@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.