FLLDL

CEO needed to come out and say something after the CFOs previous comments tanked the stock price.

PHL

Barely. It's only about a 5" difference in fuselage interior width. Depending on the interior design, that minimal difference can be unnoticeable.

WhIteSidE

As others have said, the A380 is going to be a very difficult bird to resell or lease as they age -- there's essentially no one but the current operators who can make them work. I think we're going to see EK and SQ keeping them for a long time and doing periodic cabin upgrades.

Most 747s end up carrying cargo later in life, but the A380 cannot be easily converted to a cargo operation without significant engineering, and even then, I don't know how you'd load the upper deck.

Despite what some other have suggested, the Chinese (and eventually India) domestic markets look a lot more like the US to me than a bunch of short haul A380s. During the 70s and 80s there were a number of US carriers running 747s and Tri-Jets on domestic routes, because they had a bunch of them and needed to do something with them.

I think the successful carriers in the Chinese domestic market will look a lot like Southwest and Alaska, with high frequency on 737 and A321 sized aircraft, not A380 sized aircraft.

TMtraveler

Totally agree, and that was my point. The 747, on the market since the 60s, has sold ~1,500 units lifetime. It always has been a VERY limited market and Airbus decided that was the one to enter with a $25B investment? The timeline tells you that the jumbo market averaged 30 planes a year over 50 years with only ONE option on the market.

I just don't get how anyone is surprised by this. Had the 380 never come to market, many of those orders would have been for 747s and prolonged it's life by a few years and Airbus would have been better off. Oh well . . .

TMtraveler

Bingo. And not just the act of loading/unloading the plane but deck loading as well. That upper deck won't be good for anything but light postage. Shoot, a good chunk of the stuff I air freight for oil and gas projects can't be supported by the deck loading limits on the 747 without a monster skid to spread the weight.

wco81

What are the load factors these days?

I thought a lot of long haul planes were packed.

Surely A380 makes sense for some of those routes than adding additional flights?

PHL

The additional fuel and crew costs don't always make this true. And of course, packed flights don't mean huge profits (or, sometimes, any profit at all).

mre5765

Apparently when a domestic pax in India has a connecting flight he has to exit airside, enter landslide, and clear security again. Such a security model won't lend itself to anything larger than a 737, more likely nothing larger than an E190.

eternaltransit

An A380 is a really expensive plane to run - the fuel capacity is a 84k gallons, so take an ULH route (15-16hr) where you need to fill the tanks, that's 168k USD at current prices (252k USD only a year ago). If your fuel costs are 30-40% of total operating costs for your airline, that's between 420-800k that ULH sector is going to cost you. You'll need yields of about 1000-1500USD a pax. Difficult for many airlines to generate that sort of revenue on the routes they would fly. Not impossible, but risky: many airlines would probably want to deploy capital on less risky routes and operations instead for a more guaranteed return.

wco81

Well TATL flights from SFO are already in that price range, if not above it, for economy.

Flights to Australia are mostly above $1500.

Where are the 787s being used? UA certainly isn't using them for TATL. Instead, SFO-FRA is a 747. I guess 747 fits the demand for that flight better? Or they just don't want to replace that particular plane?

I've heard Quantas is struggling financially. Do they not fill those A380 flights between LAX and SYD?

eternaltransit

Indeed - although I think those prices are set at that rate as a floor because of operating costs: what matters is their load factor - if an operator can't get 80%+ on a 3 class consistently, they are going to struggle. Clearly depends on your cost base though.

Have seen some UA 787s on TPAC, e.g. DEN-NRT. I don't think UA would put a 747 on a route if it didn't have solid load factors.

QFs international routes to Asia/Europe are I think the mainstay of their operations which are losing money due to price wars on the capacity into Australia from both Asian and ME carriers, but the massive drop in profits on their domestic operation which traditionally propped up international has really hurt them. In fact the only thing that is keeping them going in the last year or two has been QFF, which made margins of 25% or so and actual profits of around 286M AUD - compare that to 30M AUD for domestic and a loss of 497M AUD in international and a loss of 116M AUD in Jetstar and it looks like that airline is actually just a loyalty programme that happens to fly planes

Swissaire

How about " Mea Culpa ? "

joshwex90

767 is mostly 7 across

To me, it doesn't sound like anti-Airbus bias, but more so in the specific frame.

However, it's not true to say that an airline does't buy based off "preference." And "preference" can easily be connected to capitalism - see CO's "gentleman's agreement" with Boeing in the 90s

bhrubin

I'm entertained by the number of "armchair airline executives" determining whether or not the A380 is a viable option for airlines. Their analyses in favor of the A380 are all very interesting--except that the airlines do not seem to be sharing their conclusions.

I'm most entertained by the number of people who love the A380 because of its premium cabin enhancements or noise reductions that other aircraft don't or can't have. I agree that the enhancements are all very nice, but the airlines have largely decided that they don't pencil out in the overall calculation. Offering nicer amenities at the front of the plane doesn't typically help you fill the back of the plane, after all. And the A380 has quite a back of the plane! And while the A380 might be negligibly quieter than other aircraft, I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of consumers don't choose flights based on relative noise levels...and don't think the difference warrants one aircraft over another.

The A380 is doomed if market analyst evaluations are to be believed. Airbus either has to invest roughly $2.5 billion to create new engines for a revamped A380...or call it a day at some point in the not-too-distant future. Emirates may be upset, but I doubt Emirates being upset is bothering other airlines much at all.

Kremmen

It isn't unreasonable to guess that this market would expand, though. There are a number of airports whose main role includes moving huge numbers of people long distances and which are getting more and more crowded, in both slots and gates. (e.g. LHR, LAX, FRA, DOH, DXB, SIN, BKK, SYD, etc)

Some of those airports have curfews and you already have multiple A380s competing to get pax in for the start of the day. Have a look at SYD's first hour or two each day and around half the incoming international flights are A380 and 747, with the smaller planes being A346, A330 and 777. The US mostly has large numbers of airports each serving relatively small numbers of people, which favours smaller aircraft to more destinations and makes the A380 not a likely choice for those carriers.

It would be interesting to see some stats on that. The A380 is the only recent plane in my experience that ordinary economy travellers go out of their way to fly on, much like the 747 two decades ago. Some consumers definitely prefer the spacious cabin and quiet.