Airbus A380 questions?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DUB, SAT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus A380 questions?
Hello,
I have some questions regarding the A380.
Do you think this aircraft will be economical when comparing the operating costs to the number of passengers carried and the cost per ticket? Will the airlines make more profit on the A-380 than the other wide-body aircraft like the Boeing 747 and 777 or the Airbus equivalents?
Are Airbus marketing the A380 towards the Asian markets more so then the US or European markets?
Are there any US carriers that have ordered the aircraft?
Thanks for your time,
I have some questions regarding the A380.
Do you think this aircraft will be economical when comparing the operating costs to the number of passengers carried and the cost per ticket? Will the airlines make more profit on the A-380 than the other wide-body aircraft like the Boeing 747 and 777 or the Airbus equivalents?
Are Airbus marketing the A380 towards the Asian markets more so then the US or European markets?
Are there any US carriers that have ordered the aircraft?
Thanks for your time,
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orders so far :
Air France 10 + 4 Options
Emirates 20 + 2 Freighter + 10 Options
FedEx 10 Freighter + 10 Options
ILFC 5 + 5 Freighter
Lufthansa 15 + 5 Options
Quantas 12 + 12 Options
Quatar 2
Singapore Airlines 10 + 15 Options
Virgin Atlantic 6
As far as I understand, ILFC is a Leasing Company, so there might be an U.S. custumor behind this orders who does not want to be named yet, So there are only 10 U.S. ordered freighters so far, none in the pax configuration.
Airbus claims to reduce costs by at least 15% in comparison with the 744, which is based on end of 2001 fuel and insurance prices.
Since both might rise dramatically in case of an Iraq war, the larger pax capacity might even be more beneficial. But if cicil air transport and passanger numbers reduce due to this event, it might be remarkablely less.
Time will tell, and remember what Boeing thought about the number of 747s to be produced when they launched the project, and what turned out 3 decades later. You never know what might come, although some marketing specialist always tell they do !
Air France 10 + 4 Options
Emirates 20 + 2 Freighter + 10 Options
FedEx 10 Freighter + 10 Options
ILFC 5 + 5 Freighter
Lufthansa 15 + 5 Options
Quantas 12 + 12 Options
Quatar 2
Singapore Airlines 10 + 15 Options
Virgin Atlantic 6
As far as I understand, ILFC is a Leasing Company, so there might be an U.S. custumor behind this orders who does not want to be named yet, So there are only 10 U.S. ordered freighters so far, none in the pax configuration.
Airbus claims to reduce costs by at least 15% in comparison with the 744, which is based on end of 2001 fuel and insurance prices.
Since both might rise dramatically in case of an Iraq war, the larger pax capacity might even be more beneficial. But if cicil air transport and passanger numbers reduce due to this event, it might be remarkablely less.
Time will tell, and remember what Boeing thought about the number of 747s to be produced when they launched the project, and what turned out 3 decades later. You never know what might come, although some marketing specialist always tell they do !
Paxing All Over The World
I think that one of the main driving factors is going to be sky lane congestion.
In Europe, getting a slot in and out is expensive. If you can lift more folks at a time, ultimately you will lower your costs.
Tn the USA, the two that have a big capacity problem (to my amateur knoweledge) are JFK and EWR. LAX and SFO probably do too.
Once the machines are in operation and the process for handling them is stable, I expect to see them being offerred at a discount. People may not want to go on the ultra big machine but te price will convince them. I think that Volume's example of the 747 is spot on.
As to Airbus marketing towards one area or another - they will be aiming it at ANYONE who wants to buy! They will offer ANY modifications they reasonably can, to sell it.
This machine may well be like the 747 - it will make or break the company. I am not a betting man, but I bet they will win.
In Europe, getting a slot in and out is expensive. If you can lift more folks at a time, ultimately you will lower your costs.
Tn the USA, the two that have a big capacity problem (to my amateur knoweledge) are JFK and EWR. LAX and SFO probably do too.
Once the machines are in operation and the process for handling them is stable, I expect to see them being offerred at a discount. People may not want to go on the ultra big machine but te price will convince them. I think that Volume's example of the 747 is spot on.
As to Airbus marketing towards one area or another - they will be aiming it at ANYONE who wants to buy! They will offer ANY modifications they reasonably can, to sell it.
This machine may well be like the 747 - it will make or break the company. I am not a betting man, but I bet they will win.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volume.
two thirds of all 747s sold were bought for their range, not their capacity. In other words they were too big but no other aircraft at the time could connect the city pairs.
With the 340 and 777s out there, that market won't be available to the 380. In small niches the aircraft will be popular.
Its a prestige thing for Airbus.
Cheers
Wino
two thirds of all 747s sold were bought for their range, not their capacity. In other words they were too big but no other aircraft at the time could connect the city pairs.
With the 340 and 777s out there, that market won't be available to the 380. In small niches the aircraft will be popular.
Its a prestige thing for Airbus.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range....?
Ah, well actually, the B707-320B (advanced) had the same (or greater) range as the early 747's.
A few examples......LAX-LHR, LAX-ORY...the list goes on. In fact, BOAC and AirFrance operated these routes respectively with 707-300 Conway/JT-4A powered aircraft.
Rather longish takeoff rolls......
A few examples......LAX-LHR, LAX-ORY...the list goes on. In fact, BOAC and AirFrance operated these routes respectively with 707-300 Conway/JT-4A powered aircraft.
Rather longish takeoff rolls......
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ebye
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380
ITR - how can you ask such broad questions?
You have to look at the markets, fleet size and a whole raft of things.
How much detail do you want?
The airplanes are not being ordered by fools - so we must assume management have done their homework.
Over similar markets (say HKGLHR) the A380 should have about 15 to 20% lower ASK costs than the 744ER. However, if you have a group
operating 50 new-ish 744's (JAL?) and 5 A380's, the 744's would be much more economical than the A380 in most respects.
Volume - as you can not spell Qantas (or other carriers) just use airline codes.
Also we have to compare apples with apples, but what do you use to check these numbers
- pax numbers, vs trip counts, vs block hours;
- is hubbing allowed, vs fragmented markets;
- what are the yields and distribution of fare levels;
- will this be full service airlines or are you to include high density, ow fare operations to compare.
Over an ideal sector - of perhaps 10 hours - a shuttle service would be so, so economical.
PB - you are closer to the mark.
Perhaps look at the Asian markets - they are the ones that are in need of an 800 seat airplane rather than the A380-100.
Wino - As indicated by 411A, both the 707 & DC8 had a greater range than the early 747's.
The A380 is really needed over the right markets.
We do need an 800 seat airplane (for a few markets). A blended winged airplane?
However we would need to redesign airports to permit their operation.
You have to look at the markets, fleet size and a whole raft of things.
How much detail do you want?
The airplanes are not being ordered by fools - so we must assume management have done their homework.
Over similar markets (say HKGLHR) the A380 should have about 15 to 20% lower ASK costs than the 744ER. However, if you have a group
operating 50 new-ish 744's (JAL?) and 5 A380's, the 744's would be much more economical than the A380 in most respects.
Volume - as you can not spell Qantas (or other carriers) just use airline codes.
Also we have to compare apples with apples, but what do you use to check these numbers
- pax numbers, vs trip counts, vs block hours;
- is hubbing allowed, vs fragmented markets;
- what are the yields and distribution of fare levels;
- will this be full service airlines or are you to include high density, ow fare operations to compare.
Over an ideal sector - of perhaps 10 hours - a shuttle service would be so, so economical.
PB - you are closer to the mark.
Perhaps look at the Asian markets - they are the ones that are in need of an 800 seat airplane rather than the A380-100.
Wino - As indicated by 411A, both the 707 & DC8 had a greater range than the early 747's.
The A380 is really needed over the right markets.
We do need an 800 seat airplane (for a few markets). A blended winged airplane?
However we would need to redesign airports to permit their operation.
