@notapilot15

I did not misread. One super hub with the same traffic as two smaller hubs is twice as effective as the two smaller hubs, as if offers twice as many possible connections.

The main issue is effectively using runway capacity. On some routes an RJ might suffice, on some others having an A380 instead of two A330's basically means you can add an RJ or 737 with the same (limited) runway capacity.

Atlanta has had a single A380 flight from Qatar, but then ATL is not (really) runway capacity limited. Availability of gates is a more important issue, especially as they have only one that can handle an A380: Busiest airport can't give biggest airliner a gate - CNN.com

My thoughts exactly. If they can come up with a reasonable freight conversion it would most likely be a winner.

Also a retrofit to the "neo" spec (I'm pretty sure it will happen eventually) might also be considered.

Just flown the Emirates 2 class 380 and I'd say it has 2 or 3 free seats out of the 615... I'm pretty sure it generates a nice revenue!

atakacs

We're going around in circles:

That's a heck of an "if"..Have a look at Stuart Midgely's excellent analysis back in permalink #59

Many are increasingly sure it won't ( it all depends on whether Emirates will pony up cash/orders) ..In the meantime many at Airbus are putting their efforts into other Airbus products.

All of us Monday morning quarterbacks (ref. airline economics) should stand in front of their mirror and ask a simple question:
If i had to invest 100'000$ in a future leasing fund, in which one would i put my hard earned money?

A380neo
A330neo
A350
B77X
B787
B748

After a honest assessment without any fan factor, come back and contribute your choice.

My standing list is:

A350
B77X
B787

... and my buck stops there very quickly

The market would tend to agree with your 350 and 787 choice gloie.

As an investor

A330NEO
B787
A350

Good backlog and A330 is more reliable, less headache to operators than other two.

I would never invest in B777X. If Boeing ever files for Chapter 11, it would be because of B777X.

ps: If NBs are included #1 A320 #2 B737

Can one of you in the know explains met he difference between buying a A350 and a A330neo today . if you take the 900 version of both types, similar price tag, ( around 300 M$) dimensions , seating ( 440 in Y) , ok range 12.000 km vs 14.000., but that alone cannot be the decisive factor, or is it?
Many good airlines have committed to A330neo ( Delta, TAP, etc..) and it has not even flown yet.

The A350 used to be called XWB, which stands for Extra Wide Body. The A350 has a larger fuselage diameter than A330. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's customers? A350 also has a higher max differential pressure, which results in a lower cabin altitude during cruise. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's customers?

A350 fuselage is also almost all composite. This has certain (promised) maintenance advantages (no corrosion & almost no fatigue issues). Is that a desirable feature for your airline's maintainers? These factors are also promised to result in the composite aircraft holding its value better after 10 years of service. Is that a desirable feature for your airline's bean counters? (assuming of course that the promise is delivered?)

I would wary of the A330NEO.
In this business one day's stars (727, 757, MD-80 ..) can become tomorrow's dogs almost overnight.
The A330 has had a good run but the NEO is but the last makeover.

And Delta has also ordered the A350. A330neo for the Atlantic and the A350 for Pacific. I imagine that it boils down to range and, possibly, additional long-haul comfort. The A350-900 is also considerably more expensive than the A330-900: $20m - $30m.

I would never invest in B777X. If Boeing ever files for Chapter 11, it would be because of B777X

always a possibility seeing as they don't get handed billions of dollars "launch aid"

A350-900 range is more like 15,000Km vs. 12,000Km for the A330-900Neo

Asside that, not sure I would want to be on an A330 for that kind of long haul.

The A350 is an A340 replacement.
The A330NEO stays in its present role.

All
Have to agree with all of the SLF comments who have to fly long haul on a regular basis. The 380 is miles in front of the 777 / 747/787 in terms of comfort and climate. As I am still clocking up many miles a year I hope all those promising the demise of the 380 are wrong, for at least another 10 years (will see me retired hopefully if I make it post Brexit !) as going backwards is not that great as a passenger experience. Perhaps if the airline bean counters had to fly in the back on some of these routes where they are putting the Boeings / long haul twins then they would not be so pro them !


With regards the comment about 380 being like Concorde I would have to say as a passenger experience it is better, due to not being so cramped, and will be a better financial return for Airbus. However for speed and the look of the thing I would demure to Concorde obviously.


Regards
Mr Mac

A350 can take more freight than A330Neo. It's a direct competitor to the current gen 777 in that regard, although being newer tech it's more frugal obviously.

SLF comfort is more a function of cabin configuration and service offering rather than the aircraft type, which can be addressed in part through cabin redesign. Emirates F-class 777 is arguably superior than F in A380. Same with F in BA 787 vs. BA A380.

Plus most people aren't very sensitive to cabin pressure differences and noise cancelling headphones equalize any cabin noise issues.

On the other hand if you're stuck in economy...

From a hypothetical mathematical point of view one super-hub looks attractive. However, from a real world point of view it is not really that sensible. Geography must be considered - you would not close Seattle and have all interchange traffic instead sent to Atlanta. There is obviously a distance that needs to be considered.
As important is the fragility of a system where a ground-stop due severe weather at a single hub can bring the almost the entire system to a halt.

that's not my experience, unless you dump a seat per row, you simply cannot get the same space per seat, name me a narrow-bodied jet with a layout that's got the same or better seat width as the A380.

A380 is IMHO the quietest, most spacious long-haul plane there is, especially in economy cabins.

Like other have said, if I am going to book a 20+ hour flight, I will specifically pick the flights that are A380 over either 777 or 747, and I simply would not consider anything narrow-bodied, if this means paying a bit more, so be it.

That is (mostly) true of flights of 6 hours or less. Above 6 hours it starts making a difference. Above 10 hours it starts making a big difference. Above 12 hours and it makes a difference to almost everyone, including the flight crew who are theoretically the most well adapted and least sensitive. The 787 (and A350?) also provide a more humid cabin environment. The lower cabin altitude and more humid environment combine to make a big difference on long haul flights.

I don't think there's any danger of you being able to book a 20+ hour sector in the foreseeable future.

But would you turn a 10 hour flight into a 16 hour flight with connections just to fly an A380? Because for most people that's the choice they are making. They can take one airplane to a superhub (likely a narrow body), connect to an A380 (that may not even be going to their final destination, so there could be another connection involved). Or, they can take a big twin non-stop, bypassing the superhub.
In my case, I fly Seattle/Incheon on occasion - I can make a 3 hour flight to LAX on a narrow body and get on an A380 (that will then fly within 150 miles of Seattle on the way to Korea), or I can fly a 777 non-stop Seattle - Incheon and get there in a fraction of the time. I did the LAX stop last year just so I could fly an A380 (and yes, it was quite nice - I was in business class and I loved the vodka bar in the back). But I doubt I'd do it again.:rolleyes:
Seattle is turning into a major hub to the Pacific (it's significantly closer to most of the Pacific Rim/Asian destinations than LA or San Francisco). 20 years ago it was mainly 747s. Today it's nearly all big twins - 777, A330, 767, 787, and the occasional 747. No A380's serve SEA, and that's unlikely to change.

Well the 777X cabin is wider than the A380 upper deck cabin where most F and J seats are typically configured.

A380 upper deck cabin width: 5.92m. 777X: 5.97m. 777-200 and -300: 5.87m.

Even on the 787, the slightly narrower cabin doesn't make a difference in F. BA has the same seating config (1-2-1) on both the 787 and A380. The difference is you have 8 seats in the 787 but they cram 14 on the A380. So the service on the 787 is actually a bit better and feels more exclusive.

That might be true if you're comparing 6000ft vs 8000ft. But on all aircraft we're talking about in this thread (A350, A380, 787, 777X, 747-400) the design target cabin pressure will all be ~ 6000ft +/- 500, barely noticeable difference for pax, and if anything the A380 will be the worse of the bunch.

While I've never been in the economy cabin on a 380, so cannot directly compare Scuffer's experience, I totally agree, the noise level and the cabin altitude DO make a huge difference. So does the humidity, where the 747-8 is pretty good (only done one LH flight on this one, not many around). WRT to the 'noise-cancelling' headsets - every tried to sleep with one of them on? Good luck.

In one word - no. Never. Always fly direct if possible.

Sleeping on a flatbed on a 777 is like inserting yourself into a giant vibrator and then switching it on for 12 hrs.

There are plenty of people who will have to take at least two sectors to get to their destination.

So flying from Newcastle in the UK to SE Asia then you could go via a European hub AMS, LHR on something like a 737 or A319 and then probably a 777 though possibly a A380.

Or a 777 with Emirates followed by a 777 or A380.

Emirates is sucking business away from the European carriers using DBX as its hub and serving primary as well as secondary airports.

Given the choice between a A319+777 vs a 777+A380 combination there will be many that choose the A380 option.

Or if flying from London - given a choice between a A380 with one carrier and a 777 with another top say SNG or KUL? Who do you choose?

And don't forget our friends Emirates (yet again) offering the option from London to transfer via DBX - some people actually like the break of journey and the A380 out to DBX is a bonus.

Is that good or bad?;)

No problems for me. It depends if you're a side sleeper or not.

Although for me (and I imagine for many others) I actually get better sleep on noisier cabins... the noise drowns out crying babies, chatter, people snoring, IFE, etc., almost like white noise. In fact there are apps out there that mimic cabin noise as sleeping aid. Trying to "quiet down" the cabin is self-defeating from good sleep perspective.

The reality is that most economy passengers neither know nor care which equipment they're on when they book their flights.

BTW - which would you rather be on? A packed A380 or a 60% full 777?

Price is king these days!

Genuine question to anyone here who regularly flies 777 as pax or crew: am I imagining things or is the air particularly dry on the aircraft? The longest sector on a 777 I've paxed on was DXB-DUB, roughly 8 hours and my mouth and nose were drier than Ghandi's sandals. In contrast I flew DUB-SFO on an A330 for 10.5 hours and no such problems.

Don't flame the controller btw for any Jockeys who decide to answer, we're humans too!

True, but far fewer than was the case 20 years ago. Point to point is increasing, almost by the day - hence the popularity of the 787 and A350 which were designed as long range point to point aircraft. In spite of it's birthing pains, there are already well over twice as many 787s in service as A380s - and there are precious few point to point routes where you can fill an A380.
When the 747 first came into being, engine reliability was much worse than today and you needed at least 3 engines for long overwater flights, and if you needed long range, the 747 (and to a lesser extent, L1011/DC-10) where the only game in town. With 180+ minute ETOPS, a twin can fly nearly anywhere in the world - and most have the range to do it.

This depends. Plenty of people are no doubt utterly clueless or indifferent.

But there are plenty of people who are flying more regularly on longer sectors and they do start to care about carriers, airports, and equipment. And they talk to family, friends, and colleagues who maybe don't fly so frequently. That probably adds up to more than you'd think.

Well the suggestion seems to be that the 60% is more likely with an A380!

The reality is that when people book they have no idea how full the flight is. They might infer from a low pricer that it is not. It's sometimes the sectors you think which will be least full on which you can't select a decent seat. And that situation can be fluid even after you checkin on a two sector flight the situation on the second sector may change due to circumnstances. So this 60% or 100% preference scenario isn't really a choice is it?

And it also depends on aircraft config. If booked on a A380 with upstairs economy cabin with 2+4+2 seating you get a better chance of getting a pair of seats - which may be near the front. Whereas on a 777 typically there are a few rows at the rear with 2 seats at the window.

And then there is issue of whose A380 or 777. Some 777s are 3+3+3 in the back (eg. BA) and others are 3+4+3 (eg. Emirates) and ISTR that MAS had 2+5+2. The lower cabin of the A380 will likely be 3+4+3 but wider than the 777 with the same config.

Personally? I assume my flight will be 100% packed. Travelling economy with spouse if the A380 has a 2+4+2 cabin option then that's my prefered choice. More chance of getting a pair of seats at the window up front up top. But it's not always obvious as to what the equipment is before booking.

I was going to post the same question! I'm still interested in hearing the answer.

FWIW, I'm quite happy with C class in the 380s, 777s and 787s for what I need to do. Though there was that one time I ended up getting booked in SQ F in my own stateroom from FRA-SIN due to IRROPS. An entirely different planetary experience. :ok:

Back to C class, the EK 380s are definitely top-notch, especially with the little Bistro at the back of the upper deck. Yes, their route structure is impressive.

I remember when once upon a time CO offered a mid-court bar and lounge seating on their DC-10s...

The interior of aircraft and the seating fit, seat pitch and width is entirely the airline's decision. The difference in each airline's approach can be quite considerable. Not all of them are as opulent as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcK5...=TL04ODCqhmTJg
It is likely that air carriers choosing an aircraft for its frugality are not going to throw that away with a seating fit with reduced pax load. At the same time there are some 'lay flat' bed designs that are poorly thought out. Virgin 330's in business make it impossible for people to sit together and their beds have everyone's feet in the aisle. The filing cabinet draw approach of Delta in their 76's seems to be a better bet if a little claustrophobic.

The video in that link is pure speculation. The one and only VVIP A380 was never outfitted and never delivered.
LINK

Airbus Cancels Only VVIP A380 Order | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News

FWIW, 8 VIP 747-8 were ordered and delivered. I don't know this to be fact, but I understand that no one is willing to do the A380 interior mod at least partially because none of the companies that specialize in this mod have hangars that can accommodate an A380. Here's link to a video of one of those 747-8 BBJs.
LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzAREBeiSm0

Picky :) it was just meant to be an example of what could be done.

Not sure about the numbers but I think that the 747/8 BBJ were some of the first delivered.

Some more pickiness: that depends on what you define as "delivered." Boeing delivered incomplete BBJs to completion centers early in the production run. The aircraft were not delivered to the actual customer till well more than a year later.

The main point of my post was to show that because of the A380's fundamental features, things like freighter and VIP versions were not available to fill out the delivery schedule. Those aren't flaws, just simple facts that have made A380 production risky.

First, as noted before the more "frugal" aircraft could also have a wider interior cabin due to newer design (e.g., 777X).

Also, most airlines offer different classes of service and profit from them in different proportions, even when flying the same type. So in many cases reduced pax load could mean higher total profit, depending on the mix of service.

An example in recent years has been the various "Premium Economy" offerings. E.g. on 787s many airlines have 3-3-3 economy but offer 2-3-2 premium economy seating. By offering more premium economy seating you're effectively reducing pax load but may recoup profitability from the higher revenue service.

The service mix depends on the airline and route. E.g., ANA for short domestic 787-9 service decided to cram as many seats as possible so no premium economy seating is offered at all. For international service they have a few rows of 2-3-2 premium economy, a large business class section, but no first class.

On the same 787-9, British Airways decided to have fewer regular (3-3-3) economy seats, an expanded number of premium economy 2-3-2 seating (double that of ANA's), plus business and first classes.

Then there are airlines like United cramming even their premium economy on the 787-9 in 3-3-3 seating, just staggered a bit.

So it's not a given that an airline choosing a more frugal type will necessarily compromise on service, as we've seen on the 787-9 alone there are many possible configurations and mix of services.

I have flown quite a few legs EK, to Dubai, 777, and further after (once) with EK, to Singapore, (and back to LHR) A380, and there is no way on earth that I'd fly that distance again 777.

Econ all the way 380, and it was a different long haul experience. I know if I went out on my hols that I would arrive in far better shape to enjoy them due A380. I would pay for the better travel any time