Boeing Mulls Stretching 777 to Knock Out Airbus A380

[SeenItAll]

I keep hearing the A380 supporters arguing that it improves efficiency at slot-restricted airports. But this may not be so. Due to wake turbulence, aircraft following a Super must generally maintain larger distance separations than when following Heavies. Further, gate and taxiway limitations may also increase Super handling costs and thus reduce airport efficiencies.

Finally, to quote Juan Trippe of PanAm -- what he means by aircraft "payload" is not the total weight carried, but the load that pays. It doesn't really matter what is more comfortable for the PAX, if the extra amount they are willing to pay for extra comfort does not exceed the extra cost of providing this comfort, the airline ain't gonna provide it. Further, this calculation is based on how much the average customer values this comfort and is willing to pay for it. If an individual customer (or small groups of customers) has a higher valuation, the airline is happy to accommodate them in Business or First Class (at their rates). They will not accommodate them by improving the overall comfort of Coach.

[glofish]

As a passenger, if the choice is between a B777 and an A380, then there is no choice, A380 every time.

... And between a 380 and a modern BBJ it will be the latter hands down.

When will people start to understand that you can fit a bar, a shower and more insulation layers even into an old Tupolev! It all comes down to if this superior luxury can offset its higher cost with a better yield. So as long as the seat is offered at the same price, logically enough any sane slf will chose the more luxurious outfit.
Unfortunately the recent booking numbers show the better yielding seats not full, but the eco seats chronically overbooked by a fair number. The flights leave full, but there are doubts about the required yield to offset the higher cost of the better equipped 4-holer.
We will not know the effective numbers, no management disclose that, but the nomination of the renowned crisis manager C. Mueller, the drop in revenue (in %) and occupancy in the last years report and now the rumoured recruitment stop for CC tell a certain story that is sustained by ever louder rumours from the bounty castle.
Is it a surprise that this coincides with an apparent possibility of a manufacturing stop for the whale and Boeing boasting a bigger version of the T7? I guess not.

Some dreamers still try to defy basic physics and the resulting economics, but the hard reality seems to give the 4-holers a tough time, just as it does to the CEO of EK who titled all other managers not going for the 380 as silly .........

[philbky]

I keep hearing the A380 supporters arguing that it improves efficiency at slot-restricted airports. But this may not be so. Due to wake turbulence, aircraft following a Super must generally maintain larger distance separations than when following Heavies. Further, gate and taxiway limitations may also increase Super handling costs and thus reduce airport efficiencies.

The wake turbulence argument is a marginal one given the large reduction in the number of 747s in service so, on a one for one basis, the actual distance required for a greater number of A380s would not impact as much on slots as the 747 did when it was introduced. The argument could easily have been used for the arrival of the smaller wide bodies and anything else replacing the 707/DC8 fleets and wake turbulence didn't really trouble LHR and other European airport slots, when BA replaced its Tridents with 757s which required greater separations.

As far as gate and taxiway limitations are concerned, this exercised both Airbus and airport managements over 20 years ago. Whilst fillets are required for many taxiway turnouts, the gate imprint of an A380 was deliberately constrained to the space required by the 747-400, something the 77X cannot offer without the extra costs and maintenance of folding wingtips.

As for jetways, turn round costs etc., it is interesting that airports such as Auckland for instance, which is not slot constrained, which every day handles 3 x A380s at once at a moderate sized terminal, campaigned hard to get its A380 services for the increase in passenger throughput with no increase in movements or environmental impact.

Slot constraints without the availability of super sized aircraft reduce income for airlines and airports are a recipe for a static or even a declining industry and that goes against all the predictions of the growth the industry expects.

[Enos]

Philbky

You are right AKL is not slot constrained, but it just so happens that BNE MEL and SYD are.

There's about a 9hr window for arrivals and departures in and out of DXB that connect Europe with OZ.

So rather than have the aircraft sitting around on contested ramps attracting absorbatant parking fees they fly them 3hrs to AKL clean them and fly them back to OZ dumping seats on the market and code shares with QF.

This way the passengers leave Europe arrive in OZ at the right time and vs versa.

Cheers Enos

[172driver]

I would be interested to see -but am not holdign my breath is the premium pax view on the 380 vs T7 from premium heavy airlines like BA and AF , LH dont have T7s so hard to include them .

You asked, so I'll bite and jump in. I do a fair amount of long haul travel in Premium Eco / Biz and the 380 simply beats the T7 hands down. May have to do with the lower noise level, also that AFAIK the cabin flies lower. After 12 hours or so you simply arrive in better shape exiting a 380 than a T7.

[philbky]

Philbky

You are right AKL is not slot constrained, but it just so happens that BNE MEL and SYD are.

There's about a 9hr window for arrivals and departures in and out of DXB that connect Europe with OZ.

So rather than have the aircraft sitting around on contested ramps attracting absorbatant parking fees they fly them 3hrs to AKL clean them and fly them back to OZ dumping seats on the market and code shares with QF.

This way the passengers leave Europe arrive in OZ at the right time and vs versa.

Cheers Enos

Whilst what you say regarding what happens to the aircraft in Auckland is true, the rest is far too simplistic a relating of the story. The Auckland Airport Authority was looking for new services to connect to Europe, only ANZ offering a once a day through plane service over LAX. Other routes involved changing in Australia, Singapore or Hong Kong often with extended layovers.

As you say, Emirates had three aircraft doing nothing in Australia for long periods and, seemingly they were happy with this. The Auckland Airport Authority approached Emirates and offered slots and reasonable charges. They had to make a sound case for each route which took some time and negotiation. The benefit for the airport was not only the easy connection to Europe over Dubai but the uplift on the Australia- New Zealand sector which helped reduce the numbers of 737/A320 flights between the two countries by up to 600 flights a year, important in a country with strong environmental credentials. How do I know this? Because my cousin was Chair of the Authority at the time and initiated and saw through the negotiations.

The New Zealand - Europe market is now so strong for Emirates that an additional service has been started direct to and from Dubai, currently the world's longest non stop service. The story of that service is here. Emirates Launches Milestone Dubai-Auckland Non-Stop Route

[Methersgate]

Originally Posted by philbky

Whilst what you say regarding what happens to the aircraft in Auckland is true, the rest is far too simplistic a relating of the story. The Auckland Airport Authority was looking for new services to connect to Europe, only ANZ offering a once a day through plane service over LAX. Other routes involved changing in Australia, Singapore or Hong Kong often with extended layovers.

As you say, Emirates had three aircraft doing nothing in Australia for long periods and, seemingly they were happy with this. The Auckland Airport Authority approached Emirates and offered slots and reasonable charges. They had to make a sound case for each route which took some time and negotiation. The benefit for the airport was not only the easy connection to Europe over Dubai but the uplift on the Australia- New Zealand sector which helped reduce the numbers of 737/A320 flights between the two countries by up to 600 flights a year, important in a country with strong environmental credentials. How do I know this? Because my cousin was Chair of the Authority at the time and initiated and saw through the negotiations.

The New Zealand - Europe market is now so strong for Emirates that an additional service has been started direct to and from Dubai, currently the world's longest non stop service. The story of that service is here. Emirates Launches Milestone Dubai-Auckland Non-Stop Route

"The intelligent mis-use of aeroplanes" in practice.

My son. a merchant navy officer joining his ship, took that flight last Thursday, having flown LGW/DXB on a 380 - afaik EK have just started putting 380s into LGW. He will now go out of his way to seek out 380s.

[notapilot15]

@philbky

Less than 1% of LHR movements are A380s. Rest of the 99% have no plans to buy A380s because LHR is slot restricted. This is with LHR charging same airport fees for A320/B737 and A380.

It is not easy to fill a VLA through out the year without trashing yields. Good for airlines who want to dump capacity on others. Not so good for airlines who need to earn for living.

[philbky]

Less than 1% of LHR movements are A380s.

i got that point when you first made it, not that it wasn't something I knew already.

Heathrow is already slot restricted with no room for expansion without a third runway - something you may have missed. 9/11 and the 2008 recession co-incided with a migration fron 4 engines to twins on the grounds of economy and the slow decline of the 747 in passenger service. Airlines which flew the 747 and migrated to twins are flying aircraft with fewer seats. The bean counters like twins, even with fewer seats, on the basis of reduced cost per seat mile.

However traffic is now growing and with smaller seating capacities offered the demand will be for more flights into slot constrained airports. Common sense says the equation doesn't work, something has to give.

[notapilot15]

@philbky

I understand what you are trying to say, but A380 is not the cure all. Your theory is academic in nature and your own example (747 to twins) proves trend is against VLAs.

Hypothetical example. If flybe sees a DHC6 as a viable plane to Barra, it is going to operate a DHC6 to Barra. Doesn't matter how big the other airport is, what problems it has, how great A380 CASM. All are irrelevant data points.

LHR can charge same for A380 and DHC6 to encourage VLAs over others, BUT it is up to the airline.

There is no way airlines going to invest in VLAs to help out LHR. They will go to different airport or different country.

Mega hub model never going to work forever. Competitors will start long thin non-stops which will nibble into hub feeds.

BTW, you missed the point that EK can only offer one-stop between AKL-Europe just like other 6th freedom carriers. Only ANZ can offer more non-stops.

[Andy_S]

Originally Posted by philbky

Common sense says the equation doesn't work, something has to give.

Indeed. What will probably happen (is already happening in fact) is more point to point travel.

[recceguy]

Airbus will survive the misfortunes of the 380 - they sold about 200 aircraft yesterday at Farnborough...

[flight_mode]

I know you guys all think accountants run your airline, it's easy to see how that conclusion is reached but ultimately it's the passenger. No Pax = No Airline. Airlines can operate without accountants, but not without passengers.

EK had a twice daily service from ZRH, 1 T7 and 1 A380. now they have 2 half full A380's. Why? because frequent flyers and premium Pax simply stopped taking the 777, in the knowledge that if they departed 6 hours later they'd have a much better journey.

Same with ZRH-SIN you have two direct options, LX in their flying shed or SQ's A380. In C and F it's really a no brainer, no premium pax is ever going to choose* the pitiful C or F cabins on LX with their tiny IFE screens, narrow seats and ikea wardrobe bathrooms when they can be on the silent upper deck of a A380 with direct aisle access, huge bed, huge screen, huge wash room and a chef.

LX have responded to this by replacing their 340’s with the T7, but with exactly the same crappy cabins. Error. LX still fill their premium cabins, but how many are actually paying for it? They’re offering Y PAX discounted upgrades on check-in and then at the gate upgrading top tier Y PAX. SQ don’t.

*Many are constrained by company travel policy.

[notapilot15]

Well, we can discuss VLA success theories forever but they will be out of production very soon.

Airbus announced A380 production cut starting 2018 to 12/year
Boeing claims large jet(all wide bodies) market is sluggish at best.
Boeing said is stretching 777X beyond 400+ is technically feasible.

There is no need knock out already down A380, so Boeing, just don't shoot yourself in the foot wasting few more $$$Billions on the stretch.

Both had a good run with large/very large wide bodies. Now concentrate on small planes 100-150 with 5000nm range. B737 MAX 7 is a good start.

[DroneDog]

I am self loading luggage too, I get to choose who I fly with as I buy my own tickets.
For me its the A380 every time, there would need to be a huge financial incentive to lure me away from a A380 for a long haul.

[donpizmeov]

I think only a bit over 300 of them that have been sold. None sold in the past 12 months. And half of that order book is owned by EK. Not too sure about those folding wing tips though. Pretty much the same story for the 380 as well I guess, without the wingtips of course

[surely not]

For Emirates and other ME operators the high temperatures during the summer months have a very appreciable effect on payload that can be carried from around 1000 local time in the region. During these times the LR and ER twins are restricted in their payload due to engine failure on take off calcs whereas a 4 engine aeroplane is not.

I am aware of a scheduling department that refused to reschedule a 777 to an earlier STD on a non stop from UAE to YYZ and at STD the temp was so high the cargo had to be offloaded. By the time the cargo was offloaded and all baggage reloaded, around 15 minutes, baggage needed to be offloaded. Long story short it eventually left with nil bags and cargo.

For the rest of that summer the cargo payload was greatly reduced and the passenger load restricted as they couldn't move the STD forward without screwing up the connecting transfer traffic. The other solution was to schedule an A340-600 to the route and it could carry everything.

[b1lanc]

DDog
You can only choose them if the airlines find them financially efficient enough to keep flying them. I'm not sure that's a given for any large wide-bodies anymore - 2 or 4 holes.

[oldchina]

"Now concentrate on small planes 100-150 with 5000nm range. B737 MAX 7 is a good start"

Who wants to sit in a 737 for 11 hours? Same goes for the 757 ... what happened to that?
If they're too uncomfortable then you'd have to reinvent the 767-200. And poor economics meant that went the same way.

No, the only efficient alternatives to the VLAs are stretched LARGE twins. The idea of long thin routes with small aircraft has been around for dozens of years and has never really taken off. Operating costs per pax are just too high.

[KenV]

As a passenger, if the choice is between a B777 and an A380, then there is no choice, A380 every time.

But in the near future that will not be the choice and its the near future this thread is about. It will be 777X or A380. The 777X is borrowing lots of technology from 787 and will be considerably quieter and more comfortable than 777. We'll have to wait and see if that means as quiet and comfortable as A380, or more so. If 777X exceeds A380 in that regard, what are the chances that the airlines will invest in their A380 to "catch up"? Especially if doing so INcreases the cost per seat-mile.