UA_Flyer

John Leahy is confident that:

Triple digit A350 orders at Paris Airshow (also A350 is a brand new aircraft not a derivative of A330)
BA and CX to place orders for A380

In addition:

A380 discussions with the two American Majors that currently operate 747s. (IMHO, UA and NW still not likely to order A380 unless Airbus provides exit financing for UA)


http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=1080

LAX

With regards to the A350, Airbus probably convinced EK to go with A350 instead of B787. As far as it being a completely new aircraft, it may very well be one if the current customers place orders for them with that expectation instead of being a retrofitted A330. However, if it's a redesign, then it will take longer to roll out. As far as CX and BA buying the A380, unless Boeing does not plan on going forward with the B747ADV project, CX and BA will hold off until that decision is made.

LAX

SEA_Tigger

Well US will be ordering 20 A350s since Airbus has approved financing for their merger with HP. So that makes 30 orders.

If they plan to get 100, that means EK will buy the A350 and they probably also landed GF, as well, since GF wanted a larger 787. However, both might have required Airbus to build an all-new plane which means they will not have it ready by 2010, so 787 will have a 4-5 year lead (though that does give Airbus some time to see what is working and not on the 787 program and adjust accordingly).

Britain has confirmed launch aid for the A350, but the US will contest it (probably in the WTO).

As for UA and NW buying the A380, I can't see it happening. BA, CX, and LH would be the most likely launch customers for the 747A, so I expect if they want it, Boeing will formally launch the 747A at Paris.

YVR Cockroach

Not only that but it's going to take a lot more €€€€ to develop.

SPM

BA is traditionally a Boeing only company, but with Virgin, Singapore Airlines and others flying A380s out of Heathrow, and given the shortage of slots in Heathrow, not flying the A380 will put BA at a severe disadvantage on it's home turf. BA isn't in a good financial state at the moment, so it will delay buying as long as it can, but I believe it will have to come round eventually.

As for the A350 being a new aircraft, it kind of makes sense. Announce it as a 330 variant to try to stall 787 purchase decisions (the same as Boeing did for the 747 variants to compete with the A380) and then launch an all new plane to compete in a different range (just like Boeing did with the 787)? I wonder if the A350 will be launched to compete with the 777 rather than the 787. It would kind of make sense to do so since the 777 is less modern than the 787 and so the A350 will have a more compelling market there.

Threy

SPM made a brilliant point, once the competition flies the A 380 on certain routes, you have to follow, cause they will lower the fares so massively, that either you pull out of the market or you buy the A 380 or come up with something revolutionary...

Generally revenue per seat mile will continue to fall, so operating the most efficient airplane on the most efficient way of operating ( which is still hub and spoke ) is key to success in the future.

SEA_Tigger

It could play against the 777-200/200ER, but it won't be able to compete with the 777-200LR in range, nor the 777-300 and the 777-300ER in capacity.

I would not be surprised if the A350 cannabalized a good number of A340 sales, however.

UA_Flyer

I am not disagreeing but rather I am posting two issues to consider here....

I heard the same argument about the Concord before ( yes I am old enough to remember when it was launched). BA and AF would force the competitions to fly Concord because people want to spend less time in the air.... well we all know what had happened; however, I may comparing apple with orange here.

As regarding the lower fare with A380... that is assuming the plane is almost full, if it is not, there is no point talking about lower fare. In the event of economic downturn, the plane can be half empty, and the cost would not be absorbed by the 50% load. Didn't CX decided to park the planes during the SARs instead of having them in service because it would save them more if the planes were not flying.

MrsOnedog

If Emrates could order 40+ 380's, they shouldn't have any problem ordering at least 100+ 350's. Doesn't mean that they will actually buy them and take delivery.

SPM

The A380's operating costs per seat are much lower than the 747 and lower than any other aircraft flying with the same percent of seats filled. And who says the A380 is going to be half full and 747s full? Cut the fare marginally, and offer the wider seats and longer legroom that the A380 offers, and the A380 will be flying full and two 747s half empty. 747s flying half empty make a big loss. 747 sales have slowed to a trickle, 777s and A340/A330s are squeezing it at the low end, and the A380 at the high end, so the 747s, not the A380s are the ones that end up being parked on the tarmac.

LHR is a busy airport with limited landing slots. I can't see any way of scheduling more 787 flights in to try to compete with the A380, unless BA cuts it's passenger numbers and switches to flying to smaller airports. Since BA wouldn't need the high density routes through LHR, maybe they might even think of switching to London Stanstead or London Gatwick.

Naah! The more I think about it, the more of an extreme fantasy this scenario turns out to be. Maybe Ryanair won't need the A380, but in the long term BA would be committing suicide if to chooses not to operate them. BA will resist buying the A380 if it has overcapacity, but competition with other airlines flying A380s on the same routes will force it to either concede it's high density routes which are it's bread and butter or fly 747s at a loss on these routes if it doesn't match them with A380s of it's own.

UA_Flyer

Thanks for sharing your views. Would you mined sharing some of the basis or assumptions for your statements. At least, they fulfill my curiosity

Which airlines are you refering to? How do you know which airlines will have longer legroom and they will fly full? I read from the Airbus website's marketing materials on more legrooms, but I thought the airlines themselves decide on the configurations. If they have longer legroom, why would they want to cut fares?


I am anticipating and planning to fly the A380 and looking forward to the flying experience it. However, I don't understand you statement above. Why do you think the 747 will be parked in the tarmac? My previous e-mail referred to economic slowdowns or events such as SARS would force the airlines to park planes with excess capacity. I don't understand what you meant by low and high ends. I do respect your view but just don't understand the underlining rationals.

cj001f

It's pretty simple math. 49% more cabinspace. 33% more passengers. SOMEONE is going to get more legroom. Or everyone will have a pool to swin in

SPM

>>Which airlines are you refering to? <<

BA specifically.

>>How do you know which airlines will have longer legroom and they will fly full?<<

The A380 seat arrangement means wider seats than the 747 in economy class, and the fact that it has 50% more space and 33% more weight capacity than the 747. This leads to the inescapable conclusion based on the basic laws of maths and physics that the A380 will have more space per passenger even in high density "cattle truck" configuration with 840 passengers than the 747 with similar configuration.

>>If they have longer legroom, why would they want to cut fares?
Why do you think the 747 will be parked in the tarmac?<<

They may not need to. However, people have being putting out statements in this thread (without any basis on fact that I can see) that A380s will be running half full and so won't make good on the big operational per seat cost advantage that it will have over all other airliners (including the 787) because of this. All I saying is that because there is big cost saving to allow price cuts on the A380, if there is overcapacity, a small cut in the fare will fill the A380, and it is the 747 with it's higher operating costs and not the A380 that is going to be flying half empty or sitting on the tarmac. It doesn't mean that there will be enough passengers on all routes, all airports, or all types of carrier for the A380 of course, I am talking specifically about Heathrow which is a slot restricted airport and BA which is a high density route operator with Heathrow as a base. Many other international hubs and airlines will be in a similar position however.

>>I don't understand what you meant by low and high ends.<<

I mean the 747 is being attacked at the high passenger capacity configurations by the A380 and the low passenger capacity configurations by the 777 and A340.

Plato90s

And the piano bars in the skies lasted how long?

The advent of the 747 didn't force every single operator to start flying it, and in fact many carriers have voluntarily foregone the 747 after owning it. I don't think airlines will be forced to operate A380's just because a competitor is doing so. BA might be forced to buy them just because UK is an EADS investor, but that's really a separate story.

LAX

Perhaps BA would eventually order a few A380s if it turns out to be a reliable and cost-effective plane. However, AFAIK, BA, along with CX, are pushing Boeing hard to launch B747ADV, so it looks like BA would rather not fly A380s unless it is forced to.

LAX