Airbus 380
Jan 19, 2005, 10:33 am
#61
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 5,305
Originally Posted by parnel
I wonder if the AC team was there for the roll out and if they signed up to buy any. If AF comes into YUL with one daily AC would certainly have to consider having them as well.
Surely you jest. AC seems quite happy to operate 767s around the world, if they could get ETOPS I could seem them operatig 320 and 321's to Europe off the east coast. Their strategy seems to be to fly the smallest plane possible on any given route.
Jan 19, 2005, 10:44 am
#62
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YOW
Programs: Distiction Diamond, HHonorsGold, Starwood Gold, Delta
Posts: 360
I hope AC doesn't purchase the 380 for several reasons:
1. New aircraft always have teething pains (much like new cars) and I think it would be wise to let other's iron them out before committing to such a large purchase. Also, I don't see too many routes for AC for such an aircraft without a serious reduction in frequency.
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
3. I agree with many previous posts that once the economics take-over, there won't be any day cares, showers, weight rooms, piano bars etc. BIS makes money and that is the bottom line.
4. I do see a market for some routes and also I see a significant marker for freight, but I don't see much requirement for the passenger 380 for AC.
Now, I could be proven wrong but time will tell.
IMHO only
1. New aircraft always have teething pains (much like new cars) and I think it would be wise to let other's iron them out before committing to such a large purchase. Also, I don't see too many routes for AC for such an aircraft without a serious reduction in frequency.
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
3. I agree with many previous posts that once the economics take-over, there won't be any day cares, showers, weight rooms, piano bars etc. BIS makes money and that is the bottom line.
4. I do see a market for some routes and also I see a significant marker for freight, but I don't see much requirement for the passenger 380 for AC.
Now, I could be proven wrong but time will tell.
IMHO only
Jan 19, 2005, 11:41 am
#63
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Aeroplan E
Posts: 566
Trent,
AC has gotten rid of its B744s. As a result, I do not see the A388s fitting into the AC fleet plans. If they can fill the A343s and A345s, then they should look at the B773ERs or the A346s before even dreaming about the A388s.
I see B7e7s or A350s to enter the AC fleet in around 5 to 6 years time to replace some of the B767s.
AC has gotten rid of its B744s. As a result, I do not see the A388s fitting into the AC fleet plans. If they can fill the A343s and A345s, then they should look at the B773ERs or the A346s before even dreaming about the A388s.
I see B7e7s or A350s to enter the AC fleet in around 5 to 6 years time to replace some of the B767s.
Jan 19, 2005, 11:57 am
#64
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,927
I would hope that AC, being a mostly Airbus airline, would look at the A350 (to replace A330/340 eventually) and/or A380 (747 replacment?) before any Boeing product.
One of the big selling points for Airbus is fleet commonality. One license for A318/319/320/321, one for A330/340 and one for A380, with minimal training required for an `upgrade` in type rating.
I will be squeezing my friend at AF very hard to get on one of the inaugural CDG-YUL flights. Can`t wait to ride the A388! The A389 will be even bigger.
One of the big selling points for Airbus is fleet commonality. One license for A318/319/320/321, one for A330/340 and one for A380, with minimal training required for an `upgrade` in type rating.
I will be squeezing my friend at AF very hard to get on one of the inaugural CDG-YUL flights. Can`t wait to ride the A388! The A389 will be even bigger.
Jan 19, 2005, 12:10 pm
#66
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YOW
Programs: Distiction Diamond, HHonorsGold, Starwood Gold, Delta
Posts: 360
Originally Posted by AC_flyer
Trent,
AC has gotten rid of its B744s. As a result, I do not see the A388s fitting into the AC fleet plans. If they can fill the A343s and A345s, then they should look at the B773ERs or the A346s before even dreaming about the A388s.
I see B7e7s or A350s to enter the AC fleet in around 5 to 6 years time to replace some of the B767s.
AC has gotten rid of its B744s. As a result, I do not see the A388s fitting into the AC fleet plans. If they can fill the A343s and A345s, then they should look at the B773ERs or the A346s before even dreaming about the A388s.
I see B7e7s or A350s to enter the AC fleet in around 5 to 6 years time to replace some of the B767s.
Jan 19, 2005, 8:15 pm
#68
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YYC
Programs: Marriott LTP - Aeroplan 50K
Posts: 676
[QUOTE=Trent]I hope AC doesn't purchase the 380 for several reasons:
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
That's what the Boeing spin doctors are saying this week in light of the A380 rollout - and why they are touting the benefits of the "Dreamliner."
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
That's what the Boeing spin doctors are saying this week in light of the A380 rollout - and why they are touting the benefits of the "Dreamliner."
Jan 19, 2005, 8:42 pm
#69
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,990
Originally Posted by Shareholder
But seeing all the mock-ups of interiors takes me back to the launches of the 747, DC10 and L1011 which also promised us dining rooms, dance halls and lots of space to enjoy our flights in. How long such spaces are offered on the A380 before the reality of operating economics catches up makes for wonderous speculation.
Jan 19, 2005, 9:08 pm
#70
At Large
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by mtacchi
Surely you jest. AC seems quite happy to operate 767s around the world, if they could get ETOPS I could seem them operatig 320 and 321's to Europe off the east coast. Their strategy seems to be to fly the smallest plane possible on any given route.
Of course I jest; AC does not want to compete in the real world.
Jan 20, 2005, 12:05 am
#71
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,448
TOULOUSE, France (AFP) — The new A380 superjumbo unveiled by Airbus on Tuesday has stoked strong demand from airlines looking to keep pace with the growing air travel market.
So far, 13 airlines have ordered a total of 139 of the planes.
Here is a list of companies that have placed orders:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...s-orders_x.htm
So far, 13 airlines have ordered a total of 139 of the planes.
Here is a list of companies that have placed orders:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...s-orders_x.htm
Jan 20, 2005, 4:03 am
#72
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: YUL
Programs: AE, AirMiles Gold
Posts: 659
Honestly I fail to see much of a market for the 380 outside of the existing 747 routes. While Airbus says that it costs less per seat, I still didn't see anything in their press release saying that flying a 380 is cheaper then a 747 and I would like to see the actual data.
Of course for cargo operators the 380 will be great, some airlines might even considering using only 1 deck for pax and the other for cargo (if it's possible). Of course airbus is not forthcoming with technical information on their plane.
Of course for cargo operators the 380 will be great, some airlines might even considering using only 1 deck for pax and the other for cargo (if it's possible). Of course airbus is not forthcoming with technical information on their plane.
Jan 20, 2005, 5:26 am
#73
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Aeroplan E
Posts: 566
[QUOTE=Singlepoint]
Singlepoint,
The statement you mentioned is definately what Boeing is spinning right now.
I see the A388s fitting in well in airlines like LH, AF, SQ, QF, EK....etc. Airlines which are already filling up their B744s in some routes. Especially into slot limited airports like LHR.
However most North American airlines are finding it difficult to fill the B744s for pax traffic. Currently there are only 2 Major airlines in North America operating the B744s. UA and NW. The other major do not operate them. UA is also cutting back, as with NW. AC is also in a similar predicament.
However just because North American Airlines cannot fill a large plane does not mean the A388 will be bust.
Originally Posted by Trent
I hope AC doesn't purchase the 380 for several reasons:
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
That's what the Boeing spin doctors are saying this week in light of the A380 rollout - and why they are touting the benefits of the "Dreamliner."
2. As a passenger, I am not keen on waiting with 600+ folks for customs and luggage in most airports, but especially a place like Dehli, which at present takes several hours to empty a 747. I would rather hop on a 330/340/767/7E7/777 and go point-to-point with more frequency and with less of a crowd. In fact I would avoid the 380 if there were other options available.
That's what the Boeing spin doctors are saying this week in light of the A380 rollout - and why they are touting the benefits of the "Dreamliner."
The statement you mentioned is definately what Boeing is spinning right now.
I see the A388s fitting in well in airlines like LH, AF, SQ, QF, EK....etc. Airlines which are already filling up their B744s in some routes. Especially into slot limited airports like LHR.
However most North American airlines are finding it difficult to fill the B744s for pax traffic. Currently there are only 2 Major airlines in North America operating the B744s. UA and NW. The other major do not operate them. UA is also cutting back, as with NW. AC is also in a similar predicament.
However just because North American Airlines cannot fill a large plane does not mean the A388 will be bust.
Jan 20, 2005, 8:34 am
#74
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YEG
Programs: AC *SE AF BA PC Plat
Posts: 124
Isn't armchair quarterbacking great!
One thing I can assure everyone of is that Airbus has had a very close look at worldwide traffic, 747 obsolescence, and future trends. I agree that we probably won't see a lot of 388's in NA skies, however the aircraft should do very well on worldwide markets. Airbus has gone to great lengths to build this aircraft using a sound business model, with appropriate engineering checks and balances.
Further to previous comments about weight and operating surfaces: There are two factors at play here, PLR (pavement load rating), and ACN (Aircraft Classification Number. Every aircraft in the world has an ACN which is a measurement of the load that it places on the surface, and there are charts available for most airports showing the load that pavement will bear. There are often certain taxiways and aprons that I find myself restricted from based on these factors. While I do not know the ACN for the A380 (I'll ask next week) I would be very surprised if it exceeded that of a 747 based on the landing gear geometry. These are all factors that ops will account for when planning diversionary airports.
I can't wait to see this thing fly - MR to Toulouse perhaps??
One thing I can assure everyone of is that Airbus has had a very close look at worldwide traffic, 747 obsolescence, and future trends. I agree that we probably won't see a lot of 388's in NA skies, however the aircraft should do very well on worldwide markets. Airbus has gone to great lengths to build this aircraft using a sound business model, with appropriate engineering checks and balances.
Further to previous comments about weight and operating surfaces: There are two factors at play here, PLR (pavement load rating), and ACN (Aircraft Classification Number. Every aircraft in the world has an ACN which is a measurement of the load that it places on the surface, and there are charts available for most airports showing the load that pavement will bear. There are often certain taxiways and aprons that I find myself restricted from based on these factors. While I do not know the ACN for the A380 (I'll ask next week) I would be very surprised if it exceeded that of a 747 based on the landing gear geometry. These are all factors that ops will account for when planning diversionary airports.
I can't wait to see this thing fly - MR to Toulouse perhaps??
Jan 20, 2005, 8:47 am
#75
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YOW
Programs: Distiction Diamond, HHonorsGold, Starwood Gold, Delta
Posts: 360
My comments were definitely armchair quarterbacking.
To be clear, I know that Airbus has done a detailed analysis of the market for the 380 and I am sure it will be viable on many routes but generally not to NA (with a few exceptions). Also, cargo will be a large market for this machine.
I just am glad that AC isn't looking at it at the moment as I don't see it fitting in with their philosphy and direction.
There is no disrespect to the 380, from a development point of view it is a fascinating aircraft and I would like to fly it but probably only once!!!
cheers
To be clear, I know that Airbus has done a detailed analysis of the market for the 380 and I am sure it will be viable on many routes but generally not to NA (with a few exceptions). Also, cargo will be a large market for this machine.
I just am glad that AC isn't looking at it at the moment as I don't see it fitting in with their philosphy and direction.
There is no disrespect to the 380, from a development point of view it is a fascinating aircraft and I would like to fly it but probably only once!!!
cheers