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

Is the 380 Doomed?

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

Is the 380 Doomed?

Old 19th May 2020, 13:17
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,597
Originally Posted by Anti Skid On View Post
Such as it perhaps being compared to wide body twins because it is used on long haul routes where ETOPS is necessary
Then why no A321, for example? Perhaps the chart's poster would care to comment on the 757's inclusion.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 19th May 2020, 13:25
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,717
Could the cabin air circulation be developed to reduce airborne droplets moving through the cabin?
Yes, this would require individual air curtains for each seat or row. For instance a forced air outlet built into the back of the seat and air extraction built into the front of the headrest, creating a stream between seats. Physical seat dividers would be essential to maintain directional control.

The unknown is how many customers will be motivated enough by health concerns to pay more for greater space.

The public have become accustomed to dealing with the physical inconvenience of wearing headphones. A sophisticated effective and comfortable face mask has yet to be invented, but with billions at stake maybe the humble face mask will be given a 21st century make over?

Mjb

mickjoebill is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 13:32
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
The unknown is how many customers will be motivated enough by health concerns to pay more for greater space.

Surely we already know that by looking at the demand for First and Business class seats?
Jet II is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 13:50
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
Could the cabin air circulation be developed to reduce airborne droplets moving through the cabin?
Yes, this would require individual air curtains for each seat or row. For instance a forced air outlet built into the back of the seat and air extraction built into the front of the headrest, creating a stream between seats. Physical seat dividers would be essential to maintain directional control.
Can you imagine the weight penalty that would incur?
Andy_S is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 14:37
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 791
A much higher than normal percentage of those aircraft airborne would be freighters, either pure freighters or pax aircraft operating in a freight role possibly with freight in the cabin.
krismiler is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 15:15
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,185
The engines can suck all of the air from massive inextinguishable coal mine fires... perhaps help Centralia with a population of 5 people currently...
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 16:36
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Then why no A321, for example? Perhaps the chart's poster would care to comment on the 757's inclusion.
It seems that they mislabeled the chart but the 757 is a heavy on RT. Perhaps that's what they meant by including it...I don't think A321 is a heavy

Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 19th May 2020 at 16:55.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 19th May 2020, 20:24
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus View Post
It seems that they mislabeled the chart but the 757 is a heavy on RT.
In some places...
Cough is offline  
Old 20th May 2020, 15:05
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 198
Apparently Air France has now announced they are retiring all of their A380's early. They were planning to do this in 2022.

https://simpleflying.com/air-france-...utm_source=pop
procede is offline  
Old 20th May 2020, 15:47
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 117
Not really surprising, Most airlines are getting rid of fleets they plan to retire in the next 5 years, purely because the demand won't be there to use them. I'm expecting Lufthansa, Qantas, Korean Air to ditch quite a few A380s. BA will likely remove all its 747-400s using the A380s as replacements rather than removing them.
airsouthwest is offline  
Old 20th May 2020, 17:26
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 22
If wishes were fishes....

Logistics/Covid-19/Economics all understood - but as a regular pax, I always choose flights operated by A380s as a strong preference whenever possible.

LHR-LAX/SFO with BA is almost a pleasure on an A380 as compared to other types.

I accept I am in a minority for taking note of type and am fortunate enough to travel F or J most of the time, but would happily pay a reasonable premium to fly on an A380.

Not so long ago, BA had, I think, 4 flights per day to BOS for example - I wonder whether, in the "new normal" they might just fly one flight at the most popular time with an A380? Surely, that has to make economic sense?

Similarly, JFK/ORD and others?

I know, I am clutching at straws here!

I guess the real problem, right now, is that airlines are haemorrhaging reserves/loans etc and cannot wait for the "new normal" to become apparent; and so, they are making decisions based on best guess.

As stated above, if wishes were fishes...

I am very sad indeed to see the almost inevitable demise of this plane in passenger service.
amf1966 is offline  
Old 20th May 2020, 18:28
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,597
Originally Posted by amf1966 View Post
Not so long ago, BA had, I think, 4 flights per day to BOS for example - I wonder whether, in the "new normal" they might just fly one flight at the most popular time with an A380? Surely, that has to make economic sense?
Not necessarily.

In your Boston example, it's by no means certain that any one of those four daily schedule slots would be "popular" enough to sustain an A380. Bear in mind also that, if and when BA return to the route, it's more than likely that DL/VS would too and pax would have a choice based on their preferred departure time.

I'll be very surprised if we see anything larger than A330/767/777 on LHR/BOS, and no more than twice daily, for quite some time to come. Certainly not soon enough to help to rescue the A380.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 20th May 2020, 21:06
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 827
Used airplanes can be had very cheap now. This takes away the pain of the high acquisition cost and changes the whole business model from flagship to no nonsense mass hauler. It will work on the right city pairs and if the cabin can be used without overly complex modification. This is why I would keep the existing business class section from legacy airline use. Think People Express or Laker Skytrain.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 20th May 2020, 22:06
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under a Rock
Age: 50
Posts: 71
Even Air France is chopping them in
So, yes, it is doomed!

Wickerbill is offline  
Old 20th May 2020, 22:47
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,067
Arrow

I really don't think so!

I believe the aviation industry will recover within 12 to 18 months once Covid-19 is brought under control. Customers really enjoy flying on the A380. Obviously, it will only be suitable for certain routes. But many airlines might well regret losing them once the market returns to something near our recent normality. We will see.
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 21st May 2020, 01:56
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 791
The A380 is a well made aircraft (wing cracks aside) with high passenger appeal but the concept of hub and spoke is less relevant for today.

The B787 is an aircraft with quality control issues and lower pax appeal (9 across in economy) but the concept of point to point is right for today.

Frequency and reasonable connection times between flights have always been a factor, otherwise BA could do two LHR - PAR returns per day using A380s rather than multiple flights spaced throughout the day using narrow bodies.

Flexibility will be required as well, the B787 can operate into surprisingly small airports where as the A380 is limited to major, specially equipped ones.

The A380 worked very well for certain airlines on certain routes prior to COVID - 19 but was already doomed even if this pandemic hadn't occurred. The tide is well and truly out, it will come back in again but it will be slow which will leave the giants high and dry for the foreseeable future. The first boats to be lifted will be the A320/B737 followed by small efficient widebodies which can be filled easily and operated to most airports on the network without needing a significant occupancy in the premium cabins to turn a profit.
krismiler is offline  
Old 21st May 2020, 06:13
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
The A380 is a well made aircraft (wing cracks aside) with high passenger appeal but the concept of hub and spoke is less relevant for today.
If anything, before Covid, we actually have more hubs with more connections. Look at Norwegian and Virgin: Profitable long haul travel is nearly impossible without a hub and spoke operation to fill your daily long haul flights.

The main issue with the A380 are the relatively high operating costs, high density seating on aircraft like the 777-300ER and low marginal yields per passenger on most routes. The first 300 pax might pay enough, but after that the yield per passenger is not enough to cover the additional cost per seat on the A380 vs. the 777.
procede is offline  
Old 21st May 2020, 06:38
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Then why no A321, for example? Perhaps the chart's poster would care to comment on the 757's inclusion.
Sorry to keep this thread-drift alive, but - the 757 is designated as a "heavy" for ATC spacing purposes, after several incidents involving deadly and unexpected wake encounters that flipped some bizjets and other smaller aircraft. It simply seems to produce vortices stronger and more violent than the size and weight would suggest. Thus it is the wake - and not the weight, size or aisle-count - that has led to the "heavy" designation, so that trailing traffic will be spaced farther behind a 757.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...312-story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence

Notably, the Boeing 757, which by its MTOW falls into Large category, is considered Heavy for purposes of separation because of a number of incidents where smaller aircraft lost control (with some crashing) while following too closely behind a 757.

The A321 is a different aircraft from a different decade, with a different wing, flaps and so on, and has not, apparently, exhibited the same alleged behavior.

(My own theory is that the 757, being 10 years older than the A321, was flying for a decade before the introduction of vortex-reducing wingtip devices. Later 757s may not actually have the problem - but reputations die hard.)
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 21st May 2020, 08:05
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,597
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Sorry to keep this thread-drift alive, but - the 757 is designated as a "heavy" for ATC spacing purposes
Indeed it is, though the original poster of the chart hasn't been back yet to tell us whether its wake characteristics are the reason they included the 757 as a "widebody".

My quoted remark re the A321's omission was prompted by another poster's alternative suggestion that the 757 might be on the chart because of its long-range/ETOPS capability (in which case, why exclude other ETOPS-capable narrowbodies?).

Looks like we may never know.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 21st May 2020, 10:16
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 791
If anything, before Covid, we actually have more hubs with more connections. Look at Norwegian and Virgin: Profitable long haul travel is nearly impossible without a hub and spoke operation to fill your daily long haul flights.
Hubs will still be necessary as there is no way that every city can be connected to every other city in the world directly but the nature of the hubs is likely to be different. A larger number of smaller hubs with smaller aircraft will probably result as airlines try to scratch a profit any way they can. A significant weakness in the EK (largest A380 operator) business model was a reliance on filling up large widebodies, all good whilst air travel was growing in high single and low double digits but now they are high and dry. Other airlines with a notable hub network, such as BA or Turkish, also have narrow bodies to fall back on to cater for reduced demand, eg Europe - LHR with the A320 and LHR - JFK with the B787. Smaller airports can still be served and frequencies maintained, there is also a significant origin/destination component on BA flights as well.

The nature of air travel is constantly evolving and largely driven by pax demand and aircraft capability. At one time Shannon in Ireland was an important stop for aircraft from Europe as they needed to refuel before embarking on the Atlantic crossing to New York. Now it's been sidelined due to increased aircraft range.
krismiler 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 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.