More trouble for A380 Program ?

[Melax]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37362488



Singapore Airlines drops Airbus A380 plane

Singapore Airlines has decided not to keep the first A380 it leased, delivering a fresh setback for Airbus' super-jumbo plane.
Singapore Airlines was the launch customer for the two-deck jet in 2007.
The airline has decided not to renew the A380 plane when the ten-year contract expires next year.
The news comes after Airbus more than halved its delivery target for the A380, raising fears it could slip back to making a loss from the aircraft.
A Singapore Airlines spokesperson said: "Our first five A380s are on 10-year leases, with options to extend. The first expires in October 2017, and we have decided not to extend it.
"For the other four, decisions will be made later."
But they added the airline had orders for five separate A380s with Airbus, which will start being delivered in the second half of 2017.
The A380 only began breaking even for Airbus last year.
In July, Airbus said it would still avoid losing money on the jet in 2017 with as few as 20 deliveries, but gave no further guidance.
Analysts says that big aircraft like the A380 and Boeing's 747 series have fallen out of favour.
Smaller jets can be more profitable as they are easier to fill and are cheaper to operate, analysts say.

[Melax]

Singapore Airlines drops Airbus A380 plane - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37362488)

[tdracer]

I wouldn't read too much into this - Singapore is known to keep a young fleet, dumping airframes when they're due for heavy maintenance and getting new ones.
Singapore previously had stated they intended to take delivery of the A380's currently on order. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Singapore simply replaced some 10 year old A380's with new ones, keeping the same number of operational A380s.
However I expect the leasing company may be getting seriously nervous - at the moment there doesn't appear to much interest in taking second hand A380s.

[Thai Pom]

I agree with tdracer, SQ don't like heavy maintenance. Back in the day that is how they managed to keep the "youngest fleet in the air"

[Airbubba]

SQ keeps a young fleet back in the cabin as well... :D

[glofish]

However I expect the leasing company may be getting seriously nervous - at the moment there doesn't appear to much interest in taking second hand A380s.

So financing new 380s will be the challenge!

Unless SQ want's to dish out the cash themselves, but they will most certainly not want to sit on something unsellable 10 years later.

[p.j.m]

The airline has decided not to renew the A380 plane when the ten-year contract expires next year.

But they added the airline had orders for five separate A380s with Airbus, which will start being delivered in the second half of 2017.

Makes sense to buy new to replace End of Lease old ones. Presumably the original leasing plan was because they weren't sure if they wanted to use them in the longer term, and now they are ready to buy.

Anyone know the difference in 10 years of lease payments, vs purchase outright?

[wiggy]

I wouldn't say it means more trouble but for a while now the news coming out of Toulouse is that they are very much planning to reduce the rate of production, and it already having an effect on the subcontractors.

Fairly typical article/take on the situation in French language here:

Faute de commandes, Airbus diminue de moitié la production de l?A380 (http://www.lemonde.fr/entreprises/article/2016/07/13/faute-de-commandes-airbus-diminue-de-moitie-la-production-de-l-a380_4968826_1656994.html)

Regardless of what SQ do I don't think Airbus management is expecting everybody to start renewing hulls at the ten year point......

[EastMids]

According to Aviation Week, the leasing company bought the aircraft from Sing in a sale and lease back deal for $197m in 2007, and Sing pays $1.71m a month for it. Over the 10 year term that's a total of $205.2m. OK, on the face of it $7.2m is a very low return on investment for the lease co, but if it ends up going off to the desert and parts-recovered, I suspect the end result won't be the worst ever. Sing on the other hand is replacing it one-for-one, and might end up paying a not too different amount for a brand new, more efficient airframe that is years away from a cabin refit and heavy overhaul at a time when it arguably doesn't need extra VLA capacity.

[maggot]

I was under the impression that SIAs first (few?) were a bit heavier and a little more troublesome than the rest so could be a motivator also

[TURIN]

The first ones especially will be full of after market mods. The new ones (hopefully) will be fully configured with the latest fixes and will not require updating.

[glofish]

OK, on the face of it $7.2m is a very low return on investment for the lease co, but if it ends up going off to the desert and parts-recovered, I suspect the end result won't be the worst ever

7.2 0n 197 in ten years about 0.4% of ROI per year: Does not even cover inflation. And if most of the whales go to Mojave after only 10 years and only a few new ones a ordered, the spare parts will not be of a huge value.

Spin it however you want, the 4-holers are doomed and will never bring back the investment. Maybe for the more ruthless companies like EK and SQ on their initial batch, but lessors and investors learn quick!
Financing for new models will only be possible through the ignorant European taxpayer, no one else in their right mind would put their dollar on them no more.

[pax britanica]

Shame that the best plane in the air from a pax point of view faces these problems-the T7 is a complete dog compared to the 380 but of course it is efficient , not the first time its happened but probably will be the last.

On the other hand none of the newer designs work that well on v high density restricted hub routes. Is it purely down to the extra cost of ownership/maintenance and overall fuel burn that means fours can never match twins even if they get bigger ?

[notapilot15]

MH frames are in the market for at least one year without much luck.

SQ may very well drop pending A380 orders for A350s.

I don't think any lessor/airline can afford to sink additional $5+ Million to redo entire interior on top of deferred heavy maintenance of a used A380 and still make money.

Premium heavy SQ/EK cabins are not appropriate for most airlines in secondary market (if there is one for A380)

With just 300 frames, I doubt there will be huge demand for parted out components. Airbus and its supply chain is counting on at least making money on parts. Its not a A320 with 1000s of frames flying around.

[BuzzBox]

I doubt there will be huge demand for parted out components.

Sardine cans??

[Torquelink]

I wouldn't read too much into this - Singapore is known to keep a young fleet, dumping airframes when they're due for heavy maintenance and getting new ones.

I think you'll find they will be redelivered off a heavy check: 12 Year done early so they won't be avoiding heavy maintenance. They will take all five of the new ones.

[KenV]

I've got a question. If Singapore does not like heavy maintenance and gets rid of their aircraft at around the 10 year point when heavy maintenance comes due, owning the airplane makes little or no sense unless they can be assured they can sell the airplane at the 10 year point. So why would Singapore replace 5 leased airplanes with 5 owned airplanes if in 10 years they won't be able to sell them? Especially considering that at that point the design will be 20 years old and even more obsolete than the 10 year old airplanes they are getting rid of.

[andrasz]

Anyone know the difference in 10 years of lease payments, vs purchase outright?Rule of thumb is monthly lease rates amount to ~1% of the airframe purchase price, over a 10 year lease the leasing company will have recovered their initial investment, a second term lease or sale at residual value is just an added bonus. Of course actual deals will hover around both sides of this number, depending on which side is in a beter negotiating position.
So why would Singapore replace 5 leased airplanes with 5 owned airplanes if in 10 years they won't be able to sell them.Same reason. If they can obtain cheaper financing than a leasing company (and to my knowledge SQ is sitting on a fairly large amount of free cash), then over a 10 year period they can write off the asset value to zero with a smaller overall cost than if the same aircraft were leased. All beancounting stuff.

[oldchina]

KenV

A Residual Value Guarantee would be essential. SQ is very smart at negotiating purchase agreements with manufacturers whereby the latter agrees to facilitate disposal/take back on special terms against a future acquisition.

[Scuffers]

At what point do airbus try and re-launch the A380F?

(Majority of 747's recent production has been freighters... )

Also, how possible/economic is it to convert them to freighters?

[notapilot15]

SQ is very smart at negotiating purchase agreements with manufacturers whereby the latter agrees to facilitate disposal/take back on special terms against a future acquisition.

Airlines may be smart but lessors are no dumb. Doric will never do what it did with EK A380 again, never. EK may have to finance their pending deliveries.

Not unique for A380, with Delta's announcement that it purchased a used B777 for $10 Million, lessors are scrambling what to do with all B777 lease returns and what should be the lease rate factor for new ones. Delta probably bought just a frame without engines for parts, but such news worries Wall Street.

Traditional way of financing and maintaining planes will be history very soon. Gone are the days frames are good for 30 years and once initial problems are sorted out in a year, they are rock solid. Big players take brand new and hand them down to others after 12 years.

With Export Credit agencies and fuel efficiency third world no longer buying used planes. They can get brand new planes cheaper.

Build quality(not safety) of new types is poor. Too many prolonged teething issues (ie., troubled childhood) and early aging, faster technology obsolescence, less resale potential and less resale values.

I am thinking airlines will go power-by-hour on engines and pay-by-fly-hour for frames. Let manufacturers and lessors deal with technical issues without hurting airlines bottom line.

If engine has an issue and need to be fixed, airline won't pay frame charges either, let engine manufacturer pay to frame owner/lessor.

[tdracer]

At what point do airbus try and re-launch the A380F?Probably never. At least based on analysis I've seen, the A380 does not pencil out to be a good freighter, and loading freight on the upper deck would be problematic. Plus it would be near impossible to do a 747 type nose door due to the flight deck location.
What might work would be some sort of combi - freight on the main deck and passengers up stairs - but combis have fallen out of favor, and the latest regulations regarding cargo fire would make certification of a combi difficult.

[striker26]

Would be interesting to see the math on the cost of converting it to a freighter, but i would think the efficiency of the 777 even in freighter standards would make more sense then 4 engines.

I think Airbus is stalling as long as they can to see where the market takes the 380. Think about it, huge growth coming especially in the Asian region, and as we know, governments around the world are always in "reaction mode" so airport expansion in regards to runways/slots etc wont match growth for some time. Maybe there is a hope for a few more orders especially if they can pitch a a 380neo option, maybe add a few rows but with the a350 doing well and the 7X due soon, it'll be tough to sell 4 engines.

I remember back when Singapore first tookoff their a380 maiden flight, everyone was amazed at how many seats the a380 could carry, what most forgot is that airlines make very little on economy seats. WOuld be interesting to see what Emirates does regarding their 10 year maintenance costs....

[Scuffers]

All good points....

Reading the latest on Boeing looking to extend the range of the 737 as SLF fills me with horror, I *hate* small narrow bodied stuff even for short haul, the idea of spending 8+ hours in one sounds truly horrific.

I'm no real fan of the 777, it's nothing like as nice from a passenger perspective as the A380, less room, more noise, etc etc. which when you're doing 20+ hours on one is important (LHR/SYD).

Not been on a A350 yet to compare... maybe that's as good?

was not blown away by the 787, it's OK, but it's no A380.

[Peter47]

Wasn't Willie Walsh saying that IAG might be interested in additional second hand A380s if the price was right (or was he trying the beat the price down with Airbus)? Could be a home?

[wiggy]

Wasn't Willie Walsh saying that IAG might be interested in additional second hand A380s if the price was right (or was he trying the beat the price down with Airbus)? Could be a home?

He might have said it for all sorts of reasons but doing so now would mean a major change of fleet plans.

[notapilot15]

Probably Edd China said Willie Walsh no means no, don't buy crap and ask him to sort it out.

In any case BA is rationalizing its network, I don't think WW will pickup any whales willy nilly.

[ATC Watcher]

One of the main (Airbus) argument to launch the A380 was that the increase in demand for travel, in an environment lacking airports expansions , and slots in those, would " naturally" favor VLAs . This has not come as fast as Airbus had forecast , but it will come , also in Singapore.
The other was not to leave Boeing alone in that market and possibly force them out of the VLA business. That they apparently succeeded .

As someone in Toulouse recently said : the fat lady as not stopped singing yet...

[Ian W]

One of the main (Airbus) argument to launch the A380 was that the increase in demand for travel, in an environment lacking airports expansions , and slots in those, would " naturally" favor VLAs . This has not come as fast as Airbus had forecast , but it will come , also in Singapore.
The other was not to leave Boeing alone in that market and possibly force them out of the VLA business. That they apparently succeeded .

As someone in Toulouse recently said : the fat lady as not stopped singing yet...

Despite the claims that the airports need expansion, it might be easier to take steps to maintain runway acceptance rates in IMC by for example using RNAV/RNP procedures to GBAS-GLS rather than ILS and to increase acceptance rates by really monitoring wake turbulence rather than using default worse case WTC separation minima.

Then the VLA aircraft must be economic making as much profit as the standard wide-bodies - they aren't and they don't. Relying on poor airport performance and low runway acceptance rates to force acceptance of uneconomic aircraft is not really the right way to go.

[172driver]

The other was not to leave Boeing alone in that market and possibly force them out of the VLA business. That they apparently succeeded .

Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me....

As an aside, it looks like some German retail investors are getting burned by this SIA decision. Article unfortunately only in German, the gist of it is that some German investment funds bought into the SIA A380s and are now facing, ahem, problems... Link here: Dr. Peters: Singapur Airlines schockt Fondsanleger - manager magazin (http://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/artikel/dr-peters-singapur-airlines-schockt-fondsanleger-a-1112400.html)

[CONSO]

Most do not realize the game that Airbus has played dating back to the 1990's here is a short version of $$$, sales, subsidy, and related

1) GATT 92 ( 1992) ( now known as WTO ) set up rules for subsidy of LCA ( large commercial aircraft ) - which was really undefined other than probably larger than a piper cub.

2) This allowed nations to give deserving aircraft companies preferential- low cost loans for R&D and intital production

3) $$$ involved were based on projected sales by certain dates, and forgiveness if those targets were not met.

4) While there have been changes and arguments re Boeing and Airbus over the year as to what counts as subsidy, and changes as to ground rules- the basics in 2) still apply

5) Now about the 380. Under 2) it NOW appears that the A380 will not meet the sales goals in the agreed on time frame. Thus a good part of the ' research and early production loans ' will probably never have to be paid back . Whether or not A freighter version would also follow under the initial ground rules for additional ' loans' is NOT obvious to most of the pundits. :ugh:

[glofish]

One of the main (Airbus) argument to launch the A380 was that the increase in demand for travel, in an environment lacking airports expansions , and slots in those, would " naturally" favour VLAs . This has not come as fast as Airbus had forecast , but it will come , also in Singapore.
The other was not to leave Boeing alone in that market and possibly force them out of the VLA business. That they apparently succeeded .

1. I have not seen any statistics, and i doubt we will ever read a trustworthy one, about the effective capacity increase of VLAs on the most frequently served airports. My own impression (esp. in DXB) is that it is not as spectacular as expected. Biggies seem to take more space and time from push-back to take-off and clog up operations on ground. More importantly the bigger separation between aircraft decreases runway frequencies. If there were only VLAs, it might work, but the mix with medium aircraft is particularly slowing down operations and single aisle aircraft are here to stay.

2. If the 380 was only meant to kill the 747, it has come with a futile cost, the 747 was just as doomed.

[ATC Watcher]

I am not working for Airbus and not trying to defend their position(s) just listening to them and working with them on some issues dating back from the A310 " Forward Facing "cockpit for those old enough to remember ...so I followed the discussions around the A380 since the beginning.( around 1990) Jean Roeder was the main spokesman at the time .
on the money :
France was pushing ( they always do) and "economic fallback " in the ( very) long them has always been their vision. Making money came second , at the time at least . Their argument was that the Caravelle and the Concorde never made money but they maintained top knowledge and engineering in Toulouse.

on the Boeing issue :
That was definitively a very strong motivator at the time :
1) for Airbus to be offering a complete range of aircraft ,i.e. to be at pair with Boeing .
2) to replace the 747 with modern technology at something like 15-20% lower operating costs (if my memory is correct, do not quote me on the percentage )

back to the thread : Singapore airlines was the launch customer for the A380, so they have the oldest air frames , replacing them by new ones can be seen as support for the aircraft too.

[Scuffers]

back to the thread : Singapore airlines was the launch customer for the A380, so they have the oldest air frames , replacing them by new ones can be seen as support for the aircraft too.
Well put, always another way to report the same story...

Out of interest, have Singapore airlines got any/many 10+ year old crates in their fleet?

[ATC Watcher]

Scuffers: have Singapore airlines got any/many 10+ year old crates in their fleet?

According to this site : https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Singapore-Airlines?p=3
they apparently have a few 777 which are over 15 years old .

[cattletruck]

I find myself paying a couple $100 more for the 14hr ride in an A380 over a B777 because I can, and I'm not the only one as the plane is usually full.

There may be a lot of justified hate of the A380 for other reasons but the pax just love them.

[wiggy]

I find myself paying a couple $100 more for the 14hr ride in an A380 over a B777 because I can, and I'm not the only one as the plane is usually full.

There may be a lot of justified hate of the A380 for other reasons but the pax just love them.

I'm sure you are right but as the LoCos have shown sentiment doesn't enter into the equation.

[notapilot15]

Is there any airport including ATL,ORD and LHR which is not big enough to serve its local population? Answer is no.

Hubs are necessary but Super Hubs are self inflicted pain. Solution is not to force millions unnecessarily transit thru these Super Hubs.

[SLF3]

From where I sit (business class on SQ) the A380 is the only way to go. And they charge (and get) a premium for it over the 777-300 on the same route. I think Airbus took the view that they had to compete with Boeing across the product range, and the A380 was both part of that strategy and a very long term punt. Unless the economics really suck, the A380 will ultimately come good. And the stretch version will be much prettier than the original.

I've read several times that the A380 is more expensive to operate than competitors. But I've never seen this demonstrated. So assuming you can fill it, and using someone like SQ or Emirates seat mix as an example, how does the revenue versus cost balance look for an A380 versus a 'new generation' 777 or an A350?

On Singapore's decision to let leased A380's go, why wouldn't they? As someone says above, they got a good deal, the early ones had problems, they can likely get shiny new ones with all the upgrades for a similar rate. Lease or buy? If the calculations are done based on based on zero residual value at the end of the 'term' and they can borrow for less than a leasing company / put up cash then ownership might make sense.

[wiggy]

Unless the economics really suck, the A380 will ultimately come good. And the stretch version will be much prettier than the original.

" Unless the economics really suck". Don't think they really suck, but perhaps not good enough verses the 777/A350 etc on many routes.

"the A380 will ultimately come good". How long are you going to give it - we're already 10 years down the road?

"stretch version". AFAIK I think that is still in reality a very much a "might happen, one day project".

I don't work for Airbus but from where I'm sitting right now (near Toulouse) I know a lot of the local subcontractors have already shifted their efforts largely away from the 380 and towards supporting the A350 and the 320 neo.

The 380 is far from dead but I'm not sure many see the production run picking up speed again in the forseeable future.

[procede]

@notapilot15:
Because people living in a more remote region would also like to be able to go anywhere and will thus like have to transfer through a hub, as for most destinations there is simply not enough traffic for a direct flight with sufficient frequency.
For hubs the simple fact is that twice the hourly capacity means four times the number of possible connections you can offer. Using one large aircraft on a route instead of two smaller ones, means that the saved slot can be used for a flight somewhere else.

[scifi]

Maybe in the freight role it would open up the world to different types of freight... Such as delivering complete motor cars. If they could be stacked side by side on top and bottom floors, maybe 20-30 at a time?


Also wouldn't their cruising speed be lower, for maximum economy?


btw. We see the Balugas going into Broughton every day, so 'radical' conversions are possible.
.

[wiggy]

Last I heard the idea of new build 380F's being built at Blagnac had been shelved.

Whether conversions would be possible, and whether there's a market for the same - who knows?

[lederhosen]

From my perspective as someone that has invested in A380 leases it is indeed an interesting time. In my case I invested in Air France frames, believing AF were more likely to support the A380 long term for political reasons and were unlikely to default.

Most leases are initially 10 years after which you have got nearly three quarters of your initial investment back, not of course accounting for time value of money. If the lease is extended you start to make money helped also by the way it all works tax wise. So if the aircraft never flies again and incurs expenses sitting in the desert it will have been a poor investment, although not as disastrous as some shipping investments recently.

The real question is at what level the leasing companies are able to agree new leases. As no one has yet published anything it seems that the poker game is ongoing. My gut feel is that there will be some pretty deep discounts, reducing the overall returns to people like me but kickstarting the second hand market. Fortunately mine have a while to go by which time hopefully BA or the Chinese will have shown their cards and got the market moving.

Long term I am still pretty bullish that the existing aircraft have a 20 year life particularly if oil stays cheap, although I am not persuaded that Airbus will sell a lot more new frames given the lack of enthusiasm so far.

[notapilot15]

@procede

I think you misread my comment about super hubs. Hubs are necessary super hubs are not.

Read your own statement, you have to allow bunch of RJs/NBs from several places to fill a WB/super jumbo at a hub/super hub.

So there is no scenario where a super hub can operate only VLAs.

LHR A380 movements are somewhere between 1%-3% of total traffic. I haven't seen DXB VLA movement numbers, but sure it will be in single digits. ORD haven't even started A380 service and AFAIK ATL has no active A380 service.

[DaveReidUK]

1. I have not seen any statistics, and i doubt we will ever read a trustworthy one, about the effective capacity increase of VLAs on the most frequently served airports

It's not hard to find evidence if you look.

Take Heathrow, for example. As is commonly known, the number of movements has barely changed over the last 10 years because it's up against the ATM limit.

But last year LHR handled 5 million more passengers than 2011, with nearly 7,000 fewer movements, representing an increase of almost 10% in the average number of passengers per flight.

Part of that increase is due to a modest rise in load factors, but it's mostly a result of a gradual increase in average capacity per movement (i.e. aircraft size), to which 30 additional A380 movements per day contribute significantly.

[KenV]

Maybe in the freight role it would open up the world to different types of freight... Such as delivering complete motor cars. If they could be stacked side by side on top and bottom floors, maybe 20-30 at a time?Three questions:

1. Do you have any idea what it would take to convert a passenger airliner floor to handle roll-on/roll-off of motor cars? A LOT. To put this in perspective no airliner derivative freighter can currently do that. Just reinforcing the floor to accept pallets/containers is a huge deal.

2. Do you have an idea what it would take to install a cargo door in both the lower and upper decks of an A380? It's a HUGE deal on single deck airplane. It would be a nightmarish undertaking on a double decker.

3. Have you considered how you would lift the cars (or pallets or containers) to the upper deck of an A380? There are currently no cargo lifters that can reach that high. So A380 freight service would not only entail limiting such service to the few airports that can handle an A380, but to airports that can handle an A380 AND have special cargo handling equipment.

Airbus is not stupid. There's a good reason there is no A380F.

Also wouldn't their cruising speed be lower, for maximum economy?Aircraft fly at max range cruise speed. That would not change because of what is inside the airplane.

[notapilot15]

It's not hard to find evidence if you look.

Take Heathrow, for example. As is commonly known, the number of movements has barely changed over the last 10 years because it's up against the ATM limit.

But last year LHR handled 5 million more passengers than 2011, with nearly 7,000 fewer movements, representing an increase of almost 10% in the average number of passengers per flight.

Part of that increase is due to a modest rise in load factors, but it's mostly a result of a gradual increase in average capacity per movement (i.e. aircraft size), to which 30 additional A380 movements per day contribute significantly.

So 365 days x 30 flights x150 (additional pax per flight) = about 1.5Million

Is Heathrow Airports better of financially with 7000 less movements?

Every movement brings additional revenue. It can turn around 3xNBs (or) 2xWBs and make more money for itself and all airport vendors than one A380.

[peekay4]

I wouldn't read too much into this - Singapore is known to keep a young fleet, dumping airframes when they're due for heavy maintenance and getting new ones. SQ leased the A380s under so called "full-life" terms, which means SQ must complete heavy maintenance & checks on the airframes, engines, etc., prior to returning the aircraft to the lessor.

[parabellum]

Ken V has covered the possibility of an A380F comprehensively! Remember the B747 was originally designed as a freighter. Many of the major modifications an A380F would require, especially floor loading, were originally designed into the B747.


Regarding the Boeing v. Airbus VLA it should not be forgotten that Boeing offered Airbus a consortium to build a joint aircraft, which Airbus refused, so Boeing immediately pulled out of the VLA market, saying they doubted there was sufficient support for it. Airbus are claiming they are now breaking even on the A380, possibly some creative accounting there? I believe 269 delivered was the original BE figure but that stretched out to nearer 500 after all the penalties that were incurred due to late delivery plus the heavy discounting applied to early customers. Probably depends on how cheap loans and various 'subsidies' are included in the costings.


Airbus thought they would be replacing the 450 or so B747-400 delivered, they didn't take into account that the B747 replacement was already flying in the shape of the B777 and the A330, with future, even more efficient twins like the B787 and the A350 already in the design stage.

[tdracer]

Airbus are claiming they are now breaking even on the A380, possibly some creative accounting there? Careful, what Airbus has said is that they were cash flow positive - i.e. they were selling the aircraft for more than it cost to build - that's a long way from recouping the estimated 20 billion Euro development costs. Worse, it took until 2015 for them to go cash flow positive, and that'll go away next year as they slow production from 2.5/month to 1/month - they've already admitted that at one a month they'll once again be cash flow negative.
Boeing claims they can be cash flow positive on the 747-8 at 1/month, but the current planned 0.5/month will also be cash flow negative.
In short, both aircraft are in trouble, Boeing's only redemption is they didn't spend anywhere near the money on the 747-8 that Airbus dumped into the A380.
The future success of the 747 depends on the recovery of the air-freight market, the future success of the A380 depends on a fundamental change to the SLF airline business.

[Cool Guys]

There seems to be an oversight in Airbus's rationale for developing the 380. One of the main arguments was to reduce congestion at slot constrained airports. However a new plane and infrastructure is not required for this. On high volume routes with slot constraints operators can move from the 320/737 to A330/787 or from A330/787 to A350/777.

[Andy_S]

On high volume routes with slot constraints operators can move from the 320/737 to A330/787 or from A330/787 to A350/777.

Agreed. There are a number of questionable assumptions on the need for the A380 and suggesting it's the only option for moving larger numbers of passengers is one of them.

Another possibility is that airlines will simply bypass the hub to hub model by operating more flights to regional airports.

[Scuffers]

Three questions:

1. Do you have any idea what it would take to convert a passenger airliner floor to handle roll-on/roll-off of motor cars? A LOT. To put this in perspective no airliner derivative freighter can currently do that. Just reinforcing the floor to accept pallets/containers is a huge deal.

2. Do you have an idea what it would take to install a cargo door in both the lower and upper decks of an A380? It's a HUGE deal on single deck airplane. It would be a nightmarish undertaking on a double decker.

3. Have you considered how you would lift the cars (or pallets or containers) to the upper deck of an A380? There are currently no cargo lifters that can reach that high. So A380 freight service would not only entail limiting such service to the few airports that can handle an A380, but to airports that can handle an A380 AND have special cargo handling equipment..
Don't disagree with any of this although I really think it's kind of missing the point.

Most air-freight is pallet/container based, talk of roll-on/off is meaningless, cars are put on pallets and shipped like everything else.

Other point with the A380 is that it's internal volume is massive Vs. it's max load weight compared to other freighters (747 etc), and most current fighters are load limited by weight not volume. What I am getting at here is why bother using the upper deck for freight? as you have said, loading it would be a PITA and with only the main and lower decks, you're likely to hit the weight limit anyway, leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.

[wiggy]

leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.


One for the experts but maybe one objection to that is once you mix freight with passengers you start placing limitations on what freight you can carry due to dangerous goods rules etc. For example Internal Combustion engines (even new) are banned as hold freight on pax flights by many (?all) operators, similarly even small amounts of radioactive materials e.g for medical use are banned....). That might be in part what possibly contributed to the demise of the various "combis" in the first place.

[MickG0105]

Don't disagree with any of this although I really think it's kind of missing the point.

Most air-freight is pallet/container based, talk of roll-on/off is meaningless, cars are put on pallets and shipped like everything else.

Other point with the A380 is that it's internal volume is massive Vs. it's max load weight compared to other freighters (747 etc), and most current fighters are load limited by weight not volume. What I am getting at here is why bother using the upper deck for freight? as you have said, loading it would be a PITA and with only the main and lower decks, you're likely to hit the weight limit anyway, leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.
It's not the max load weight that is the issue, it's the pressure exerted by the load on the floor. Even with palletised loads you've still got the problem of having a strong enough floor to secure the pallet rails, etc to.

[DaveReidUK]

There seems to be an oversight in Airbus's rationale for developing the 380. One of the main arguments was to reduce congestion at slot constrained airports. However a new plane and infrastructure is not required for this. On high volume routes with slot constraints operators can move from the 320/737 to A330/787 or from A330/787 to A350/777.

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The arguments for moving up a gauge (so you can carry more passengers without requiring an increase in the number of flights) apply at every point along the size scale. There is no fundamental difference between replacing, say, a 777-300 with an A380 and the upsizing examples that you quoted, so I don't see how developing the A380 represents an "oversight" on the part of Airbus.

Yes, they were wildly optimistic about the size of the market, but that's another story ... :O

[GodDamSlacker]

Problem with the A380 its burning between 13-13.5 kgs/hr flys at 0.84 the only appeal is noise for pax..it carries next to no freight and on ultra long haul has between 100-150 seats lockout for weight saving to allow additional fuel. The A380 is 10 years too late, the B747-400 and B747-800 coupled with the B777 new gen will see the death of the A380..Singapore Airlines is returning the first 4 A380, Emirates also is returning the early aircraft, Malaysia Airlines has the 6 aircraft up for sale. The B747-800 is limited to freight operation with so many B747-400 freighters coming up to the end of their useful life..the reality is that the A380 isnt a hub buster but an Operational and Engineering Nightmare, inefficient and a black hole in costs....keeping up with the "Jones" has burnt many airlines...The smart Airlines have avoided the A380...once you have A380 your stuck with it...

[Stuart Midgley]

As a cargo ops dude I can't see that the A380 is heading for freighter operations any time in the next 25 years, either new-build or conversion. Where to begin...

1. There's a chronic excess of air freight capacity globally the last five years and no-one in the industry can see it getting any better for the next 5-10 years at least. In the 90's general air freight demand was higher than spare pax under-body space could supply and so dedicated freighters were being bought everywhere. However, the massive growth since 2000 in wide-body pax aircraft in global service has meant a huge increase in the total amount of spare underbody space available for cargo and the space available has totally overtaken cargo demand. As a result dedicated cargo airlines the world over are doing it tough and cargo divisions of the major airlines (Lufthansa, Qantas, etc) are shedding freighters and losing cash hand-over-fist. The chance of any airline ADDING the massive cargo capacity of freighter A380's to their cargo fleet any time soon is somewhere between zero and none.

2. The global sea-freight industry has been getting its act together the last ten years as well, and have been starting to steal some traditional cargo types from air freight. With atmosphere-controlled containers and improved handling times they've been picking away at fruit & veg shipments and, recently, starting to take some of the high-value temperature-controlled pharmaceutical cargoes as well. A lot of the delays for sea cargo were traditionally in getting goods in and out of the ports (often where they would also suffer temperature damage through laziness in maintaining the cold chain) but with electronic paperwork and modern expedited port handling processes, combined with the new improved high-tech container types that manage the atmosphere gases over the produce as well as the temperature, short-to-medium-haul sea freight is now highly competitive with air freight for a lot of stuff that used to core air-freight business.

Both 1 and 2 mean the general air freight business is not looking good right now, nor is likely to for many years to come. Rates are in the toilet and likely to stay there.

3. Some-one would have to bite the bullet on the not-inconsiderable one-off costs of either developing the dedicated freighter version or designing and getting approved a used-aircraft conversion. Big, big $$$ and typically this only happens when a major cargo airline underwrites the cost with a big airframe order. See points 1 and 2 for why this isn't going to happen.

4.There are plenty of wide-body airframes on the market for those (few) who do want dedicated freighters at the moment. You can get new-build freighter 767/777/747s from Boeing and A330s from Airbus. If you want a conversion you can take your pick of used 767s or A330s. Yet more reason that point 3 won't happen.

5. The global ground infrastructure is not equipped to load/unload cargo from the upper decks of an A380. The tallest hi-loaders (pallet loaders, FMCs, whatever you want to call them) are designed for the B747 main deck - a whole new generation of super-tall, super-strong, super-big, super-expensive hi-loaders would have to be developed, manufactured, purchased and put into service across the world's airports just to cope with a relatively small numbers of A380 freighters. The ground-handling industry is notoriously cut-throat and runs on wafer-thin margins. They will be positively thrilled at the prospect of having to buy a whole new class of super-expensive pallet-loaders just to service one very small fleet of A380 freighters.

6. The combi freighter is dead for a reason. First is the logistics - most airports like a quick turn on their pax bays these days and they are also often a long way away from the cargo sheds, which would mean dragging dozens and dozens of pallets miles across the airport, instead of loading from a cargo bay right in front of the freight shed. Second is that the DG regs today mean there would be so many cargos that you couldn't load on a pax aircraft, it wouldn't be funny. I regularly accept DGs and transport live horses with grooms, and even scheduling the Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) DGs around horse movements (grooms are 'passengers') in a pita. If we had a freighter with 200 pax onboard every flight we would have to refuse so many freight shipments that the forwarders would get 'annoyed' and go somewhere else.

7. The only area of air cargo that is doing well is the e-retail driven express freight market, and that's controlled by huge vertically-integrated multi-nationals like DHL, Fed-Ex and UPS (and possibly now Amazon themselves). These guys don't want A380s - they don't want one or two huge shipments into a port each week, they want a smaller shipment every single night - guaranteed overnight delivery is their whole business model. That's why they use smaller freighters - DHL uses 737s, 757s and 767s, Fed-Ex and UPS from the 737 up to the MD-11 and Amazon just ordered 100 x 767s for the same reason. They want frequency across a wide range of ports, not massive volume between limited international hubs.

I may see an A380 freighter before I retire (I'm 38 now) but I wouldn't put money on it. I actually feel a bit sorry for Airbus - I can see their reasoning for why the A380 will become necessary, but I feel like they were 20 years too early.

[donpizmeov]

The newer EK 380s are burning 12.6T/hr and are carrying max zero fuel weight out to 16hrs (so no blocked seats). The earlier models (first 15?) burn 13 to 13.5t/hr. I can see why SQ would want to swap them out.

[GodDamSlacker]

The 747-800 and the newer B747-400 are burning 12T per hours and carrying 50 T freight on longhaul...its an no brainier...the new gen A350 and B777 will see the end of the A380 but the B747-800 will continue as a freighter

[donpizmeov]

But only 340 bums on seats. The 380 has 525. Also 8 to 10t of freight under the floor. Your old fashioned Boeing had a good life. Time to let it go.

You may need to learn to read a load sheet if you think the 744 carries full seats and 50t of freight on long haul. It is a good story though.

[parabellum]

On a B747-400 flight to Europe, from Singapore, in winter with a near full load, quite often it was on a re-dispatch flight plan and the only cargo was Swift Rider and diplomatic mail.

[Ian W]

Agreed. There are a number of questionable assumptions on the need for the A380 and suggesting it's the only option for moving larger numbers of passengers is one of them.

Another possibility is that airlines will simply bypass the hub to hub model by operating more flights to regional airports.
This is happening already with Narita - Boston route and Virgin want to fly London - Hawaii and there are many more similar examples. These 'thin routes' can be served by direct non-hub flights if the demand is there and both A and B have aircraft that can fly direct from anywhere to anywhere. This siphons off pax that would otherwise go through the hubs who do not want the extra hub layover delays with the attendant risks of flights being missed or luggage lost.

[wiggy]

From some comments I'm sensing a bit of "Concorde" about this...i.e. Popular with many who fly on it, a one off and therefore an icon....so it must not "die"......but arguing about fuel flow, cargo ( and never mind the 744, take a look at the 777) and hubs doesn't change the fact that the brains at Airbus, who have serious skin in the game, have looked at projections, don't see any signs of an upturn and so have dropped the production rate ( and there's still talk in the local press of the line closing within 5 years).

Ultimately the bean counters will decide it's future.

[donpizmeov]

The 777 is more limited on ULR flights than a 744. The 77X costs close to half a billion dollars a piece, a wee bit more than a 380. Airlines do not seem keen to drop this amount of coin on a new aeroplane as financing that amount of debt makes getting a bonus for huge profit hard to achieve.

Smaller aeroplanes are cheaper to purchase, cheaper to operate and easier to manage when times are hard.

Unless the purchase price of the 380 and 77X are reduced substantially, I doubt and large orders are going to be made soon.

[wiggy]

The 777 is more limited on ULR flights than a 744.

Having flown both the 744 and the 777-300 on the SIN-LHR route more than once I think we have might have to agree to disagree (though obviously the 777 doesn't do so well in terms of backsides on seats).

Unless the purchase price of the 380 and 77X are reduced substantially, I doubt and large orders are going to be made soon.

Agreed.

[notapilot15]

The 777 is more limited on ULR flights than a 744. The 77X costs close to half a billion dollars a piece, a wee bit more than a 380. Airlines do not seem keen to drop this amount of coin on a new aeroplane as financing that amount of debt makes getting a bonus for huge profit hard to achieve.

Smaller aeroplanes are cheaper to purchase, cheaper to operate and easier to manage when times are hard.

Unless the purchase price of the 380 and 77X are reduced substantially, I doubt and large orders are going to be made soon.
Boeing and its fanboys may not agree, but B777X is heavily subsidized ($8.2B) by Washington State and sales will be further subsidized by US tax payers thru EXIM bank.

B77W was selling for $130M, so B777X wouldn't be more than $160M.

Even with that kind of discount they didn't sell more than 300 copies, half of which is from Emirates. So this $12B program is a perfect example of All eggs in one basket.

B787 sales is not super hot either, it should be selling 100 copies every year.

[MrSnuggles]

I don't know if this matters to you but Arlanda is planning to expand part of one terminal to be able to handle A380. They want to be the first airport in Scandinavia with this feature, hoping to attract even more passengers.

[p.j.m]

The 747-800 and the newer B747-400 are burning 12T per hours and carrying 50 T freight on longhaul...its an no brainier

No brainer for me as SLF too.

I wont fly as a passenger on a 747, unless there are no other options, I'll change airlines before I fly on a 747. They are old, noisy, dry, and cramped compared to the A380.

[Scuffers]

The newer EK 380s are burning 12.6T/hr and are carrying max zero fuel weight out to 16hrs (so no blocked seats). The earlier models (first 15?) burn 13 to 13.5t/hr. I can see why SQ would want to swap them out.
blimey, thats some difference?

if my maths is right, that's ~1 hour more on fuel - that's pretty significant I would think?

[Goddamnslacker]

A380 Dallas - Sydney 100-150 pax blocked out, no freight - max fuel - max takeoff weight and at time pax bags are on another flight from Dallas via LAX to SYD...

[Capn Bloggs]

A380 Dallas - Sydney 100-150 pax blocked out, no freight - max fuel - max takeoff weight and at time pax bags are on another flight from Dallas via LAX to SYD...
And a 744 could carry all the bags and 400 pax for cheaper?

[sb_sfo]

Westbound?

[Goddamnslacker]

744 carries 120 less pax all bags and 10T freight....I like the A380 its just way to heavy for what it is and its days are gone, the B777 New Gen and A350 will seal its fate...Airlines that have it will be stuck with it

[donpizmeov]

The QF 380s are some of the first off the line. As I have pointed out the new ones have a significant advantage. There is no reduction in ZFW out to 16hrs.

[B-HKD]

744 carries 120 less pax all bags and 10T freight....I like the A380 its just way to heavy for what it is and its days are gone, the B777 New Gen and A350 will seal its fate...Airlines that have it will be stuck with it

560t MTOW on your A380's vs 575t being the highest available option on more recent builds with the 'wing twist'.

EK's ULR birds are all 575t.

The QF 380s are some of the first off the line. As I have pointed out the new ones have a significant advantage. There is no reduction in ZFW out to 16hrs.


Only once EK448/9, DXB-AKL-DXB goes A380 will they have to block rows 80-88. On the westbound sector only. ~16h40.

Not that you dont already know that don :)

[CONSO]

"Boeing and its fanboys may not agree, but B777X is heavily subsidized ($8.2B) by Washington State and sales will be further subsidized by US tax payers thru EXIM bank."

Partly true- but mostly false- EX Im bank makes money ( profit ) almost every year. It is basically a bank swith lost of kmoney to loan- guartantee between nationbs. so while it can be calld a subsidy ( due to government baked funding ), its lending terms and low interest rates still make money in the long run. And AFIK- there is little or no forgiveness absent a major catastrophe.

[deSitter]

I can't believe people defend this thing. Its lunch will be devoured by the 777-9. No one wants la grande baliene du ciel except Emirates, who don't have a real business model.

-drl

[parabellum]

B787 sales is not super hot either, it should be selling 100 copies every year.


But the order book for the B787, even before it flew, was substantial.


Currently B787 orders for 1161 and 455 delivered. (A350 810 orders, delivered 36).

[procede]

@notapilot15

I did not misread. One super hub with the same traffic as two smaller hubs is twice as effective as the two smaller hubs, as if offers twice as many possible connections.

The main issue is effectively using runway capacity. On some routes an RJ might suffice, on some others having an A380 instead of two A330's basically means you can add an RJ or 737 with the same (limited) runway capacity.

Atlanta has had a single A380 flight from Qatar, but then ATL is not (really) runway capacity limited. Availability of gates is a more important issue, especially as they have only one that can handle an A380: Busiest airport can't give biggest airliner a gate - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/02/aviation/delta-air-lines-qatar-airways-atlanta-airport/)

[atakacs]

My thoughts exactly. If they can come up with a reasonable freight conversion it would most likely be a winner.

Also a retrofit to the "neo" spec (I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually) might also be considered.

Just flown the Emirates 2 class 380 and I'd say it has 2 or 3 free seats out of the 615... I'm pretty sure it generates a nice revenue!

[wiggy]

atakacs

We're going around in circles:

If they can come up with a reasonable freight conversion it would most likely be a winner.

That's a heck of an "if"..Have a look at Stuart Midgely's excellent analysis back in permalink #59

lso a retrofit to the "neo" spec (I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually) might also be considered

Many are increasingly sure it won't ( it all depends on whether Emirates will pony up cash/orders) ..In the meantime many at Airbus are putting their efforts into other Airbus products.

[glofish]

All of us Monday morning quarterbacks (ref. airline economics) should stand in front of their mirror and ask a simple question:
If i had to invest 100'000$ in a future leasing fund, in which one would i put my hard earned money?

A380neo
A330neo
A350
B77X
B787
B748

After a honest assessment without any fan factor, come back and contribute your choice.

My standing list is:

A350
B77X
B787

... and my buck stops there very quickly

[donpizmeov]

The market would tend to agree with your 350 and 787 choice gloie.

[notapilot15]

As an investor

A330NEO
B787
A350

Good backlog and A330 is more reliable, less headache to operators than other two.

I would never invest in B777X. If Boeing ever files for Chapter 11, it would be because of B777X.

ps: If NBs are included #1 A320 #2 B737

[ATC Watcher]

Can one of you in the know explains met he difference between buying a A350 and a A330neo today . if you take the 900 version of both types, similar price tag, ( around 300 M$) dimensions , seating ( 440 in Y) , ok range 12.000 km vs 14.000., but that alone cannot be the decisive factor, or is it?
Many good airlines have committed to A330neo ( Delta, TAP, etc..) and it has not even flown yet.

[KenV]

The A350 used to be called XWB, which stands for Extra Wide Body. The A350 has a larger fuselage diameter than A330. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's customers? A350 also has a higher max differential pressure, which results in a lower cabin altitude during cruise. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's customers?

A350 fuselage is also almost all composite. This has certain (promised) maintenance advantages (no corrosion & almost no fatigue issues). Is that a desirable feature for your airline's maintainers? These factors are also promised to result in the composite aircraft holding its value better after 10 years of service. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's bean counters? (assuming of course that the promise is delivered?)

[oldchina]

I would wary of the A330NEO.
In this business one day's stars (727, 757, MD-80 ..) can become tomorrow's dogs almost overnight.
The A330 has had a good run but the NEO is but the last makeover.

[Torquelink]

Can one of you in the know explains met he difference between buying a A350 and a A330neo today . if you take the 900 version of both types, similar price tag, ( around 300 M$) dimensions , seating ( 440 in Y) , ok range 12.000 km vs 14.000., but that alone cannot be the decisive factor, or is it?
Many good airlines have committed to A330neo ( Delta, TAP, etc..) and it has not even flown yet.

And Delta has also ordered the A350. A330neo for the Atlantic and the A350 for Pacific. I imagine that it boils down to range and, possibly, additional long-haul comfort. The A350-900 is also considerably more expensive than the A330-900: $20m - $30m.

[ironbutt57]

I would never invest in B777X. If Boeing ever files for Chapter 11, it would be because of B777X

always a possibility seeing as they don't get handed billions of dollars "launch aid"

[Scuffers]

Can one of you in the know explains met he difference between buying a A350 and a A330neo today . if you take the 900 version of both types, similar price tag, ( around 300 M$) dimensions , seating ( 440 in Y) , ok range 12.000 km vs 14.000., but that alone cannot be the decisive factor, or is it?
Many good airlines have committed to A330neo ( Delta, TAP, etc..) and it has not even flown yet.
A350-900 range is more like 15,000Km vs. 12,000Km for the A330-900Neo

Asside that, not sure I would want to be on an A330 for that kind of long haul.

[oldchina]

The A350 is an A340 replacement.
The A330NEO stays in its present role.

[Mr Mac]

All
Have to agree with all of the SLF comments who have to fly long haul on a regular basis. The 380 is miles in front of the 777 / 747/787 in terms of comfort and climate. As I am still clocking up many miles a year I hope all those promising the demise of the 380 are wrong, for at least another 10 years (will see me retired hopefully if I make it post Brexit !) as going backwards is not that great as a passenger experience. Perhaps if the airline bean counters had to fly in the back on some of these routes where they are putting the Boeings / long haul twins then they would not be so pro them !


With regards the comment about 380 being like Concorde I would have to say as a passenger experience it is better, due to not being so cramped, and will be a better financial return for Airbus. However for speed and the look of the thing I would demure to Concorde obviously.


Regards
Mr Mac

[Una Due Tfc]

A350 can take more freight than A330Neo. It's a direct competitor to the current gen 777 in that regard, although being newer tech it's more frugal obviously.

[peekay4]

Have to agree with all of the SLF comments who have to fly long haul on a regular basis.

SLF comfort is more a function of cabin configuration and service offering rather than the aircraft type, which can be addressed in part through cabin redesign. Emirates F-class 777 is arguably superior than F in A380. Same with F in BA 787 vs. BA A380.

Plus most people aren't very sensitive to cabin pressure differences and noise cancelling headphones equalize any cabin noise issues.

On the other hand if you're stuck in economy...

[Ian W]

@notapilot15

I did not misread. One super hub with the same traffic as two smaller hubs is twice as effective as the two smaller hubs, as if offers twice as many possible connections.

The main issue is effectively using runway capacity. On some routes an RJ might suffice, on some others having an A380 instead of two A330's basically means you can add an RJ or 737 with the same (limited) runway capacity.

Atlanta has had a single A380 flight from Qatar, but then ATL is not (really) runway capacity limited. Availability of gates is a more important issue, especially as they have only one that can handle an A380: Busiest airport can't give biggest airliner a gate - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/02/aviation/delta-air-lines-qatar-airways-atlanta-airport/)

From a hypothetical mathematical point of view one super-hub looks attractive. However, from a real world point of view it is not really that sensible. Geography must be considered - you would not close Seattle and have all interchange traffic instead sent to Atlanta. There is obviously a distance that needs to be considered.
As important is the fragility of a system where a ground-stop due severe weather at a single hub can bring the almost the entire system to a halt.

[Scuffers]

SLF comfort is more a function of cabin configuration and service offering rather than the aircraft type, which can be addressed in part through cabin redesign. Emirates F-class 777 is arguably superior than F in A380. Same with F in BA 787 vs. BA A380.

Plus most people aren't very sensitive to cabin pressure differences and noise cancelling headphones equalize any cabin noise issues.

that's not my experience, unless you dump a seat per row, you simply cannot get the same space per seat, name me a narrow-bodied jet with a layout that's got the same or better seat width as the A380.

A380 is IMHO the quietest, most spacious long-haul plane there is, especially in economy cabins.

Like other have said, if I am going to book a 20+ hour flight, I will specifically pick the flights that are A380 over either 777 or 747, and I simply would not consider anything narrow-bodied, if this means paying a bit more, so be it.

[KenV]

Plus most people aren't very sensitive to cabin pressure differences.....That is (mostly) true of flights of 6 hours or less. Above 6 hours it starts making a difference. Above 10 hours it starts making a big difference. Above 12 hours and it makes a difference to almost everyone, including the flight crew who are theoretically the most well adapted and least sensitive. The 787 (and A350?) also provide a more humid cabin environment. The lower cabin altitude and more humid environment combine to make a big difference on long haul flights.

[DaveReidUK]

Like other have said, if I am going to book a 20+ hour flight, I will specifically pick the flights that are A380 over either 777 or 747

I don't think there's any danger of you being able to book a 20+ hour sector in the foreseeable future.

[tdracer]

Like other have said, if I am going to book a 20+ hour flight, I will specifically pick the flights that are A380 over either 777 or 747, and I simply would not consider anything narrow-bodied, if this means paying a bit more, so be it. But would you turn a 10 hour flight into a 16 hour flight with connections just to fly an A380? Because for most people that's the choice they are making. They can take one airplane to a superhub (likely a narrow body), connect to an A380 (that may not even be going to their final destination, so there could be another connection involved). Or, they can take a big twin non-stop, bypassing the superhub.
In my case, I fly Seattle/Incheon on occasion - I can make a 3 hour flight to LAX on a narrow body and get on an A380 (that will then fly within 150 miles of Seattle on the way to Korea), or I can fly a 777 non-stop Seattle - Incheon and get there in a fraction of the time. I did the LAX stop last year just so I could fly an A380 (and yes, it was quite nice - I was in business class and I loved the vodka bar in the back). But I doubt I'd do it again.:rolleyes:
Seattle is turning into a major hub to the Pacific (it's significantly closer to most of the Pacific Rim/Asian destinations than LA or San Francisco). 20 years ago it was mainly 747s. Today it's nearly all big twins - 777, A330, 767, 787, and the occasional 747. No A380's serve SEA, and that's unlikely to change.

[peekay4]

that's not my experience, unless you dump a seat per row, you simply cannot get the same space per seat, name me a narrow-bodied jet with a layout that's got the same or better seat width as the A380.
Well the 777X cabin is wider than the A380 upper deck cabin where most F and J seats are typically configured.

A380 upper deck cabin width: 5.92m. 777X: 5.97m. 777-200 and -300: 5.87m.

Even on the 787, the slightly narrower cabin doesn't make a difference in F. BA has the same seating config (1-2-1) on both the 787 and A380. The difference is you have 8 seats in the 787 but they cram 14 on the A380. So the service on the 787 is actually a bit better and feels more exclusive.

That is (mostly) true of flights of 6 hours or less. Above 6 hours it starts making a difference. Above 10 hours it starts making a big difference. Above 12 hours and it makes a difference to almost everyone, including the flight crew who are theoretically the most well adapted and least sensitive.

That might be true if you're comparing 6000ft vs 8000ft. But on all aircraft we're talking about in this thread (A350, A380, 787, 777X, 747-400) the design target cabin pressure will all be ~ 6000ft +/- 500, barely noticeable difference for pax, and if anything the A380 will be the worse of the bunch.

[172driver]

A380 is IMHO the quietest, most spacious long-haul plane there is, especially in economy cabins.

Like other have said, if I am going to book a 20+ hour flight, I will specifically pick the flights that are A380 over either 777 or 747, and I simply would not consider anything narrow-bodied, if this means paying a bit more, so be it.

While I've never been in the economy cabin on a 380, so cannot directly compare Scuffer's experience, I totally agree, the noise level and the cabin altitude DO make a huge difference. So does the humidity, where the 747-8 is pretty good (only done one LH flight on this one, not many around). WRT to the 'noise-cancelling' headsets - every tried to sleep with one of them on? Good luck.

[172driver]

But would you turn a 10 hour flight into a 16 hour flight with connections just to fly an A380?

In one word - no. Never. Always fly direct if possible.

[flight_mode]

Sleeping on a flatbed on a 777 is like inserting yourself into a giant vibrator and then switching it on for 12 hrs.

[Dryce]

But would you turn a 10 hour flight into a 16 hour flight with connections just to fly an A380?



Seattle is turning into a major hub to the Pacific (it's significantly closer to most of the Pacific Rim/Asian destinations than LA or San Francisco


There are plenty of people who will have to take at least two sectors to get to their destination.

So flying from Newcastle in the UK to SE Asia then you could go via a European hub AMS, LHR on something like a 737 or A319 and then probably a 777 though possibly a A380.

Or a 777 with Emirates followed by a 777 or A380.

Emirates is sucking business away from the European carriers using DBX as its hub and serving primary as well as secondary airports.

Given the choice between a A319+777 vs a 777+A380 combination there will be many that choose the A380 option.

Or if flying from London - given a choice between a A380 with one carrier and a 777 with another top say SNG or KUL? Who do you choose?

And don't forget our friends Emirates (yet again) offering the option from London to transfer via DBX - some people actually like the break of journey and the A380 out to DBX is a bonus.

[Dryce]

Sleeping on a flatbed on a 777 is like inserting yourself into a giant vibrator and then switching it on for 12 hrs.


Is that good or bad?;)

[peekay4]

WRT to the 'noise-cancelling' headsets - every tried to sleep with one of them on? Good luck.
No problems for me. It depends if you're a side sleeper or not.

Although for me (and I imagine for many others) I actually get better sleep on noisier cabins... the noise drowns out crying babies, chatter, people snoring, IFE, etc., almost like white noise. In fact there are apps out there that mimic cabin noise as sleeping aid. Trying to "quiet down" the cabin is self-defeating from good sleep perspective.

[Andy_S]

Or if flying from London - given a choice between a A380 with one carrier and a 777 with another top say SNG or KUL? Who do you choose?

The reality is that most economy passengers neither know nor care which equipment they're on when they book their flights.

BTW - which would you rather be on? A packed A380 or a 60% full 777?

[Ametyst1]

Price is king these days!

[Una Due Tfc]

Genuine question to anyone here who regularly flies 777 as pax or crew: am I imagining things or is the air particularly dry on the aircraft? The longest sector on a 777 I've paxed on was DXB-DUB, roughly 8 hours and my mouth and nose were drier than Ghandi's sandals. In contrast I flew DUB-SFO on an A330 for 10.5 hours and no such problems.

Don't flame the controller btw for any Jockeys who decide to answer, we're humans too!

[tdracer]

There are plenty of people who will have to take at least two sectors to get to their destination.True, but far fewer than was the case 20 years ago. Point to point is increasing, almost by the day - hence the popularity of the 787 and A350 which were designed as long range point to point aircraft. In spite of it's birthing pains, there are already well over twice as many 787s in service as A380s - and there are precious few point to point routes where you can fill an A380.
When the 747 first came into being, engine reliability was much worse than today and you needed at least 3 engines for long overwater flights, and if you needed long range, the 747 (and to a lesser extent, L1011/DC-10) where the only game in town. With 180+ minute ETOPS, a twin can fly nearly anywhere in the world - and most have the range to do it.

[Dryce]

The reality is that most economy passengers neither know nor care which equipment they're on when they book their flights.


This depends. Plenty of people are no doubt utterly clueless or indifferent.

But there are plenty of people who are flying more regularly on longer sectors and they do start to care about carriers, airports, and equipment. And they talk to family, friends, and colleagues who maybe don't fly so frequently. That probably adds up to more than you'd think.


BTW - which would you rather be on? A packed A380 or a 60% full 777?


Well the suggestion seems to be that the 60% is more likely with an A380!

The reality is that when people book they have no idea how full the flight is. They might infer from a low pricer that it is not. It's sometimes the sectors you think which will be least full on which you can't select a decent seat. And that situation can be fluid even after you checkin on a two sector flight the situation on the second sector may change due to circumnstances. So this 60% or 100% preference scenario isn't really a choice is it?

And it also depends on aircraft config. If booked on a A380 with upstairs economy cabin with 2+4+2 seating you get a better chance of getting a pair of seats - which may be near the front. Whereas on a 777 typically there are a few rows at the rear with 2 seats at the window.

And then there is issue of whose A380 or 777. Some 777s are 3+3+3 in the back (eg. BA) and others are 3+4+3 (eg. Emirates) and ISTR that MAS had 2+5+2. The lower cabin of the A380 will likely be 3+4+3 but wider than the 777 with the same config.

Personally? I assume my flight will be 100% packed. Travelling economy with spouse if the A380 has a 2+4+2 cabin option then that's my prefered choice. More chance of getting a pair of seats at the window up front up top. But it's not always obvious as to what the equipment is before booking.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Sleeping on a flatbed on a 777 is like inserting yourself into a giant vibrator and then switching it on for 12 hrs.
Is that good or bad?I was going to post the same question! I'm still interested in hearing the answer.

FWIW, I'm quite happy with C class in the 380s, 777s and 787s for what I need to do. Though there was that one time I ended up getting booked in SQ F in my own stateroom from FRA-SIN due to IRROPS. An entirely different planetary experience. :ok:

Back to C class, the EK 380s are definitely top-notch, especially with the little Bistro at the back of the upper deck. Yes, their route structure is impressive.

I remember when once upon a time CO offered a mid-court bar and lounge seating on their DC-10s...

[Ian W]

The interior of aircraft and the seating fit, seat pitch and width is entirely the airline's decision. The difference in each airline's approach can be quite considerable. Not all of them are as opulent as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcK51B7-B7w&list=TL04ODCqhmTJg
It is likely that air carriers choosing an aircraft for its frugality are not going to throw that away with a seating fit with reduced pax load. At the same time there are some 'lay flat' bed designs that are poorly thought out. Virgin 330's in business make it impossible for people to sit together and their beds have everyone's feet in the aisle. The filing cabinet draw approach of Delta in their 76's seems to be a better bet if a little claustrophobic.

[KenV]

The interior of aircraft and the seating fit, seat pitch and width is entirely the airline's decision. The difference in each airline's approach can be quite considerable. Not all of them are as opulent as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcK5...=TL04ODCqhmTJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcK51B7-B7w&list=TL04ODCqhmTJg)The video in that link is pure speculation. The one and only VVIP A380 was never outfitted and never delivered.
LINK (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-02-05/airbus-cancels-only-vvip-a380-order)

Airbus Cancels Only VVIP A380 Order | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-02-05/airbus-cancels-only-vvip-a380-order)

FWIW, 8 VIP 747-8 were ordered and delivered. I don't know this to be fact, but I understand that no one is willing to do the A380 interior mod at least partially because none of the companies that specialize in this mod have hangars that can accommodate an A380. Here's link to a video of one of those 747-8 BBJs.
LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzAREBeiSm0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzAREBeiSm0

[Ian W]

Picky :) it was just meant to be an example of what could be done.

Not sure about the numbers but I think that the 747/8 BBJ were some of the first delivered.

[KenV]

Not sure about the numbers but I think that the 747/8 BBJ were some of the first delivered. Some more pickiness: that depends on what you define as "delivered." Boeing delivered incomplete BBJs to completion centers early in the production run. The aircraft were not delivered to the actual customer till well more than a year later.

The main point of my post was to show that because of the A380's fundamental features, things like freighter and VIP versions were not available to fill out the delivery schedule. Those aren't flaws, just simple facts that have made A380 production risky.

[peekay4]

It is likely that air carriers choosing an aircraft for its frugality are not going to throw that away with a seating fit with reduced pax load.
First, as noted before the more "frugal" aircraft could also have a wider interior cabin due to newer design (e.g., 777X).

Also, most airlines offer different classes of service and profit from them in different proportions, even when flying the same type. So in many cases reduced pax load could mean higher total profit, depending on the mix of service.

An example in recent years has been the various "Premium Economy" offerings. E.g. on 787s many airlines have 3-3-3 economy but offer 2-3-2 premium economy seating. By offering more premium economy seating you're effectively reducing pax load but may recoup profitability from the higher revenue service.

The service mix depends on the airline and route. E.g., ANA for short domestic 787-9 service decided to cram as many seats as possible so no premium economy seating is offered at all. For international service they have a few rows of 2-3-2 premium economy, a large business class section, but no first class.

On the same 787-9, British Airways decided to have fewer regular (3-3-3) economy seats, an expanded number of premium economy 2-3-2 seating (double that of ANA's), plus business and first classes.

Then there are airlines like United cramming even their premium economy on the 787-9 in 3-3-3 seating, just staggered a bit.

So it's not a given that an airline choosing a more frugal type will necessarily compromise on service, as we've seen on the 787-9 alone there are many possible configurations and mix of services.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

I have flown quite a few legs EK, to Dubai, 777, and further after (once) with EK, to Singapore, (and back to LHR) A380, and there is no way on earth that I'd fly that distance again 777.

Econ all the way 380, and it was a different long haul experience. I know if I went out on my hols that I would arrive in far better shape to enjoy them due A380. I would pay for the better travel any time

[Metro man]

A330/340 for me with the 2-4-2 configuration, couples chair by the window. A350 lovely aircraft as is the A380. B777 okay in 3-3-3 configuration but too tight in 3-4-3, check on SeatGuru before booking.

B787 okay for short haul in 3-3-3, certainly preferable to a narrow body, but too tight for long haul.

I would rather have 2x 7 hour legs in an A330 with a 3 hour connection in the middle where I can have a session in the gym and something to eat in the lounge than endure a 14 hour direct flight crammed in like sardines. For ultra long haul a night in the transit hotel in between two 10 hour sectors is essential and far cheaper than business class.

Choose you airline, aircraft type and flight timings carefully and you will feel the benefit on arrival.

[Tom Bangla]

Sleeping on a flatbed on a 777 is like inserting yourself into a giant vibrator and then switching it on for 12 hrs.
Do you have sufficient experience of both to justify the comparison?

[uffington sb]

Mrs Uffers and I are travelling DXB - AKL (17 hours!) in business class in late December. It was originally a T7, but thankfully it has been changed to a 388.
We travelled with QR DOH - MEL in a T7 a couple of years ago, but that was in a 2-2-2 configuration so not too cramped. EK fly theirs in a 2-3-2 so it looks on videos very cramped and I must admit I wasn't looking forward to the trip.
We've flown in a QR 388 in business and
I like the idea of the bar area as you can walk around and chat to fellow travelers and bar staff. In a T7, the only option is to walk through economy, tripping over feet or banging heads or to loiter by the toilets, or the galley area were the FA's are having a break/meal. All not ideal on a long haul flight so an A-380 works for me.

[p.j.m]

The reality is that most economy passengers neither know nor care which equipment they're on when they book their flights.

BTW - which would you rather be on? A packed A380 or a 60% full 777?
My last trip to Europe with Emirates was A380 Sydney to Dubai and B777 to Venice.

The B777 was experience was terrible (only marginally better than the B747). Noisy, dry, cramped. The only savings grace was I managed to get a double seat at the back of the aircraft, with no one sitting next to me. I was lucky, all the other double seats were full.

The A380's there and back were superb, quiet, spacious, better atmosphere altogether.

[p.j.m]

Do you have sufficient experience of both to justify the comparison?
I can confirm flying in a B777 is exactly like that, it is also "hot" inside them. Terrible experience.