan 2016, 17:59

@WhatsaLizad?
Scratching my head at Emirates when they add A380 service to places like DUB.
Well, not many passengers end up their trip in Dubai (which is DXB, by the way).
You cannot possibly ignore that DXB is a major hub from Europe to E and S-E Asia at least, not to mention AU and NZ.
And with these flight coming from major European airports where EK can't have as many slots as they'd want to, this does make a lot of sense to me.
As I wrote earlier, they seem to fill them up fairly easily, at least from CDG. I suspect that these are profitable routes.

I also wonder how the numbers would work for AB and Emirates with an upgraded A380 replacing earlier versions with residual values near scrap metal prices.
An entirely different issue and a very valid point. If they can't sell their ageing A380 airframes for a decent price, that'd certainly make them think twice.

anson harris

4th Jan 2016, 18:19

DUB is Dublin.

WhatsaLizad?

4th Jan 2016, 22:03

Yes, I meant Dublin.

I thought there was discussion in another thread somewhere about EK plans to serve DUB (Dublin) with an A380.

Can't find it at moment, I may be mistaken.

Una Due Tfc

4th Jan 2016, 23:25

Yes, I meant Dublin.

I thought there was discussion in another thread somewhere about EK plans to serve DUB (Dublin) with an A380.

Can't find it at moment, I may be mistaken.

It's in the ME section

alainthailande

5th Jan 2016, 06:15

DUB is Dublin.
Oops :oh: sorry for the confusion.

msbbarratt

5th Jan 2016, 06:51

I'm definitely within this target, and the A380 precisely is what made me switch my own tiny business as a frequent traveller between Europe and S-E Asia from Etihad to Emirates. They offer roughly the same fares, plus or minus variations based on season and promotions, but the service on the A380 is so much better than on the A330/B777 Etihad uses on these routes. Roomier, so much quieter. And yes, they do seem to manage to fill them up so I presume that these flights make money.An therein lies the power of market forces. Your own 'tiny business' adds with everyone else's to move billions of dollars. Your views really, really matter to airlines like Emirates and manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus.

Now imagine if Emirates replaced A380 on your route with something noisier and / or more cramped. I can't imagine that you'd be very pleased. Forgive me for putting words into your keyboard, but I guess that you'd start shopping around for a better deal?

How to Replace the A380?

Emirates themselves have said that their passengers are choosing A380 first, with only half an eye on price. They even have a modest transatlantic trade with passengers choosing to fly US->Dubai->Europe instead of US->Europe direct on US based airlines.

Conclusion: they cannot replace their A380s with something less comfortable, otherwise it really will then be all about price, especially if their competition retains A380 comfort levels.

Achieving that with Boeing products looks difficult at the moment. 787 is too narrow (so "roominess" is too expensive for the operator), and is only quiet if the heavy sound proofing is installed (most airlines don't fit it in economy). 777x isn't going to be that much different to the old 777 roominess-wise, and with thinner walls it probably isn't going to be much quieter.

I think the A380's benchmark is going to be here to stay. And with airport landing slot congestion, the A380 (or something that size) will increasingly be needed to deliver that benchmark.

Rwy in Sight

5th Jan 2016, 07:50

Now imagine if Emirates replaced A380 on your route with something noisier and / or more cramped. I can't imagine that you'd be very pleased. Forgive me for putting words into your keyboard, but I guess that you'd start shopping around for a better deal?

Conclusion: they cannot replace their A380s with something less comfortable, otherwise it really will then be all about price, especially if their competition retains A380 comfort levels.

I thought comfort aboard is what the operator wants to provide hence the outside bears very little reference on what is inside. I flew on an A320 that was unusual tight for my normal airline so I asked the cabin crew and sure enough they were leased from an ailing competitor.

alainthailande

5th Jan 2016, 19:06

Now imagine if Emirates replaced A380 on your route with something noisier and / or more cramped. I can't imagine that you'd be very pleased. Forgive me for putting words into your keyboard
You did not, you've read my mind.
but I guess that you'd start shopping around for a better deal?

Most definitely, yes.

Yes, Emirates has put their bet on mass tourism and the A380 fits this quite well. Cheap tickets x a fully loaded A380 does make quite some money, I guess.

msbbarratt

5th Jan 2016, 21:18

I thought comfort aboard is what the operator wants to provide hence the outside bears very little reference on what is inside. I flew on an A320 that was unusual tight for my normal airline so I asked the cabin crew and sure enough they were leased from an ailing competitor.

I guess to some extent, though the economics of that is going to be made easier / harder by the dimensions of the aircraft. Also there's not a lot they can do about the noisiness of a given aircraft.

Interesting that your regular airline's norm was for a roomier cabin, and their ailing competitor crammed passengers in. Some sort of lesson there?

From reading other threads here it seems that Boeing have made it harder with the 787 being a touch too narrow, for example. They're also talking about somehow being able to cram in an extra seat in a row in 777x...

In contrast, and if Emirates are anything to go by, it seems that Airbus have managed to make the A380 reasonably economic to fly, a generously comfortable proposition for economy class, quiet, reliable, and big enough to accommodate crazily large things like The Residence and make it one of the most profitable seats one can buy a ticket for.

There's also the simple matter of being able to carry more passengers in one go than anything else in the sky. Having the biggest plane and somehow contriving to fill it up every flight whilst your competitors are flying 777s means that you have a larger share of the market. Market share matters quite a lot.

There is talk about trying to squeeze in an extra seat per row on the A380, but I think that would be a mistake. Emirates have publicly said they want an A380neo, which would be a way of getting better economics without having to squeeze in that extra seat. A stretch would be very appealing too I imagine.

The Ancient Geek

6th Jan 2016, 00:09

oldoberon

6th Jan 2016, 00:37

I may be wrong, but is it a fact the double decker design prohibits and afterlife as a freighter?

Is that because the head room of each deck is lower than a single deck and is the floor of the upper deck strong enough for freight.

I don't know the answers but wouldn't it to some extent depend on

A) the size of individual items
B) total floor weight limit
C) even weight per sq foot for smaller but heavy pallets.
D) can you fit one huge double deck freight door or would you have two one at the front for lower deck and rear for upper deck

Longtimer

6th Jan 2016, 00:38

my son flew from LAX to MEL on a QF 747 (refitted) and then back on their A380. He found the 747 much more comfortable (economy class both directions).

kiwi grey

6th Jan 2016, 01:00

Alanthailande is right on the spot!

I too choose my infrequent-flyer trips based on the (perceived by me) comfort of the aircraft, despite the fact that I'm an Air NZ Frequent Flyer Points member.
So:

NZ <-> Oz: only three hours but a B737 will need to be 25% cheaper than an A320 before I'll give up the extra inch of seat width. Fortunately that's in Air NZ's favour.
NZ <-> Singapore: I'll fly via Auckland and use a Singapore Airlines A380 rather than go via Christchurch - even though Chch is cheaper. Next time, the flight might even be code-shared as an NZxxxx, so more Air Points for me :)
NZ <-> Europe: A toss-up between stops in Auckland and Singapore, or Sydney/Melbourne and Dubai. SG Star Alliance Airpoints may tip the balance. I'd prefer to go via Hong Kong, but I'm worried that all the airlines now fly only the dreadful (and dreaded) 10-abreast B777 or 9-abreast B787
NZ <-> North America: It might even be worth 'back-tracking' to Sydney and flying QF A380 to Dallas to avoid the torture of Air NZ's 10-abreast 772 or 9-abreast 789 - bugger the Air Points :{

It's not just the seat width, by the way, it's also the noise: the A380 is very obviously quieter for the passenger than the B777.

Junkflyer

6th Jan 2016, 03:50

HNL does not have the gates or taxiways to accommodate the 380.

galdian

6th Jan 2016, 05:34

ALSO to date Haneda has banned A380 ops due the extra wake turbulance requirements, foreign devil requests for slots - even at dead times - refused.

Unless the politics changes an ANA A380 operation will be ex Narita only HOWEVER should ANA decide the most effective port would, in fact, be Haneda (and have a few quiet words over a sake or two with the shakers and movers in the bureaucracy and JCAB) then the A380 ban could disappear very quickly.

Also remember ANA have NOT gone out and bought these aircraft through choice knowing exactly what routes they're aiming at, they have been pushed into them to keep vested local parties happy following the Skymark bankruptcy.
NOW they have to work out where the hell to send them and set up costly infrastructure for a three fleet orphan.

I doubt ANA head office is awash with unbridled joy regards the A380, would imagine something quite opposite.
BWTF would I know! :}

Cheers all.

Chris2303

6th Jan 2016, 06:07

QF have had a couple of diversions there.

galdian

6th Jan 2016, 06:16

Sorry - QF A380's diverting into Haneda or Narita??

Didn't think any QF A380 routes went near enough to Tokyo to be considered for a diversion....but happy to be corrected.

Andy_S

6th Jan 2016, 07:46

In contrast, and if Emirates are anything to go by, it seems that Airbus have managed to make the A380 reasonably economic to fly....

And yet EK are apparently refusing to order any more A380 unless Airbus re-engineer it to make it more fuel efficient. Perhaps the economics are not quite as favourable as we’ve been led to believe?

Rwy in Sight

6th Jan 2016, 07:50

kiwi grey and others,

If we agree that 10 abreast on 777 is torture why people still flying on airlines with such a configuration?

DaveReidUK

6th Jan 2016, 08:20

Scuffers

6th Jan 2016, 08:24

And yet EK are apparently refusing to order any more A380 unless Airbus re-engineer it to make it more fuel efficient. Perhaps the economics are not quite as favourable as we’ve been led to believe?

Hardly, EK have what? 71 A380 orders in the system, I can't see even them being in a hurry to increase that number..

As has been said, RR have updated the Trent 900 with the Trent 900EP and subsequently the Trent 900EP2, not vast steps but they quote 1% and 0.8% improvements in fuel consumption.

After this, there is talk of resurrecting the stretch version (A380-900) or similar with Trent XWB based engines (used on the A350).

None of this is 'new' info, they have been kicking it round for several years.

No manufacturer is going to leave a product to go stale, as new engines etc become available, it's natural they would look to incorporate them.

my son flew from LAX to MEL on a QF 747 (refitted) and then back on their A380. He found the 747 much more comfortable (economy class both directions).
well, having done the same on the LHR-SYD route with Qantas, I go out of my way to avoid the 747 option, less room, smaller seats, less pressurisation, much more noise, etc etc.

As has been said already, I actively pick flight to use A380 over 777/747's.

If I am going to be on a plane for some 22+ hours, I would rather it be a nice one.

VR-HFX

6th Jan 2016, 09:20

Galdian

You are well informed. The JCAB have fought tooth and nail to keep the 380 out of Haneda. At one stage they were insisting that Skymark prove the a/c on domestic routes prior to using it on international routes! They also were insisting on using the a/c for base training at Haneda.

The only reason ANA is even looking at the 380 is because it is part of a make good for Airbus and various other interests that were tangled up in the Skymark debacle.

mudcity

6th Jan 2016, 09:34

ANA have officially denied this rumour.....

Torquelink

6th Jan 2016, 09:49

RR have made quite a few improvements to the efficiency of the Trent series since the A380 was introduced so it could well be possible to incorporate these changes into a revised engine for the A380. This could give a fuel burn improvement of maybe as much as 5% with only minor tweaks to the airframe.
This could be enough to satisfy customers without the enormous investment required for a full Neo variant

Not possible unfortunately.

As has been said, RR have updated the Trent 900 with the Trent 900EP and subsequently the Trent 900EP2, not vast steps but they quote 1% and 0.8% improvements in fuel consumption.

After this, there is talk of resurrecting the stretch version (A380-900) or similar with Trent XWB based engines (used on the A350).

More like it.

In fact Emirates have said that if Airbus can deliver a fuel burn reduction of at least 10% on an aircraft basis they will order a minimum of 100 neos. Airbus/RR know that this needs a step beyond the XWB engine hence discussion about the Advance. Combined with aerodynamic tweaks Airbus say this should get 12% net of installation losses. RR was pushing this strongly last year but seems to have gone quiet - maybe their recently revealed financial woes have led them to curtail investment?

galdian

6th Jan 2016, 09:53

what airline, of any size/experience - and without any outside pressure - would order 3 of anything??

mudcity: I'm sure any denial would have been made by an old, esteemed Japanese male and therefore his statement MUST be honest and correct based ONLY on the fact he's old, esteemed, male and Japanese.

Any facts to the contrary must be false....this is the Japanese way.
:*

Gambate! :ok:

Cheers all.

galdian

6th Jan 2016, 10:10

VR-HFX

I'd suggest it goes a tad deeper, Airbus were preferring the Delta option for Skymark until within 48 hours of the final crunch...then they swung to the ANA option.

Gotta be a reason for that, this is the beginning (Part 1) of the payoff EOFS. :*
Parts 2 and onwards to follow.

Bring on the sake...for further negotiations for the benefit of ..............
(insert the Japanese bureaucracy/politics/businessmen of your choice who you think will derive the greatest payoff....ahem, apologies, greatest benefit for the benefit of Japan).

Regards the JCAB fighting to keep A380's out of Haneda: individuals can decide for themselves how much of that was legitimate wake turbulance consideration/trafic flow Vs certain local airlines not being able to compete.
Both reasonable points.

Scuffers

6th Jan 2016, 13:06

In fact Emirates have said that if Airbus can deliver a fuel burn reduction of at least 10% on an aircraft basis they will order a minimum of 100 neos. Airbus/RR know that this needs a step beyond the XWB engine hence discussion about the Advance. Combined with aerodynamic tweaks Airbus say this should get 12% net of installation losses. RR was pushing this strongly last year but seems to have gone quiet - maybe their recently revealed financial woes have led them to curtail investment?

it's unrealistic to expect the Trent 900 to make that kind of gains, infact, I can see RR not doing much more to the 900 that's not 100% backward compatible (as in older engines being upgraded), as they might just as well sell the Trent XWB as it's already some way ahead of the 900 in terms of fuel efficiency.

that said, to get 10% gains on the A380 is going to require more than just engine work.

XWB has already flown on the A380 (test flights before A350)

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2013/m02013020700001.jpg

edit - and the latest XWB 97..

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=64410

glad rag

6th Jan 2016, 13:20

WOW! 62000lb EXTRA thrust [reading across wiki info for both top rated Trent variants] in a quad installation....

pax britanica

6th Jan 2016, 14:48

This thread underlines an interesting point about making things that appeal to customers

The 777 appeals to Boeing customers in the form of the airline fiancial analysts but I will go out ona bit of limb and say its a pretty horrible plane to fly on. Too narrow , noisy and unstable in the sense that it rather wallows through the sky.I am not saying its bad plane because it is a terrific engineering achievement.

On the other than the much derided (at least on here) 380 is also an engineering wonder but its much smother and quieter with more room and much more comfortable cabin environment

So and I think this is true despite my small sample size passengers like the A 380 accountants like the T7 . So who are the real 'customers' for airliners

While the 380 is superior at hub to hub routes, again much derided here , the fact is that with the exception of Frankfurt and the ME most global hub airports serve global cities with a very very large 'local' population usually the most affluent in any given country so for me organic growth is going to push more existing and some new customers the way of the 380 even if it like the 74 takes agood few years to come into its own. All major airports are either slot constrained or will be in a few eyars anyway.

JD2010

6th Jan 2016, 20:13

We fly the LAX-SDY roundtrip, QF economy, every year and seek out the 380 because it seems more comfortable to me but primarily because of the better Personal Entertainment System vs the 747-400. I would be interested to know what has been "refitted" on the QF 747's.

metrognomicon

7th Jan 2016, 00:05

SLF here, flying DC to Europe from time to time and have always for whatever reason gotten a 777 no matter which carrier. Paid a little extra the latest time for one leg on the Air France A380. It was a great flight, so quiet, and lots of options for choosing a seat with a little extra room. One the way back I discovered that AF has now reconfigured their 777 for 10-across :eek: Again I paid a little extra for more room but the poor suffering bastards who did not were obviously miserable. I'm a fan and would go out of my way to be on the A380 again.