Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

More trouble for A380 Program ?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

More trouble for A380 Program ?

Old 17th Sep 2016, 11:02
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NSW
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
GodDamSlacker is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 12:16
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 12:26
  #63 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
parabellum is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 12:27
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy_S View Post
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.
Ian W is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 13:00
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wiggy is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 13:53
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 13:58
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wiggy is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 14:21
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by donpizmeov View Post
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.
notapilot15 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 18:52
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 46
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2016, 23:25
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GodDamSlacker View Post
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.
p.j.m is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 07:39
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by donpizmeov View Post
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?
Scuffers is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 08:02
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Goddamnslacker is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 08:07
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 08:13
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 69
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Westbound?
sb_sfo is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 08:29
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Goddamnslacker is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 08:47
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2016, 09:16
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
B-HKD is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 00:33
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 77
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.
CONSO is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 01:47
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
deSitter is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2016, 02:07
  #80 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
parabellum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.