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

Scrapping of A380

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

Scrapping of A380

Old 17th May 2019, 06:49
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
(Need a bail-out? No problem French always get a "passe partout").

Air France bailed out several times
A great difference with the "big" US airlines regularly using Chapter 11 to revive, isn't it?

Also, Airbus is not French but European and Germany has a share as important as France. Germany also has assembly lines.

So, again as you did not reply to my earlier question, what is your problem with France? What is much better in Russia where you declare to be?
Bidule is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 10:04
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,706
Airbus' own 350, and the Boeing 777x pretty much sealed the fate of the 380..
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 17th May 2019, 10:43
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
There possibly is a new market for used A380's that current owners want to offload.

But it will be a new type of work -
That maybe a new online platform that has some departure date flexibility until X days in advance, then gets locked in with higher loads.
Tourist promotions for just off season destinations - flight accommodation packages for 800 people.
Cruise ship transfers.

But if there is a new market I believe it will be in the available capacity of +800 and other than RPT type operation, most likely with the flight ancillary to the real revenue obtained.


Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!
srjumbo747 is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 04:25
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by srjumbo747 View Post



Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!
cheap accommodations for 800 passengers and then how active in between duties?? will they keep it busy enough to pay for itself? how many 380 are needed in a fleet to pay for themselves?
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 05:27
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
cheap accommodations for 800 passengers and then how active in between duties?? will they keep it busy enough to pay for itself? how many 380 are needed in a fleet to pay for themselves?
The line I was looking at was leading and trailing the high seasons, but with base schedules planned well in advance to get the high numbers. It would take some good planning to get the optimum package together that gets reasonable aircraft utilisation but with some selective non utilisation for crew reasons. Non high/peak season operations into cities and even countries can often get good operating cost reductions/deals. I see it would be a very fluid operation and more of a travel agency than an airline type operation. If a pax will spend $1,500 on a flight and $1,500 on a accommodation, meals and drinks package for 7 nights (that you get for $1,000) numbers would be worth looking at.

An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.
Bend alot is online now  
Old 18th May 2019, 05:29
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by srjumbo747 View Post



Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!
Yep like that but there are many more across the globe.
Bend alot is online now  
Old 18th May 2019, 07:48
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 74
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.
Or, perhaps, the hajj.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 18th May 2019, 13:54
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
The line I was looking at was leading and trailing the high seasons, but with base schedules planned well in advance to get the high numbers. It would take some good planning to get the optimum package together that gets reasonable aircraft utilisation but with some selective non utilisation for crew reasons. Non high/peak season operations into cities and even countries can often get good operating cost reductions/deals. I see it would be a very fluid operation and more of a travel agency than an airline type operation. If a pax will spend $1,500 on a flight and $1,500 on a accommodation, meals and drinks package for 7 nights (that you get for $1,000) numbers would be worth looking at.

An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.
And will they all be leaving from the same airport too or will it fly around and pick people up?
srjumbo747 is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 05:29
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by srjumbo747 View Post

And will they all be leaving from the same airport too or will it fly around and pick people up?
Can only see it working direct for things like cruises and off peak flights in countries, but could be a different country on a roster equal to the number of nights stay that can also vary.

Backpackers would just be follow the crowds direction.

.
Bend alot is online now  
Old 19th May 2019, 09:21
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,466
Once we start talking about cruise charters and Hajj flights as the raison d'ętre for the A380, it's all over ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 11:02
  #111 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Once we start talking about cruise charters and Hajj flights as the raison d'ętre for the A380, it's all over ...
Would think that Dave is correct in his observation, the aircraft need to be at the end of their amortised life before they transit into low rate utilisation. In the mainline, the aircraft are covering around 4-4500 hrs per year. In the Hajj, they would drop below 2000 hrs a year in general. The variable costs will reduce but the fixed costs will become painful. Going to hi capacity makes a reasonable change in the fuel burn per seat mile, but the yield drops off.

The palace in the sky is expensive as a concept, but the yield is a fair offset. The airlines know what they are doing with yield management, so presumably the merit of changing the seat mix to maximise revenue while reducing the OEW would have been well researched. Reduction in the fuel burn really only comes about from optimising the Breguet formula, and possibly introducing tech stops enroute on routes that can accept that; flying SIN-LHR is considerably higher fuel burn than taking a tech stop in DXB or OMAA etc, even accounting for ground costs and the extra climb/descent.

Glad the analysis is not on my shoulders, the plane is still an impressive experience for the passenger, but in the end it needs to pay for it's fodder.
fdr is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 11:53
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 175
If you got 30, 50, 70, or even 120 aircraft of the A380 breed at the no other sale available price of say $40 million or even up to $80 million each, and then spend the interior refit costs of even $50 million to high capacity on a 20 year plan.

But yes 2,000 hrs is the realistic number to start with on "your" numbers. But again this is not a RPT operation,but an ancillary to a bigger plan.
Bend alot is online now  
Old 27th May 2019, 07:16
  #113 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: blue earch
Posts: 29
Airbus considers A380 as a success for airbus even though they lost a lot of money on A380. During initial development the cost ranged approx. 17 - 25 billion USD
flysmiless is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 07:19
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,466
Originally Posted by flysmiless View Post
Airbus considers A380 as a success
Interesting assertion - what's your evidence for saying that ?

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 11:58
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 21
But yet, as a passenger, I very specifically select flights where the A380 is sheduled - even adjusting dates of travel occasionally.

B787 or A380? No contest for me.

I understand the economics and the potential errors in judgement made by AB, but part of me still wishes that there would be a renaissance of interest and a NEO option back on the agenda - how different could things have been?

Mind you, I recently booked LHR-JFK return and deliberately selected flights schedule to be B747s (and not the B777), so what does that say about me!
amf1966 is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 18:14
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,950
amf1966

Daughter travelled LHR- New York recently. Out on a Dreamliner B789 to Newark, back on a B747-400 from JFK. Now she has no interest whatsoever in aircraft, so when I asked her which aircraft she preferred, I was surprised she said without hesitation the B747-400.

Last edited by TSR2; 27th May 2019 at 18:16. Reason: clarification
TSR2 is offline  
Old 27th May 2019, 23:56
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 79
Posts: 278
Recent in-service problems and development delays for high thrust engines suggest that we may be approaching limits on the thrust achievable. On the other hand, there seems to be growing interest in increasing the capacity of twin jets. If these factors collide, will there be a move back to three and four engine long-haul transports?

Is there a chance that A and B will find it profitable to resurrect A380 and B747 production lines in five or ten or twenty years time?
Dairyground is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 04:22
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,318
Originally Posted by Dairyground View Post
Recent in-service problems and development delays for high thrust engines suggest that we may be approaching limits on the thrust achievable. On the other hand, there seems to be growing interest in increasing the capacity of twin jets. If these factors collide, will there be a move back to three and four engine long-haul transports?
The GE90-115B is the highest thrust high bypass engine in existence (~115,000 lbs sea level static thrust), has been in service for over 15 years, and been very, very reliable. It's planned replacement - the GE9X - will actually have a bit less thrust than the GE90-115B. The issues that have occurred with some engines are generally unrelated to the level of thrust - rather it's been the ever increasing demand to reduce fuel burn. And even with some well publicized issues, engine reliability has never been better - the shutdown rates are easily an order of magnitude better than they were 40 years ago. In short, your basic premise is flawed.
Is there a chance that A and B will find it profitable to resurrect A380 and B747 production lines in five or ten or twenty years time?
Well, in the case of the 747, there are currently no plans to shut down the existing line - although currently planned production is freighter only. Boeing remains optimistic that there will be sufficient demand to keep the 747-8F production going for many more years - for it's role, the 747F really has no meaningful competition.
As for the A380, once an aircraft is out of production and the line shut down - that's pretty much it. Tooling is scrapped, manufacturing expertise is lost, vendors move on to other things. Five years after the last A380 rolls out in 2021, it would cost nearly as much to put the 25 year old A380 design back into production as it would to simply design and build a new big quad from scratch.

tdracer is online now  
Old 28th May 2019, 05:54
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Interesting assertion - what's your evidence for saying that ?
Faury's press conference on the 21 May 2019:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-success/

.
Bidule is offline  
Old 28th May 2019, 06:29
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,466
Originally Posted by Bidule View Post
Faury's press conference on the 21 May 2019:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-success/
Ah, right - a bit like my local supermarket selling baked beans at a loss, in order to get customers through the door.

From the article you linked to:

Interestingly, Leeham also reports on a question of finances asked by Reuters Aerospace News. Airbus received launch aid from Germany to the tune of $600m. However, this has not been paid back. The Reuters reported questioned why, if the project had been considered a success. Reports indicate that Airbus did not answer the question.

DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.