A380 - the best is yet to come

[EastMids]

The fundamental problem for the A380 is that it will always be more of a financial risk unless an airline can guarantee to fill it consistently (year round) at reasonable yields. There are some routes where filling them is possible, for sure, which is where the A380 reigns. But on any given trip, an A380 will burn more fuel (and thus cost more to operate) than a 777 / A350 / 787. With seat mile (cost per passenger per mile) not that far apart, that's fine if the A380 is consistently full. But in a lot of cases it's easier to sell 300-350 seats than it is 500. Increasingly with sophisticated revenue management operating in the background airlines will chose take fewer passengers at good revenue and turn away the cheapest business, rather than discount heavily to fill another 150-200 seats or fly thin air around.

So it boils down to:
* Can I make a profit flying an A380 - probably yes if I can fill it at reasonable yields
* Can I make a profit flying a 777 / 787 / A350 - probably yes if I can fill it, which is less of a challenge
* Can I make more profit flying a full 777 / 787 / A350 than a I can flying 2/3rd full A380 - quite pobably
* Can I make more profit if I have to deeply discount to fill the extra seats on an A380 - possibly not

Therefore in many cases bean counters see the 777 / 787 / A350 as lower risk, and potentially more profitable. Even as airport constraints get more severe some airlines will chose to keep a lid on capacity and leave behind the really cheap business they would sometimes need to fill an A380.

[PAXboy]

I agree that most folks have no idea what tube they are in BUT a friend of mine who works for an international travel agency said that, when dealing with the high paying customers - they knew the aircraft. She quoted clients who wanted the 380 for all the positive reasons stated above.

[sudden twang]

777 300 is dreadful in turbulence.

[Bergerie1]

sudden twang,

How do you know?

[ATC Watcher]

Monarch man :

Recently I spoke with a tower controller who advised that on departures they can depart 5 x 777s in the time it takes to depart 2 x 380s

Nonsense statement as the separation between 2 777s is exactly the same as betwen 2 380s, so it will take exactly the same time to depart 5 777 and 5 380s. It is the weight category mixture, and especially a light after a 380 which is penalizing.
But if you apply the new RECAT separation ( like they do in CDG) together with better aircraft category grouping per runway , the Supers have minimal impact.

[FlightlessParrot]

Originally Posted by BAengineer

I think you are in a minority there. In my experience most PAX have no idea what aluminium tube they are sitting in and decide on their flight by looking to see who has the cheapest ticket on Priceline.com and hit that button.

Possibly most PAX don't know much about their aircraft, but I have definitely known some people who could not be called aviation enthusiasts who have deliberately chosen to book on flights operated by the 380; just as long ago, people noticed and chose the 747. It's probably not enough to ensure the commercial viability of the aircraft, but it's a mistake to assume everyone is happy to be crammed into a 737 to save a few bucks.

[Volume]

The other fundamental problem for the A380 are the airports. Not so much the runway/taxiway/ramp issues, but the terminal. Many airports (some claiming to be "A380 ready" in a major PR campaign...) simply can not handle 500+ passengers at one time. Not at security, not at immigration, not at the baggage claim, not for boarding. As much as I love to fly the A380, I hate getting on and off. AirFrance for example flew the A380 to YUL for a short period, now they do the service again with two 777/A340/747 within 90 minutes. Immigration at YUL for a full A380 passenger load was just awful. With no airbridges for the upper deck, business class was off the aircraft after economy, putting those who produce the profit at the end of the cue... Those passengers know the aircraft they fly very well, and react accordingly.

[kcockayne]

Originally Posted by Volume

The other fundamental problem for the A380 are the airports. Not so much the runway/taxiway/ramp issues, but the terminal. Many airports (some claiming to be "A380 ready" in a major PR campaign...) simply can not handle 500+ passengers at one time. Not at security, not at immigration, not at the baggage claim, not for boarding. As much as I love to fly the A380, I hate getting on and off. AirFrance for example flew the A380 to YUL for a short period,now they do the service again with two 777/A340/747 within 90 minutes. Immigration at YUL for a full A380 passenger load was just awful. With no airbridges for the upper deck, business class was off the aircraft after economy, putting those who produce the profit at the end of the cue... Those passengers know the aircraft they fly very well, and react accordingly.

You would have a hard job flying on an Air France 747 to anywhere - they do not have any ! They retired the last one at least 2 years ago.

[rog747]

Originally Posted by BAengineer

God I hope not. Can you imagine the scenes when your 380 goes sick at some tiny holiday airport like Chania or Rhodes and 800 people are stuck there.

Rhodes already handles for many years 747-400's daily, mostly the russians and around 500 pax on an a/c - not sure if the airport can handle yet a 380 with its weights and sizes - but Transaero were getting 380's so maybe their use on IT's to the Med and possibly Egypt before metrojet were in their game plan
Rhodes has plenty of large hotels and AOG Hotac should not often be an issue -
we used to say that back in the 70's and 80's when the first WB's were sent to Palma etc

small places like Chania would not likely see 380 Ops - although Btours KT/CKT and Monarch went there with WB jets
tristars and A300's 400 and 361 pax

I think Las Palmas and maybe Tenerife from Scandinavia is def a contender for high season big capacity needs and a 380 may be a good 'fit'

[Monarch Man]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Monarch man :
Nonsense statement as the separation between 2 777s is exactly the same as betwen 2 380s, so it will take exactly the same time to depart 5 777 and 5 380s. It is the weight category mixture, and especially a light after a 380 which is penalizing.
But if you apply the new RECAT separation ( like they do in CDG) together with better aircraft category grouping per runway , the Supers have minimal impact.

Incorrect ATC watcher, I suggest you go back and look at the separation applied in practice between 777s in DXB on departure vs a Super they are two ENTIRELY different values. In practice when I’m rotating in my 777, the 777 behind me receives a takeoff clearance, and so on and so on, diverging SIDS are planned so one turns left, the next turns right, the limitation is the 90 degree line up.
It is part of the on-going reduced wake trial, which in my view is a fudge. As for your comment regarding RECAT as per CDG, you clearly have little idea as to how OMDB is run, and given it sees a significantly larger number of 380 movements a day than CDG, or elsewhere for that matter it has far more relevance to discussions on airspace and runway capacity.

[ATC Watcher]

Monarch man :

you clearly have little idea as to how OMDB is run

Yes my area of knowledge is more European I grant you that, but the UAE surely follows ICAO, no ? although ICAO and RECAT are just giving minimas , each state or airport can increase those depending on the circumstances. maybe OMDB does this or apply something exotic like your description of the reduced wake trial (*). You said at rotation of the elader the follower is receiving T/O clearance ; that would be what , 40-50 seconds separation ? That is impressive.

For Europe the A380 is a CAT A and the 777 is Cat B. The separation minima between 2 CAT A is 3 NM , and between 2 CAT B also 3 NM, mixing categories is the problem not between same types. hence my earlier comment which I maintain.

(*) under the name trial one can do almost anything .and blame someone else if it goes wrong .(Al Wiener if my memory is correct )

[donpizmeov]

ATC watcher. The same numbers are used in DXB. 380 departing behind a 380 is the same as when those smaller aeroplanes depart behind another smaller aeroplane . As you said

[Monarch Man]

Don, go back and read again what I wrote, its nothing to do with 380 following 380, its 380 followed by anything else.
ATC watcher, so what? There is and has been a reduced separation trual in effect at OMDB for at least the last 3 years. Don knows that as well.

[donpizmeov]

The trail is between 777 only right? Still 3nm for a 380 to 380 and 8nm between 380 and anything else. With slow approach speed of the 380 a 777 needs to start a bit further out than 8 or start speed reduction earlier as it will catch up when speeds are reduced after 4nm.
Monach you said they could launch 5 777s in the time it takes to launch 2 380s. That's not correct . If mixed departures are happening you are correct the launch rate drops

[911slf]

Woulda coulda shoulda

A380 should have been built with 300 foot wingspan, folding to 200 feet. I see there has been talk of longer wingspan https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...ger-wing-span/

No compromise either on aerodynamics or ability to use the ramps the 747 uses. Engines like that used by 777-300ER. Capacity for 600 passengers plus at least 50 tonnes of freight, or 150 tonnes of freight. Straight to 40,000 feet at maximum take-off weight (perhaps).

Far too late now, though. I see also there is work on reducing wing vortices, though that knowledge was maybe not available when the A380 was designed.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by 911slf

I see also there is work on reducing wing vortices, though that knowledge was maybe not available when the A380 was designed.

It's a relatively simple job to add vortex reducing winglets on an aircraft (witness the addition of split scimitar winglets on countless 737) if someone were to take the effort to design them in the first place.

[underfire]

Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
There’s ways and means of reducing or negating impact. After an A380 effectively closes a departure runway for a few minutes after taking off, let an arrival in on it, or if arrival runway is outboard of departure runway, stack up the crossing taxiways and let them all cross after the 380 departs.
True.

But neither of those strategies is routinely adopted at Heathrow, and yet the introduction of the A380 has still not led to a reduction in capacity.

When they actually get around to the real time measurement of wake turbulence, you will see a marked reduction in closure times/separation, especially at LHR with the DEP splay.
We were very close to implementation, then FN Brexit.

It's a relatively simple job to add vortex reducing winglets on an aircraft (witness the addition of split scimitar winglets on countless 737) if someone were to take the effort to design them in the first place.

Incorrect, winglets have absolutely NO effect on wake turbulence. Even Aviation Partners stop beating that drum. They extend laminar flow and decrease drag at certain attitudes, that is all.

From Farnsworth:

• Boeing's latest market forecast says global demand for passenger and cargo jets will reach 42,730 aircraft over the next 20 years. The total value of this potential business is an astounding $6.3 trillion.
• Boeing expects only 60 of those planes to be passenger jets in the same category as the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380.
• Randy Tinseth, Boeing's vice president of marketing, believes the 747's future as a passenger plane will be as a VIP private jet.
• According to Tinseth, the forecast takes into consideration Boeing's belief that there isn't enough demand for Airbus to deliver the rest of its A380s on order.

[Parratjie]

I just hope a few of the large Chinese carriers throw the 380 a lifeline. It’s such an amazing aircraft, it would be a shame to see it go!

[RVF750]

I suspect the biggest problem long term for the A380 is it's USP in the first place. The floor beams for the upper deck. That alone plus the placement of the Flightdeck mean it's no freighter and never will be. There are a lot of 10-15 year old B744F and BCF out there, carrying outsized freight the world over. There really is only one option to replace them, and Boeing know it.

A380? Well, they'd make a grand firebomber....

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by underfire

Boeing expects only 60 of those planes to be passenger jets in the same category as the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380.

Boeing are hardly going to be bullish about that market, given that they have more or less abandoned the B748 in its passenger role.