A380, one more cancellation!
betpump5, I think you've missed the point of my post.
You are describing the ideal situation at the moment. However as fuel prices increase and runway slots become scarcer and environmental pressures become higher......!!! then fewer flights with larger aircraft is one way round these problems. Once airlines see the operating economics of the A380-900 it will sell. All it needs is for Airbus to make it available.
The current market module is not sustainable in the long term
You are describing the ideal situation at the moment. However as fuel prices increase and runway slots become scarcer and environmental pressures become higher......!!! then fewer flights with larger aircraft is one way round these problems. Once airlines see the operating economics of the A380-900 it will sell. All it needs is for Airbus to make it available.
The current market module is not sustainable in the long term
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
none of the major American airlines are currently interested.
Only time will tell, I look forward to seeing what BA do with them.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks, the Skytanic has a role, and I'm sure it's a totally sweet ride. But it has two basic selling points:
A. fuel economy
B. pax/landing slot.
As far as I can see, the unique size and requirements of the A380 make reduced crew and maintenance costs an open question -- we'll find out more as it progresses.
Meanwhile, the on-paper claims of A380 fuel economy are on a par with those of Boeing's twins (A380 claims 2.9 l per pax per 100 km, assuming 555 pax and no luggage; 777-300ER also claims 2.9l per pax per 100km, fully loaded).
Pax/landing slot matters for a small number of airports, and these are usually the ones passengers (and crews) don't want to go to (LHR-JFK, anyone?).
But since most of the weight on a long-haul jet is equipment and fuel, the efficiency only comes into play at high load factors. So if you can stick a fully loaded 777 on a route instead of a half-loaded A380, you just made a ton of savings: in other words, that's fuel economy.
It's not a pro-American thing. Quite the contrary. There's always a strong desire to have the biggest, most powerful toy out there (well, at least for males). But is there a business case to match up to that? So far, the dozen-odd A380s flying around haven't demonstrated it.
A. fuel economy
B. pax/landing slot.
As far as I can see, the unique size and requirements of the A380 make reduced crew and maintenance costs an open question -- we'll find out more as it progresses.
Meanwhile, the on-paper claims of A380 fuel economy are on a par with those of Boeing's twins (A380 claims 2.9 l per pax per 100 km, assuming 555 pax and no luggage; 777-300ER also claims 2.9l per pax per 100km, fully loaded).
Pax/landing slot matters for a small number of airports, and these are usually the ones passengers (and crews) don't want to go to (LHR-JFK, anyone?).
But since most of the weight on a long-haul jet is equipment and fuel, the efficiency only comes into play at high load factors. So if you can stick a fully loaded 777 on a route instead of a half-loaded A380, you just made a ton of savings: in other words, that's fuel economy.
It's not a pro-American thing. Quite the contrary. There's always a strong desire to have the biggest, most powerful toy out there (well, at least for males). But is there a business case to match up to that? So far, the dozen-odd A380s flying around haven't demonstrated it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BHX
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem I see for the A380 is the lack of hold space. Fill it with pax and bags and there isn't much left for cargo. With the current world situation there is a big reduction in the amount of pure cargo flights and more travelling in the bellies of passenger flights, not enough to operate a freighter but still enough to fill the space on a 773. On the right routes 4 773's a day could be moving full pax loads and plenty of cargo giving plenty of extra revenue at little extra cost, change to 2 A380's and you lose more revenue than you gain in operating costs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long?
I don't think we need worry too much about the current A380 order book.
There was a piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which I read that A has had 11 net new orders so far this year, while B has had 7.
Clearly not a banner year for airliner sales and one in which both manufacuterers are more concerned about preserving existing orders than in gaining new ones.
The A380 had a seamless EIS, with great dispatch reliability, better than book fuel burn, and no real problems I have read of, so the aiplane apparently meets the goals set for it.
The current order book doesn't really matter. There are many city pairs which could support an aircraft with the capacity of the A380. The real question is, when will Boeing counter this aircraft? The 748 is not a direct competitor, and has taken only a handfull of pax orders. Boeing may at some point come up with a more advanced composite competitor, but Boeing for the moment has its hands full with the 787, and must then turn to the 737 repalcement, to keep Southwest happy.
My point is that the A380 is very good at what it does and unless Boeing comes up with something much better in the next ten years, the A380 will probably end up a sucessful program.
There was a piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which I read that A has had 11 net new orders so far this year, while B has had 7.
Clearly not a banner year for airliner sales and one in which both manufacuterers are more concerned about preserving existing orders than in gaining new ones.
The A380 had a seamless EIS, with great dispatch reliability, better than book fuel burn, and no real problems I have read of, so the aiplane apparently meets the goals set for it.
The current order book doesn't really matter. There are many city pairs which could support an aircraft with the capacity of the A380. The real question is, when will Boeing counter this aircraft? The 748 is not a direct competitor, and has taken only a handfull of pax orders. Boeing may at some point come up with a more advanced composite competitor, but Boeing for the moment has its hands full with the 787, and must then turn to the 737 repalcement, to keep Southwest happy.
My point is that the A380 is very good at what it does and unless Boeing comes up with something much better in the next ten years, the A380 will probably end up a sucessful program.
