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,

How do you know?

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.

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.

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.

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 : 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 )

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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....

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

DR, I think you need to consider the cause and effect at play - would Boeing abandon the passenger 747-8 if they saw a significant market there?
Airbus thought they could sell a bunch of A380s to replace old 747s - but that didn't happen. Most operators are replacing their old 747s with big twins, not new A380s or 747s.

TDRACER

When Boeing produces an aircraft as comfortable, quiet and smooth as an A380, (and I don't mind whether it's a a twin or a quad), then people will fly it out of choice not out of desperation.

PS the 787 does not come close.

IG

It never stop to amaze me that we are working in an industry where the client ( the paying pax ) has in fact nothing to say but accept what others decide is best for them. and we are supposed to live in a market oriented global business!
Interesting also to see that on routes where the same airline offers different types ( e.g SQ or LH ) the fares on the A380 are generally significantly higher that on the 747 or the 777 as people are apparently prepared to pay a premium for the 380 .

I recall reading various articles in which Sir Tim Clark was commenting on the introduction of the A380 into Manchester.

He was clear that the A380 created it's own market share wherever it was introduced, and I think their massive increase at MAN has proved that point. Three per day and each one either full or very nearly. It's the best aircraft I have flown on but I have my next flight booked on the Qatar A350, which also seems to be rated very highly, so it will be interesting to compare the two. The B787's are okay, better than a B767, but you don't leave with the wow factor like you do on the big airbus.

There was a market for concorde, pretty sure there still would be today, but no choice but to accept subsonic transatlantic these days, no matter what your budget.

It's also not only this industry. Tried to buy a mobile phone with a removable battery recently? I actually want to replace my 4yr old smart phone, in a few months, it's getting a bit slow and starting to struggle with what passes for mobile web sites today and the OS version is now out of support. I have a list of about 6 - 8 features that my four year old phone already has that I want, plus faster processor and more memory, nothing available, even with money-no-issue budget. Take list to phone shop "sorry no one makes a phone like that now", what, "does no one want A B C X Y Z?", "oh yes, but most people don't care".

And that in the end is what will probably do for the A380 - "most people don't care". Sad thing is that it will leave as it arrived, an ugly duckling, which the 900 or 1000 stretches might well have fixed.

I have been flying and passengering around in aeroplanes for a good 55 + years now and I can say categorically that the A380 is the most comfortable aeroplane I have ever been in by a long shot.
So quiet and smooth it is an absolute delight to be a passenger in.
I just hope it keeps being built so that many others in years to come can get as much pleasure from it as I have.
Like so many things it might not look really beautiful but it's sure nice once you get inside!!!
Thanks Airbus for such a lovely aeroplane to fly in.

From a passengers point of view, the A380 is simply the most comfortable plane to fly.
However, didn't Airbus build there own nail in the coffin of the A380 by introducing the A350-1000?

I think that you will find that people are beginning to care much more than they did 5 years ago. So many options exist today to travel the same route on different airlines, especially out of Heathrow and at similar prices, so the differentiating factor will become the comfort, ride and noise characteristics. I have been doing Montreal often over the last 5 years starting on the 777, (it rattles, is uncomfortable and noisy, and performs badly in turbulence) before going to the 787. So uncomfortable that SWMBO and I take real cushions, not blowups, in our hand baggage. The plastic bits rattle and squeak so much its like sitting in an empty milk container, still better than the 777 though. Roll on the A380, (Don't mention AC. :eek:)

IG

What a strange way to look at how the real world works. The open market has stated, repeatedly, that the average consumer is primarily cost driven. So much so that the ultra low cost carriers have grown like weeds - largely at the expense of the 'full service' operators. While everyone likes to blame the bean counters for the decline in service among the legacy operators, the bottom line is that they can no longer operate the way the did a few decades back and stay in business. The bottom line is the typical paying passenger won't pay for full service if a cheaper option is available. The A380 - at least as it is typically configured (I doubt if an A380 configured for 800+ passengers would get the same sort of rave reviews) - is a nice experience for the passenger. Much the same way Concorde was in years past. But precious few paying passengers are willing to pay significantly more for that experience.
Everyone complains about the cramped seats in the 10 across 777 and 9 across 787. If most paying passengers boycotted those operators and only fly on those with 9 across 777s and 8 across 787s, the cattle car seating would quickly go away. But they don't - they may bitch and complain, but they still buy the cheapest ticket.
So the market based solution is cramped, uncomfortable seating and crappy service with dirt cheap prices because that is exactly what the majority of travelers have voted for with their wallets. Most of the people on this form hate it - with good reason - but we are a small minority. Personally, I always check the aircraft type and check it out on seatguru when booking air travel - but my wife doesn't care, she just wants the lowest price so she can spend the money shopping after we get there.

Had a few over 610 pax on board a 2 class 380 to the UK and back last week . The only replacement for a 380 is a newer 380.

No, the question is: would Boeing have abandoned the pax B748 if they saw a market capable of supporting two competitors? Nobody seriously thinks there is, it was just Boeing who blinked first, as everyone expected.

Both parts of that statement are undoubtedly true (and you could equally say that Boeing thought they could sell a bunch of B748s to replace old 747s). But to imply, as Boeing's forecast does, that Airbus are only going to sell an average of 3 A380s per year over the next 20 years sounds awfully like sour grapes.

Which probably is the reason why the premium economy has become a big market success, it is simply cheaper than economy class...

The market has demonstrated that if given the choice, people are willing to pay a premium for a better product. If however the product offered is inconsistent and you never know what you really get for your money, then of course everybody opts for lowest cost.
Those airlines who explicitly offer the A380 as premium product have succeded to sell the more expensive tickets.

You´re right, they switched some of the flights to 787 now. The A340 will soon be history on that route as well.
Anyway, they switched back from A380 to two planes within less than 2 hours, just like they did before there was an A380 available.

Because they do not need the extra capacity. They once bought the 747 for range, not for seats. Now they can have the 747 range with smaller twins, which allows a more flexible and diversive network.
Many even replace their old 747 with 787, not with 77W, as they do not need the size.

The hub concept requires efficient and convenient airports, most major airports of major cities however are very old, and have grown without a real concept behind. If it takes longer to change terminals at a major airport than flying to smaller airport and take a train or car to your destination, many people will do just that. It is not just the airspace or the runways, it is the full aiport infrastructure which prevents the A380 from using its full potential. Only a handful of airports worldwide is truly "A380 ready".
If you operate from an airport with overloaded terminals, you do not make your A380 passengers happy. And if you operate from small efficient airports, you can not fill an A380.

What percentage of the seats are "premium" economy vs. regular economy? 20%? How many of those "premium" economy seats are actually paid for (as vs. frequent flyer upgrades?) Personally, if the flight is more than ~2 hours, I'd spring for premium economy - except that I don't need to. Due to my FF status I nearly always get upgraded - which also tells me not that many people are actually paying for it or there wouldn't be room to upgrade me. The market has demonstrated that once they reached the bottom, a few people would pay extra to get off the bottom - but the majority don't.
If the airlines could routinely make more money flying the A380 than big twins, they'd be buying more of them. I can count the number of airlines that have done that on one finger.

This is true for most of operations, you have an 8 lane motorway ending at a 2 car garage.

Given that more runways are near impossible, the capacity needs to be on the ac, not more of them.

While the Lazy B keeps pumping out the 737 series, the miscues certainly have cost them dearly...757, 767, 748, and losing the C Series. The Embraer deal is a bit amusing, but C919 and ARJ21 ill have to be dealt with.
Like imagegear stated, the 787 rattles and squeeks with center overhead baggage acting like a yodlers uvula in even slight turbulence.

I think to some extent it was the other way on. Boeing was pushing for large twins and the extended range of the 787 to support thin routes. That is happening. Indeed Airbus almost immediately generated a 787-like A350 also aimed at thin routes. Both B and A have trouble selling 4 holers and Boeing didn't think that the 74 market would continue but the 748F market is starting to grow,. However, the 380 has the problem of very limited cargo space and no cargo variant. For the bean counters high value freight is very important to the operator's bottom line so even if the pax like it the budget may not..

The point of buying and operating an airliner is to make money. Making money boils down to two points.
1. Most passengers are willing to grit their teeth during their flight in order to pay the least amount possible. To profit in that environment requires operating a twinjet.
2. Airlines also make money moving freight in the belly. To profit in that environment requires a single deck aircraft. Double deckers tend to fill their belly with passenger luggage.

Sadly, as superb as the airplane is, the A380 violates both points 1 and 2.

A lesser but still important point is resale value. Airlines need to be able to sell used aircraft to the secondary market at a reasonable price. That means freighter conversions and high density versions for charter operations. There is no freighter conversion and it is unlikely that a high density version of the A380 can be filled. Right now 10 year old A380s have more value as scrap than as airliners. This may change as later build A380s reach their 10 year point, but this is far from certain.

And even assuming charter operators could fill high density A380s, how many terminals could handle 800+ people disembarking from a single aircraft? And will 800+ people's luggage fit in the belly or would the airline have to restrict the amount of baggage a passenger could take with him/her?

So much like the Concorde which was an engineering marvel, the realities of the market means the A380 (like the Concorde before it) operates in a niche. There's not a lot of profit in niche markets and what profit there is seems to have been mostly captured by a single operator, Emirates. And note that Emirates operate from a huge terminal dedicated exclusively for the A380. Could any airline anywhere duplicate such a terminal? And yes, Emirates operates a whole bunch of A380s, but they ALSO operate even more B777 (indeed they are the largest operator of the B777-300ER) and have ordered hundreds more. So even in the rarified world Emirates operates in, they're buying more B777 than A380. So not even Emirates can make as big a profit flying A380 as they can flying B777, else they'd buy and fly more A380 and less B777.

Your 777 ride was more "bumpy, rattley and noisy" than your Dash 8 ride???? Were you in the engine nacelle? :)

As some have pointed out here, at one time the airlines used wide bodies , DC-10 etc on domestic and holiday routes. They have all switched to narrow bodies. Load, frequency and turn around mean better economics and money rules.
What is interesting is Atlantic traffic is going the same way, see Norwegian and Primeria.
I haven't flown the A380 but everyone I know who has loves it. But then people loved the Concorde, even with the cramped seating.
The good thing is, smaller planes = more jobs for pilots !