PC/WI: More Airbus A380's bought, long distance flights halved?

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
I've been reading lately in various Aerospace journals and news items that the Airbus A380 has been struggling with sales.

This, and the fact that twin engine, wide body airliners have been found to be more economical than the "Super-Jumbo".

What if, airlines with long range air routes flying wide bodies i.e A330/340, 767/777 and 787 just halved their flights and maxed out on the A380, would this work?

Regards filers
 
I've been reading lately in various Aerospace journals and news items that the Airbus A380 has been struggling with sales.

This, and the fact that twin engine, wide body airliners have been found to be more economical than the "Super-Jumbo".

What if, airlines with long range air routes flying wide bodies i.e A330/340, 767/777 and 787 just halved their flights and maxed out on the A380, would this work?

Regards filers
Not necessarily. A lot of routes only support so many flights per day: say a route flies once per day. Halve it. Now either the A380 flies half empty once per day, or you only serve that city every other day--anyone who really needs to fly on a specific day will take another airline. And that's assuming this airport invests in the infrastructure to take an A380 at all--and some of the airports that support 777s and 787 don't, because you don't need to in order to support those planes. If Cincinnati has one 777 flight a day, it's not going to pay infrastructure upgrades to support one A380 every few days.

This even applies to scheduling from busier routes that aren't traffic limited. Say someplace like...I dunno, Boston. Boston has about 346,000 international passengers a month, which is about 28 widebody flights per day. There's 30+ airports internationally you can fly to directly, so right off the bat many are daily, every-other-day, or using smaller planes. With an A380, a lot of those drop to one flight a day, at best--maybe once a week or less for less traveled destinations. In contrast, ith smaller twinjets, you can have daily or twice-daily flights a day--which means you have a choice between perhaps a morning departure, arriving in your destination in time to do business, or a departure after you leave work in Boston. That's a flexibility passengers will approve of.

And, on the pure cost-to-fly front, widebody twins need half the engine maintenance.
 
I think the hub model of flying is failing compared to long range point to point flights, probably because of the hassle involved at airports; its much less painful to spend nd extra few hours on a plane than to disembark and go through the intrusive 'fisting' you get at an airport simply to change flights.
 
The A380's problem is that it unknowingly got into the negative returns on investment part of the airliner-size curve. It costs so much to buy and operate that it can only be used on very specific, high-traffic, hub-to-hub routes. These routes are also where they face the highest competition, which is increasingly coming from low-cost carriers. Because the A380 necessarily operates so close to its margin, any cost-undercutting and resulting loss of business will quickly render the A380 unprofitable.
 
What you might need is large airports like Heathrow, Schipol, CdG, JFK, etc. to set landing fees at a flat rate. $5k per landing (say). With 500 passengers in a 380, that's $10/per, which is not likely going to be a significant change to the ticket price. A small 737/320 with 100 passengers, that's 50$ per, which is noticeable - especially for a low cost carrier. So, the mix quickly moves to large twins and jumbos (almost( exclusively.
 
I think i heard the number of airports the A380 can fly into is limited by the fact it needs a wider gate slot, needs special boarding ramps and exceeds the maximum tarmac surface loading is some cases meaning the runways and taxi ways need to be rebuilt. I sort of remember a limitation of taxi ways and runways being too close for an A380 at some airports. As james said above the the A380 was designed for long haul, high volume routes and the flying world changed.
 
Maybe we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves, no budget airline operates the A380 an anywhere near the 853 certified seating capacity, the highest being some 615 seaters of Emirates. If some budget airline gets hold of some and jams in 800+ seats we might re-evaluate the A380s success.
 
In a nutshell, the problem with the A380 is that there are simply too few routes where the airplane works economically. Most intercontinental routes can carry far less than the capacity of an A380. Because there is a high cost associated with operating an aircraft type, most airlines have decided to use more flexible equipment on the A380-viable routes by simply operating more flights. The operating cost is about the same and the cost of operating an A380 fleet is avoided entirely. Unless you have a number of A380 viable routes, this is an entirely sensible strategy, as airlines prefer to operate transoceanic international flights from a number of cities rather than just a hub or two. As an example, Delta operates international flights from Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Boston, Newark and New York/JFK. Some of these flights are operated with a single aisle 757, which is the only economically viable aircraft for some of these thin routes.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
In a nutshell, the problem with the A380 is that there are simply too few routes where the airplane works economically. Most intercontinental routes can carry far less than the capacity of an A380. Because there is a high cost associated with operating an aircraft type, most airlines have decided to use more flexible equipment on the A380-viable routes by simply operating more flights. The operating cost is about the same and the cost of operating an A380 fleet is avoided entirely. Unless you have a number of A380 viable routes, this is an entirely sensible strategy, as airlines prefer to operate transoceanic international flights from a number of cities rather than just a hub or two. As an example, Delta operates international flights from Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Boston, Newark and New York/JFK. Some of these flights are operated with a single aisle 757, which is the only economically viable aircraft for some of these thin routes.

Slightly changing the original thread, would further developments of the Boeing 747XX (500, 600 & 700 series) work better instead of the A380 as you and the other posters have said, the A380 needs airports that have invested money into servicing the needs of the A380.

I'm presuming the 747XX wouldn't need this as much as most international airports have been using 747's since the early 70's.
 
Slightly changing the original thread, would further developments of the Boeing 747XX (500, 600 & 700 series) work better instead of the A380 as you and the other posters have said, the A380 needs airports that have invested money into servicing the needs of the A380.

I'm presuming the 747XX wouldn't need this as much as most international airports have been using 747's since the early 70's.

While the 747 has less in the way of special infrastructure needs, it suffers from the same fundamental problems as the A380: four engines and being too big. When the 747 was developed, ETOPS was a couple of decades away and the idea of twin engine jets flying long overwater routes was still unthinkable. As a consequence, the L-1011 and DC-10 had three, not two, engines. In the ETOPS era, having more than two engines is needless expense in maintenance and fuel and the largest twin aircraft such as the 777-300 can serve virtually any needed transoceanic route with a capacity nearly as great as a 747-400. Modern engines are freakishly reliable and provide levels of power that were unthinkable relative to their fuel consumed when the first wide bodies were hitting the drawing boards 50 years ago. The US carriers are in the process of retiring their 747s and the reasons are all economic: the 777 or A330 or A350 can do virtually the same job as a 747 for lower acquisition and operating cost. The economics are so compelling on this that the 747-8 is selling poorly and the existing 747-400 fleet is being phased out by carriers like Delta and United.
 
What you might need is large airports like Heathrow, Schipol, CdG, JFK, etc. to set landing fees at a flat rate. $5k per landing (say). With 500 passengers in a 380, that's $10/per, which is not likely going to be a significant change to the ticket price. A small 737/320 with 100 passengers, that's 50$ per, which is noticeable - especially for a low cost carrier. So, the mix quickly moves to large twins and jumbos (almost( exclusively.

The Airlines already get a hugh subsidize why give them more?
 
The Airlines already get a hugh subsidize why give them more?
???
Cost to an airtraffic control system of any plane landing is about the same. Of course, there's a lot more cost in terms of gates and such for airlines over business jets, say.
But I'd suggest that it's private aviation that gets effective subsidies iOTL, not the airlines.
 
While the 747 has less in the way of special infrastructure needs, it suffers from the same fundamental problems as the A380: four engines and being too big...The US carriers are in the process of retiring their 747s and the reasons are all economic: the 777 or A330 or A350 can do virtually the same job as a 747 for lower acquisition and operating cost. The economics are so compelling on this that the 747-8 is selling poorly and the existing 747-400 fleet is being phased out by carriers like Delta and United.
Not only the carriers are seeing the writing on the wall. Boeing's talking pretty openly about the 777-10X (the proposed extra-stretch of the 777X family) as a flat-out replacement for the 747.
 
???
Cost to an airtraffic control system of any plane landing is about the same. Of course, there's a lot more cost in terms of gates and such for airlines over business jets, say.
But I'd suggest that it's private aviation that gets effective subsidies iOTL, not the airlines.

The ATC, building airports, FAA, or the links below which may be high, Airtravel, by Congress has has been made a right.

How We Pay $3,700 Per Passenger to Subsidize Airline Tickets

https://pjmedia.com/blog/how-we-pay-3700-per-passenger-to-subsidize-airline-tickets/

More items the people pay for.

https://travelersunited.org/today/a...-subsidies-how-about-a-payback-for-taxpayers/

Even if you don't fly you pay taxes.
 

Delta Force

Banned
???
Cost to an airtraffic control system of any plane landing is about the same. Of course, there's a lot more cost in terms of gates and such for airlines over business jets, say.
But I'd suggest that it's private aviation that gets effective subsidies iOTL, not the airlines.

Actually larger aircraft complicate air traffic control because they need more takeoff and landing slots for wake turbulence to dissipate.
 
How We Pay $3,700 Per Passenger to Subsidize Airline Tickets

The use of bold type obfuscates the point that this subsidy applies to 22 cities in the US only, such as Ely, Nevada to Las Vegas.
This sounds to me like plain old pork-barrel politics.

The current subsidy hubbub revolves around middle east airlines, 3, operating with heavy subsidy and low air fare, with A380, competing against other open sky airlines operating without benefit of oil revenues, afaik.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The use of bold type obfuscates the point that this subsidy applies to 22 cities in the US only, such as Ely, Nevada to Las Vegas.
This sounds to me like plain old pork-barrel politics.

The current subsidy hubbub revolves around middle east airlines, 3, operating with heavy subsidy and low air fare, with A380, competing against other open sky airlines operating without benefit of oil revenues, afaik.

Don't those airlines get access to low interest government credit to pay for the aircraft too?
 
The use of bold type obfuscates the point that this subsidy applies to 22 cities in the US only, such as Ely, Nevada to Las Vegas.
This sounds to me like plain old pork-barrel politics.

The current subsidy hubbub revolves around middle east airlines, 3, operating with heavy subsidy and low air fare, with A380, competing against other open sky airlines operating without benefit of oil revenues, afaik.

I copied the headline it was bold. The fact itonly applied to 22 cities makes it worse. I do not approve of the mid east airlines subsidy.
 
Top