Qantas sick of the 380
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus thought they would produce and market a B747 replacement, with a similar market to the B747. Boeing had serious doubts about the commercial viability of an Extra Large Aircraft and suggested to Airbus a Boeing/Airbus consortium to investigate viability, Airbus declined and said they would continue with the A380 on their own. Shortly after that decision Boeing reviewed their position, consulted the customer base and canceled their plans for an A380 competitor.
Airbus did not accept that the B747 replacement was already defined in the shape of the B777 and to a lesser extent the A330/A340, despite airlines like SIA ordering the B777 in large numbers and reducing their B747-400 fleet by equally large numbers.
The A380 has only a niche market. The airlines do, of course, welcome the arrival of the aircraft, provided it remains fully supported. They have specific routes they use it on , the UK-Australia route for one and it has great passenger appeal, but they will never order it in the same quantities as they did the B747-400, SIA won't have fleets as large as their previous B747-400 fleets at their peak, (52 pax aircraft), they and others like them only require the A380 in considerably smaller numbers.
I believe Airbus said originally that they needed around 269 sales to break even but since that figure was announced they have had major budget overrun and major penalty payments to customers to cost in, not to mention the discounts they will have offered launch customers just to get the order book going. How many orders to date? After Farnborough less than 240 and they are still mired in technical difficulties. It is highly unlikely they will ever reach break even whatever the revised number must now be, closer to 500 aircraft I would suspect.
Technically the A380 may be ahead of the market in many respects but it is leading Airbus Industries into very serious financial trouble and commercially the A380 is a dead duck.
There is no doubt that when it's problems are sorted the A380 will be technically way ahead until the others catch up. The problem is that the A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with a similar size of market and that is not going to happen. The future of the A380 lies with the airlines and they only require this aircraft for a niche market that is not big enough to generate sufficient orders to enable the project to break even.
Technically excellent, possibly, unrivaled passenger appeal (even though it looks wrong!), commercially, for Airbus, a dinosaur.
My 2cents worth.
Airbus did not accept that the B747 replacement was already defined in the shape of the B777 and to a lesser extent the A330/A340, despite airlines like SIA ordering the B777 in large numbers and reducing their B747-400 fleet by equally large numbers.
The A380 has only a niche market. The airlines do, of course, welcome the arrival of the aircraft, provided it remains fully supported. They have specific routes they use it on , the UK-Australia route for one and it has great passenger appeal, but they will never order it in the same quantities as they did the B747-400, SIA won't have fleets as large as their previous B747-400 fleets at their peak, (52 pax aircraft), they and others like them only require the A380 in considerably smaller numbers.
I believe Airbus said originally that they needed around 269 sales to break even but since that figure was announced they have had major budget overrun and major penalty payments to customers to cost in, not to mention the discounts they will have offered launch customers just to get the order book going. How many orders to date? After Farnborough less than 240 and they are still mired in technical difficulties. It is highly unlikely they will ever reach break even whatever the revised number must now be, closer to 500 aircraft I would suspect.
Technically the A380 may be ahead of the market in many respects but it is leading Airbus Industries into very serious financial trouble and commercially the A380 is a dead duck.
There is no doubt that when it's problems are sorted the A380 will be technically way ahead until the others catch up. The problem is that the A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with a similar size of market and that is not going to happen. The future of the A380 lies with the airlines and they only require this aircraft for a niche market that is not big enough to generate sufficient orders to enable the project to break even.
Technically excellent, possibly, unrivaled passenger appeal (even though it looks wrong!), commercially, for Airbus, a dinosaur.
My 2cents worth.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many have Emirates ordered to service their niche market? like it or not it is here to stay.
Wiz although you may have paxed in the 380 once or twice, (and most probably did so in preference to riding in the back of our older Boeing product), I don't think this makes you an expert in the cost comparisons between the new Flagship and your older has been. When you get time, check out the fare difference between Y, J and 1st on any sector the 380 flies. This is where it makes the money as it holds more of the punters with the cash than the 777 (some 34 extra j class and 6 extra 1st. This is in addition to the 47 extra pax carried in y class to your entire 3 class 773) . If as you say we get them for cheaper than 777 wouldn't that also help it compete with the bottom line?
Daily it seems that I am told some new "factual" information about the 380 from some 777 pilot. Are your 777 FCOMs this extensive?
The 777 is a great aeroplane. Don't feel bad that some new kid on the block has come along and made you question your Boeing propaganda. The good news is that when we get all the 350s you to will get a chance to once again fly a bus product, and when your seniority increases you to may get to become a mighty 380 driver!!!
the don
(not a 380 driver or a 777 driver)
Daily it seems that I am told some new "factual" information about the 380 from some 777 pilot. Are your 777 FCOMs this extensive?
The 777 is a great aeroplane. Don't feel bad that some new kid on the block has come along and made you question your Boeing propaganda. The good news is that when we get all the 350s you to will get a chance to once again fly a bus product, and when your seniority increases you to may get to become a mighty 380 driver!!!
the don
(not a 380 driver or a 777 driver)
don,
Did you actually read what I wrote about the A380?
How it is profitable if you fill it with sufficient high yield passengers?
Isn't that exactley what you have said, while somehow trying to suggest what I said was wrong?
I don't need an FCOM to compare the fuel efficiency of the two aircraft. We run 777s and A380s on the same routes in many cases, and it takes no more than pulling the flight plans of two flights on the same day on the same route to show that the A380 simply does not have anything approaching the "lowest fuel burn per passenger". This was stated and is simply false, do you dispute that?
The A380 has great passenger appeal, the bar is nice, and being able to have a shower is loverly.
So I guess I should admit that it is pofitable on the right routes for the right carriers..... Oh wait!! That's EXACTLEY what I said, only to be told by you I was wrong!!
ETA:- You might have noticed most of my post was an analysis of "Charlie Fly Away"'s "Factual Analysis" of the A380- And faced with this, he has chosen to delete his posts!!
Did you actually read what I wrote about the A380?
How it is profitable if you fill it with sufficient high yield passengers?
Isn't that exactley what you have said, while somehow trying to suggest what I said was wrong?
I don't need an FCOM to compare the fuel efficiency of the two aircraft. We run 777s and A380s on the same routes in many cases, and it takes no more than pulling the flight plans of two flights on the same day on the same route to show that the A380 simply does not have anything approaching the "lowest fuel burn per passenger". This was stated and is simply false, do you dispute that?
The A380 has great passenger appeal, the bar is nice, and being able to have a shower is loverly.
So I guess I should admit that it is pofitable on the right routes for the right carriers..... Oh wait!! That's EXACTLEY what I said, only to be told by you I was wrong!!
ETA:- You might have noticed most of my post was an analysis of "Charlie Fly Away"'s "Factual Analysis" of the A380- And faced with this, he has chosen to delete his posts!!
Last edited by Wizofoz; 5th Oct 2010 at 19:40.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now... I am beginning to worry about the title of the thread....
I nominate dropping the first word.... say "sick of the A380?"
Qantas sick of the 380
I nominate dropping the first word.... say "sick of the A380?"
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost per Economy seat on an Emirates 777 may be lower than for an Emirates A380, but Emirates does operate the 777s in a high density 10 abreast configuration. If they could find some way of making the A380s 11 abreast (which you might hope they will never do).... Emirates said they are still interested in the bigger A380 with 100 extra seats. The stretched aircraft will be the one that gives the best economics.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas isn't sick of it, they just wished the idiots who were in charge a few years ago put more seats in them.
As for the showers Qantas don't have and wont have them, and they are causing Emirates a fair bit of grief with leakage issues. What a great place to put them, right near the avionics bays and cockpit.
The pax numbers on the 380 have been pretty damn good of late and no doubt 50-100 extra seats right now would be welcome. I believe we are getting 3 more aircraft before christmas if Airbus can pull it off, 10 will come in february and 11 and 12 later next year.
Aircraft 13 and onward would already have started to be manufactured so any rumour that they will stop at 12 is a load of crap.
When #13 arrives it will be used to fill in the gap as aircraft 1-12 are reconfigured with 50 extra seats. I have heard bizzo will reduce in size, premium economy will move forward and have extra and the aft end of the upper deck will become economy like SIA.
13-20 won't have first class. This is a great for engineers decision as it is a very labour intensive cabin to keep looking good and they are a total pain in the butt to work on
As for the showers Qantas don't have and wont have them, and they are causing Emirates a fair bit of grief with leakage issues. What a great place to put them, right near the avionics bays and cockpit.
The pax numbers on the 380 have been pretty damn good of late and no doubt 50-100 extra seats right now would be welcome. I believe we are getting 3 more aircraft before christmas if Airbus can pull it off, 10 will come in february and 11 and 12 later next year.
Aircraft 13 and onward would already have started to be manufactured so any rumour that they will stop at 12 is a load of crap.
When #13 arrives it will be used to fill in the gap as aircraft 1-12 are reconfigured with 50 extra seats. I have heard bizzo will reduce in size, premium economy will move forward and have extra and the aft end of the upper deck will become economy like SIA.
13-20 won't have first class. This is a great for engineers decision as it is a very labour intensive cabin to keep looking good and they are a total pain in the butt to work on
A380,
I assume you mean in two class?
Two flights to LHR this morning:-
The A380 Flight fuel was 83.8 tonnes, the 777 was 54.7.
If the A380 had 650 seats, it would have used 129kg fuel/pax.
A two class 777 holds 440. That would be 124kg fuel/pax.
If we went max certified (850 in the A380, 550 in the 777) it comes out about line ball, the A380 about 1% in front, the difference being you coul;dn't fir 850 pax bags in the A380, whereas the 777 would take it's 550 PLUS frieght.
So even your theoretical aircraft under no circumstances "Blows away" the 777.
The claim wasn't the A380 "Will" or "Could" deliver the best seat-fuel burn, but that it DOES.
It doesn't.
I seem to remember Airbus bandying those kind of figures when it was launched, but I can't find a reference, so I'll concede that one.
Oh, and every new 300ER has had a negative fuel degredation- on book figures that were already better than Boeings original predictions.
Dude, you fly a good aeroplane to nice places. It's going to be good for EK. It is NOT some quantam leap in efficiency.
If we get a 650 seat version or greater - it will blow the 777 out of the water.
Two flights to LHR this morning:-
The A380 Flight fuel was 83.8 tonnes, the 777 was 54.7.
If the A380 had 650 seats, it would have used 129kg fuel/pax.
A two class 777 holds 440. That would be 124kg fuel/pax.
If we went max certified (850 in the A380, 550 in the 777) it comes out about line ball, the A380 about 1% in front, the difference being you coul;dn't fir 850 pax bags in the A380, whereas the 777 would take it's 550 PLUS frieght.
So even your theoretical aircraft under no circumstances "Blows away" the 777.
The claim wasn't the A380 "Will" or "Could" deliver the best seat-fuel burn, but that it DOES.
It doesn't.
At no time did Airbus tell anyone that the 380 would have a 10t burn.
Oh, and every new 300ER has had a negative fuel degredation- on book figures that were already better than Boeings original predictions.
Dude, you fly a good aeroplane to nice places. It's going to be good for EK. It is NOT some quantam leap in efficiency.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting that when Boeing first introduced the 747 it was 50% larger than any other aircraft on the market. Thank goodness PPRuNe wasn't around then. Can you imagine all the naysayers - "IT WILL NEVER WORK - TOOOO BIG BLAH BLAH BLAH"
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the economics of QF380s are about to change . . .
Qantas to cut A380 flight attendants
Matt O'Sullivan
October 6, 2010
QANTAS will cut the number of cabin crew on its flagship A380 aircraft despite unions raising fears about an ''inferior service'' due to a heavier workload for staff.
The airline plans to reduce flight attendants on the aircraft from 22 to 21 late next month; it has cut cabin crew levels on its A330-300 planes from 10 to nine.
The international flight attendants' union says the reductions are likely to increase stress among cabin crew faced with ''already challenging service requirements''. It said they raised ''potential safety implications'' and could lead to an ''inferior service on board''.
The Flight Attendants Association of Australia said ''a desire to obtain costs savings in the face of a difficult international flying environment'' was the key reason for Qantas's decision. It has been arguing against the reductions in crew levels for months.
The A380s are seen as giving Qantas an advantage in the lucrative business travel market on key routes to Los Angeles and London. Singapore Airlines has cabin crews of 23 on each of its A380s.
A Qantas spokesman said the changes were ''above or in line'' with Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements and had been ''planned so they will not impact our high in-flight customer service''.
Matt O'Sullivan
October 6, 2010
QANTAS will cut the number of cabin crew on its flagship A380 aircraft despite unions raising fears about an ''inferior service'' due to a heavier workload for staff.
The airline plans to reduce flight attendants on the aircraft from 22 to 21 late next month; it has cut cabin crew levels on its A330-300 planes from 10 to nine.
The international flight attendants' union says the reductions are likely to increase stress among cabin crew faced with ''already challenging service requirements''. It said they raised ''potential safety implications'' and could lead to an ''inferior service on board''.
The Flight Attendants Association of Australia said ''a desire to obtain costs savings in the face of a difficult international flying environment'' was the key reason for Qantas's decision. It has been arguing against the reductions in crew levels for months.
The A380s are seen as giving Qantas an advantage in the lucrative business travel market on key routes to Los Angeles and London. Singapore Airlines has cabin crews of 23 on each of its A380s.
A Qantas spokesman said the changes were ''above or in line'' with Civil Aviation Safety Authority requirements and had been ''planned so they will not impact our high in-flight customer service''.
Last edited by Pedota; 6th Oct 2010 at 11:17. Reason: Incompetence
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which loosely translates to work your staff harder for less money, keep them tired, fatigued and disengaged which in turn pisses off customers.
Good job boys. There are only so many bricks that hold up a wall and sooner or later, it will come crashing down.
Good job boys. There are only so many bricks that hold up a wall and sooner or later, it will come crashing down.
Yes it is quieter than a 747-400 designed in the mid 80s- how about comparing it to a contemporary aircraft!
The airline plans to reduce flight attendants on the aircraft from 22 to 21 late next month; it has cut cabin crew levels on its A330-300 planes from 10 to nine.
The FAAA's take on changing economics of the A380/A330. [de-crewing]
Attention all Long Haul Cabin Crew
A330 AND A380 REDUCED CREW
Members would be aware via the FAAA and recent media reports that the Company has decided to remove a crew member from the A330 and A380 aircraft.
This comes at a time when the Australian dollar is travelling at the highest point in many years, the cost of fuel is down on previous highs and aircraft are full everyday as a result of increased confidence and the power of the Australian dollar.
Furthermore, you would not be aware unless you had logged into a crew voice that the level of engagement of Cabin crew is once again sliding towards 2004 levels. Dissatisfaction with the way we are being managed coupled with the now reduced crew numbers should make for an interesting impact on the next engagement survey later in the year.
It beggars belief that whilst Qantas has the lofty ideal of being the world's best premium carrier that we could reduce the crew that are the 'very' product that is the purpose of the whole bloody airline.
How less crew can improve service levels is quite frankly beyond me as a CSM and your elected spokesperson.
I noted with some chagrin that an invitation arrived via email to a cocktail evening with the "leadership team' to celebrate our contribution to service excellence. I presume a number of my OBM colleagues have been similarly invited. I will not be attending and I would suggest that those of you that feel similarly slapped in the face for our hard work might want to take a similar principled stand and do likewise. Many of you have asked what can we do to let the Company know how we feel and clearly this is one way.
Normally these things are a way of thanking OBM's for their efforts as often these efforts involve much or their own time and a huge personal commitment. Sadly with my colleagues being required to work harder with fewer resources with this de-crewing, I don't think that there is anything I am particularly keen to celebrate.
This reduction in crew will have direct impact on our flight attendant colleagues and we want you to know that the FAAA will be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous decision reviewed by Senior Management.
Finally, for purposes of comparing our reduced crewing (on the A380) to Singapore Airlines and Emirates (the two that Qantas likes to make comparisons with); we inform members Singapore Airlines operates with 23 crew on its A380 and Emirates operates with 24 crew plus two cabin crew assistants.
Our management has decided that 21 crew are enough on our self proclaimed flagship, the A380 and that 9 crew are sufficient on the A300-300. Another brilliant decision that will aid us to compete with Emirates and Singapore Airlines. No wonder we mere mortal cabin crew only get 3% pay rises but senior executives get massive increases. Obviously, they deserve their big increases based on brilliant strategic decisions like de-crewing.
Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division
A330 AND A380 REDUCED CREW
Members would be aware via the FAAA and recent media reports that the Company has decided to remove a crew member from the A330 and A380 aircraft.
This comes at a time when the Australian dollar is travelling at the highest point in many years, the cost of fuel is down on previous highs and aircraft are full everyday as a result of increased confidence and the power of the Australian dollar.
Furthermore, you would not be aware unless you had logged into a crew voice that the level of engagement of Cabin crew is once again sliding towards 2004 levels. Dissatisfaction with the way we are being managed coupled with the now reduced crew numbers should make for an interesting impact on the next engagement survey later in the year.
It beggars belief that whilst Qantas has the lofty ideal of being the world's best premium carrier that we could reduce the crew that are the 'very' product that is the purpose of the whole bloody airline.
How less crew can improve service levels is quite frankly beyond me as a CSM and your elected spokesperson.
I noted with some chagrin that an invitation arrived via email to a cocktail evening with the "leadership team' to celebrate our contribution to service excellence. I presume a number of my OBM colleagues have been similarly invited. I will not be attending and I would suggest that those of you that feel similarly slapped in the face for our hard work might want to take a similar principled stand and do likewise. Many of you have asked what can we do to let the Company know how we feel and clearly this is one way.
Normally these things are a way of thanking OBM's for their efforts as often these efforts involve much or their own time and a huge personal commitment. Sadly with my colleagues being required to work harder with fewer resources with this de-crewing, I don't think that there is anything I am particularly keen to celebrate.
This reduction in crew will have direct impact on our flight attendant colleagues and we want you to know that the FAAA will be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous decision reviewed by Senior Management.
Finally, for purposes of comparing our reduced crewing (on the A380) to Singapore Airlines and Emirates (the two that Qantas likes to make comparisons with); we inform members Singapore Airlines operates with 23 crew on its A380 and Emirates operates with 24 crew plus two cabin crew assistants.
Our management has decided that 21 crew are enough on our self proclaimed flagship, the A380 and that 9 crew are sufficient on the A300-300. Another brilliant decision that will aid us to compete with Emirates and Singapore Airlines. No wonder we mere mortal cabin crew only get 3% pay rises but senior executives get massive increases. Obviously, they deserve their big increases based on brilliant strategic decisions like de-crewing.
Written by Steven Reed - President International Division
and authorised by Michael Mijatov - Secretary International Division
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last secretary
offered a no smile day(not being happy with management), the current president is not accepting a cocktail.
A STATEMENT WITH A HUGE IMPACT!!!!!
maybe start throwing a handbag might help
A STATEMENT WITH A HUGE IMPACT!!!!!
maybe start throwing a handbag might help
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How bout instead of refusing to go to a cocktail party... the FAAA actually start demanding a reduction in service to reflect the reduction of cabin crew? Would that not be a simple cause-and-effect argument?
Or how bout this:
They want us to significantly increase our productivity through de-crewing, then give us a pay rise to reflect said productivity increase. We have been through de-crewing time and time again, yet the FAAA has never addressed the increased workload effectively.
The FAAA is a toothless tiger... lots of ROAR.. no BITE
I am sure management will be devastated he wont attend the cocktail party
Or how bout this:
They want us to significantly increase our productivity through de-crewing, then give us a pay rise to reflect said productivity increase. We have been through de-crewing time and time again, yet the FAAA has never addressed the increased workload effectively.
The FAAA is a toothless tiger... lots of ROAR.. no BITE
I am sure management will be devastated he wont attend the cocktail party
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Point Cart !
Its not long ago..... back in 2002 when we were DE CREWED on the 763 from 8 to 7. This turned out to be an absolute debacle when the aircraft was FULL. The whole "safety" premise went down the S-bend when you have the rear galley unattended for 2 hour periods whilst the crew sprint from one end of the tube to the other ....all in the name of EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE.
As for the FAAA -they did zip then and now boycotting a cocktail party.....pleeeeeze
Why don't they boycott the cosy little Chrissie drinks held each year at the bunker with the so called "enemy".
The only ones to benefit in this exercise is JLB, Tarantula, Terminator and Fat Boy Slim.
A great example of balls is the A330 F/O slamming JQ in todays SMH
Come on Guardian....time to polish off those literary skills and fire one off to the broadsheets........or are you also caught in the Black Widows web like the rest of your "team".
Hand Bags at 50 paces
Its not long ago..... back in 2002 when we were DE CREWED on the 763 from 8 to 7. This turned out to be an absolute debacle when the aircraft was FULL. The whole "safety" premise went down the S-bend when you have the rear galley unattended for 2 hour periods whilst the crew sprint from one end of the tube to the other ....all in the name of EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE.
As for the FAAA -they did zip then and now boycotting a cocktail party.....pleeeeeze
Why don't they boycott the cosy little Chrissie drinks held each year at the bunker with the so called "enemy".
The only ones to benefit in this exercise is JLB, Tarantula, Terminator and Fat Boy Slim.
A great example of balls is the A330 F/O slamming JQ in todays SMH
Come on Guardian....time to polish off those literary skills and fire one off to the broadsheets........or are you also caught in the Black Widows web like the rest of your "team".
Hand Bags at 50 paces