|
Originally Posted by GoreTex
(Post 10004876)
Jet II,
dont forget EK had to block 100 seats to make it to LAX, DFW and IAH |
Originally Posted by GoreTex
dont forget EK had to block 100 seats to make it to LAX, DFW and IAH
|
A380
Given the previous investment & government support, I'd be surprised to see the A380 program cancelled. Manufacturer is making good money on other programs & there's still a reasonable chance demand for the machine will pick up.
Needs to cut fuel burn by 15-20%, which is technically possible today, with larger winglets & geared turbofans. |
Originally Posted by glofish
(Post 10004504)
True, but this objective did not allow enough units to be sold to get a break-even. Airbus therefore tried to lure operators into believing that it could do just as well in competing with twins on all routes by their sheer pax number, especially by implementing more high revenue pax (you know, the ones that pay Y, get upgraded and drunk at the bar ....)
They are not 'exploring' that. It was Boeing's antithesis to the above since the beginning and most operators apparently made a better assessment of the future than EK and AB. You may call it lack of foresight, i however call it arrogance when you belittle the competition, like Timmy did when pretending that they were less skilfully managed in not going for the dugong. Just as i call it arrogance when AAR boasted on an interview that EK needed even bigger airframes, because when 'we open the doors, they flock in'. By the way I do agree about the arrogance of AAR and I doubt any pilot of any nationality in EK would defend his actions. |
I’m not an Airbus lover I was just pointing out that the 380 does some things well, in that niche market I just think it’s silly when a bunch of professionals all getting paid the same irrespective of type flown, start arguing A vs B We're never asked about what we as professional end users think would be the best tool, we might not be experts on all the aspects, true, but we might give some valuable inputs. However the outcome of wrong airframe on wrong route decisions will always trickle down the food chain and be visible on our pay cheque. So then please, dear Odin, allow us at least to talk about that on a aviation rumour forum. Or give us your definition of the appropriate themes we dare bringing up on here!:ugh: |
Gloie do the 70 blocked y class seats each night from ADL to DXB, or the 40 blocked y class seats from DXB to DAL each day, (and it's more blocked in summer time) have any effect on our pay cheque?
The 772lr burns more fuel per seat than the 380. So I guess that ain't too good for the pay cheque either. This will improve when they all change to two class though I guess. |
don
Check Trips, it's not as dramatic. ADL no blockage the next weeks, IAH and DFW 20 seats, MCO 30. But you're right, the T7 has its limitations. It delivers the promised performance nicely though, but EK simply takes it further than designed, therefore some blocked seats. But that's what i mentioned with wrong airframe for wrong destinations: It was not constrained to Airbus! The difference is that a T7 will not punish you as much as a 380 when not full, just as a 330 will punish you even less. It all comes down to what i always said (and the dugong fans never gave me credit for): The 380 has its profitable routes, but not as many as EK thought and Airbus pretended. A healthy mix gives each airframe a reasonable chance to be profitable. Therefore i welcome the 787 order over more and too many dugongs. |
Originally Posted by 777-Up
(Post 10005345)
Given the previous investment & government support, I'd be surprised to see the A380 program cancelled. Manufacturer is making good money on other programs & there's still a reasonable chance demand for the machine will pick up.
On the bright side, EK must be getting a stonking deal on the price of each airframe, which also factor's into the yield equation. |
Nobody is sure...
Nobody is sure. Nobody can be until it happens, or not. It's likely part of negotiations.
Manufacturers don't 'leak' info like that, unnecessarily, without an objective. Lots of other machines to fly if the tap is shut off. My money is on the line staying open. |
Originally Posted by General Dogsbody
(Post 10005279)
Incorrect, no blocked seats on the 380 TO of FROM those destinations!
|
Originally Posted by GoreTex
(Post 10005673)
I tried to be sarcastic, I heard that story every day from the 777 guys when EK announced that the 380 will take over the LAX route
Either way its not true |
Actually GD, Goretex is well aware of this, and also is aware of how the 777 was blocking seats to LAX. He is camelier of the camels from Too Loose. He fully knows how much feed they need, how much they can carry, how far they can go, and is also very good at ensuring they don't throw a shoe mid journey. Perhaps a sarcasm header is needed from now on?
|
Why is so much confusion on blocked seats? Is this a successful misinformation campaign by management?
|
Originally Posted by cerbus
(Post 10003694)
Yes the Concorde was an entirely different animal. It was paid for by the taxpayers and given to BA and AF for free and the Airlines still couldn’t make it turn a profit.
When it burns as much fuel as a 747 but carries 3 1/2 times LESS pax it’s tough to make it work especially when you are route limited and do not enjoy economies of scale. |
another angle with EK is DUBAI , if there had been a much smaller 380 fleet the expansion would have virtually halted due to capacity at the main hub ? Perhaps if DWC had been developed on the original timescale then it might not be such a big problem. Common sense dictates slot restricted airports require fewer bigger aircraft . Unlike LHR which wants a new runway having recently allowed turboprops back in with hordes of narrow bodies:):)
|
Originally Posted by recceguy
(Post 10005320)
Coming from the same sources as WMD in 2003 .....:rolleyes:
|
The Fuel per seat figures for the A380 (ie all seats occupied) over an 6000nm ULR are 8% worse than the 777-300ER.
The 777-9x and the 787-9 are both more efficient then either of the above. These new aircraft make it hard for anyone to buy and operate new A380's. The 787-9 burns 27% less fuel per km per seat than the A380. A380 (3 class) - 3.16 per 100km (544 pax) B777-300ER - 2.91 liters per 100km (365 pax) +8% B777-9x - 2.85 liters per 100km (395 pax) + 11% B787-9 -2.49 liters per 100km (294 pax) + 27% If you can fill a A380 with pax - go for it, if you can't... park it and take a Boeing! |
speed2height
Be careful, you're rattling a very holy, almost untouchable bush ..... |
Are there many 364 seat three class 773s? Sounds like a fun flight.
|
A380 axed
AB have no reason to complain really. They have played a good hand with the 330,340 and 380. Those maint contracts and spares will keep them in good stead for decades to come.
If anyone should be crying it is Boeing who built the tractor/Cripple/John Deere 777. God knows they don’t make money on that ship once it has sailed. Most reliable money maker ever made. Not an AB or B debate. Flown both. Each great in their own way. Just observation. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.