USAOZ wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Well the same can be said about just any plane with the rare few exceptions.

Funny, I have crossed the Pacific several times in the last 4 years, and there was not a single empty seat (at least in coach) on any of them. Does "using a plane to full capacity" mean stuffing passengers in the overhead bins and the baggage hold?

several days over 4 years, is not a very good example.

Today you can fly BNE, SYD or MEL to LAX or SFO for around $800 & that's not going via Asia. From SYD to LAX could be direct. The airlines have had this sale going in low season for around 3-4 months now & theya re obviously filling seats very slowly. I think what is happening, is people are too scared to ask for time off outside their normal 4 weeks, due to the massive recession we had to have.

Revelation wrote:

The only thing that is known is that it's been a long time since CSA ordered those A380s and they're having a hard time making them work due to issues in getting routes that work for the giant Whale.

N14AZ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The only thing that is known is that it's been a long time since CSA ordered those A380s and they're having a hard time making them work due to issues in getting routes that work for the giant Whale.

True, but they look great

Source: https://www.planes.cz/en/photo/1187951/ ... e-prg-lkpr
Sorry, couldn't resist...

BREECH wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

The CEO of Airbus China claims that there's a market for 60-100 A380s in China over the next five years. Well, that's ambitious.

It's not actually. When you need to transport the full population of the United States from A to B through congested airports twice a year, you DO need bigger planes. The problem is that Chinese airlines copy European and American models like they copy Gucci sunglasses. With the same final result - a disfugured conterfeit. China is screaming for A380 but because they are not copying the Emirates model, they don't even look into it. That and the Chinese's chronic inability to run an effective business.

BREECH wrote:

BREECH wrote:

I'm sorry to interrupt, but what does it mean? Do they mean, the airport should only assign 75-80% of the available slots?

speedbored wrote:

No. It means they should limit the number of slots to 75% of the maximum capacity of the runway. i.e. leave some slack in order to be able to cope better with incidents and adverse weather.

I think it's the same.

VirginFlyer wrote:

Actually I hail from a group of islands to the east and and a bit south (the ones which have had a bit of a fuel kerfuffle recently), but in fairness I did spend a number of years in the West Island. Please don't consider it a telling off, more a joking response to your joke.

Seriously though, it's clear from your posts here over the last few weeks that you're enthusiastic and have a lot you want to contribute (well either that or you're a troll, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt). My advice would be that you maintain that enthusiasm, and use it to do a little background reading on topics before posting in them. For example in this case you could have talked about the size and weight comparisons of the A380-800 and An-225 (information which is very easily available online), then asked if there were any figures available for a proposed A380-900 and how would these compare to the An-225, and I'm certain you would have got some decent responses. Avoid making statements of fact if you're not confident you can back them up, and be willing to admit when your understanding was incorrect (for instance when you suggested all but a few of the 21 longest routes in operation have been going for more than 10 years, when in fact only 2 have, and, of the remaining 19, more have started in the past 5 years than before that). In this way you will learn a lot here, and as time passes be able to contribute an increasing amount too. Unfortunately there have been plenty of users who have come here over the years certainly very enthusiastic, but have rabbitted on about this and that without taking the time to read a bit or to listen to others' viewpoints, then eventually leave all upset when no one seems to want to interact with them any more. Someone once described it as being like a seagull, swooping in, crapping on everything, then flying off again. Please don't be another one of these people. Please don't be a seagull.

Anyway this is all well off the beaten path of A380 plus, so let's not divert this thread any further. Feel free to PM me if you want to take this up further.

V/F

c933103 wrote:

Emirates' model is not A to B. And China also have high speed rail whgich can transport more passengers than A380 per train.

BREECH wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Emirates' model is not A to B. And China also have high speed rail whgich can transport more passengers than A380 per train.

So does Europe and Japan. There are still lots of airlines there.

c933103 wrote:

There are still lots of airlines there but superjumbo short haul flying is not a thing in both places either, and in Japan despite it was a thing they're also no longer used in this way. Plus Chinese high speed train get more governmental fiscal support as suggested from their financial reports.

c933103 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Emirates' model is not A to B. And China also have high speed rail whgich can transport more passengers than A380 per train.

So does Europe and Japan. There are still lots of airlines there.

There are still lots of airlines there but superjumbo short haul flying is not a thing in both places either, and in Japan despite it was a thing they're also no longer used in this way. Plus Chinese high speed train get more governmental fiscal support as suggested from their financial reports.

Revelation wrote:

c933103 wrote:

There are still lots of airlines there but superjumbo short haul flying is not a thing in both places either, and in Japan despite it was a thing they're also no longer used in this way. Plus Chinese high speed train get more governmental fiscal support as suggested from their financial reports.

It was tried in the 70s in the US with 747s and it did not work economically. We do see a small number of 777s getting used on Hawaii runs and some domestic too but that's because they're all paid for so very cheap to operate. Perhaps we'll see older A380s slide into that role in some localities?

That doesn't help Airbus keep the production line going, though. It was pretty telling when Iran walked away. They wanted a lot of capacity and they wanted it quickly, and A380 could have filled both requirements, but in the end they walked away from the A380 and bought a lot of big twins.

racercoup wrote:

I am starting to believe the 747 just may out live the A380, as a previous poster posited. Other than Emirates the A380 has only booked one sale in the last (5) years to ANA for three frames. (I do not consider Amedeo a sale because it is not). In the same time frame the 747 has garnered 31 sales from (12) different customers.

Most of the remaining backlog goes to Emirates and they reportedly don't want any new deliveries for 2019 - 2020. What keeps production alive for those 24 months?

rotating14 wrote:

His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off.

parapente wrote:

The 779 will offer the same if not better CASM of the A388.The 'plus' may beat it by a little by adding some (30?) more pax.But who on Earth would order the A388 plus unless they were sure they could get 550-600 pax per flight on a regular basis?

racercoup wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

Wow, where are you getting those 747 sales figures from ?The big deal with UPS for freighters has kept the production line open but they have finished making the passenger model.

Geoff

Feb -14 CargoLux 1
Oct - 14 Airbridge Cargo 1
Feb - 15 SilkWays 3
June - 15 Atlas Air 1
Nov - 15 Airbridge Cargo 2
Mar - 16 Airbridge Cargo 4
Oct - 16 UPS 14
Mar - 17 Unidentified 1
July - 17 Unidentified 2
Aug - 17 Unidentified 2

BTW Boeing has delivered 51 747's since Jan 2014

racercoup wrote:

Wow, where are you getting those 747 sales figures from ?The big deal with UPS for freighters has kept the production line open but they have finished making the passenger model.

Geoff

Clipper101 wrote:

According to IATA 2015 forecast China O&D air travel market still lags that of the US, it is expected to match that of the US towards late 2020’s & should overtake it by 2034 to be the world’s biggest O&D air travel market.

Revelation wrote:

It was tried in the 70s in the US with 747s and it did not work economically. We do see a small number of 777s getting used on Hawaii runs and some domestic too but that's because they're all paid for so very cheap to operate. Perhaps we'll see older A380s slide into that role in some localities?

That doesn't help Airbus keep the production line going, though. It was pretty telling when Iran walked away. They wanted a lot of capacity and they wanted it quickly, and A380 could have filled both requirements, but in the end they walked away from the A380 and bought a lot of big twins.

parapente wrote:

The 779 will offer the same if not better CASM of the A388.The 'plus' may beat it by a little by adding some (30?) more pax.

parapente wrote:

But who on Earth would order the A388 plus unless they were sure they could get 550-600 pax per flight on a regular basis?

DocLightning wrote:

I agree Boeing won the bet.

racercoup wrote:

Wow, where are you getting those 747 sales figures from ?The big deal with UPS for freighters has kept the production line open but they have finished making the passenger model.

Geoff

Slug71 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how much rework, cost, and recertification would be required to move the cockpit up? Can't help but think how much more aesthetically pleasing the A380 would look if the cockpit was raised to just below the upper deck and had curved windows. This should also make enough room for the crew rest area to be moved below the cockpit and free up space on the main deck, no?

jumbojet wrote:

why is it that folks still want to only compare B748 sales to the A380? Don't forget, the entirety of the Boeing 747 program encompasses 5 different models and has sold well in excess of 1000 planes. Its not fair to single out one model of the 747. As a whole, the A380 will never match the sales of the B747. NEVER. If, and its a very big IF, Airbus comes out with the A380 Plus, than how will that be compared to the B747, to what model and to what degree?

Sorry, I know people on here don't want to accept it but the A380 is DOA. It died a long time ago. I am an aviation geek and love all planes but the A380 is what it is. DOA.

Slug71 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

why is it that folks still want to only compare B748 sales to the A380? Don't forget, the entirety of the Boeing 747 program encompasses 5 different models and has sold well in excess of 1000 planes. Its not fair to single out one model of the 747. As a whole, the A380 will never match the sales of the B747. NEVER. If, and its a very big IF, Airbus comes out with the A380 Plus, than how will that be compared to the B747, to what model and to what degree?

Sorry, I know people on here don't want to accept it but the A380 is DOA. It died a long time ago. I am an aviation geek and love all planes but the A380 is what it is. DOA.

For the most apart, agreed. At least IMO. However, Boeing updated the 747 to the -8 to compete with the A380 and that's likely why we see the comparison. I don't think the A380 will be as successful overall. Not even close. But if we are to consider the sales numbers, the 747-100 would probably be a fairer comparison considering the A380 is in it's first variant. And in that case, the A380 beats the -100, 100B, SR, and SP versions combined. I don't think the A380 was/is DOA though. There is plenty of potential in the frame to be much better (efficient) and excel at what it was meant to do. It's just whether or not Airbus is willing to make/pay for those improvements. They made their biggest (and only, IMO) mistake by making the -900 the base model. It also entered the market at a very bad time with the depression which could not have been forecast and as a result we also had record high fuel prices which did not help. Not to mention the wing-rib issues it suffered.

Eyad89 wrote:

It only makes sense to compare one variant of A380, namely A388, to one variant of 747.

748 is definitely the right variant to compare to since it has to go throw the same market conditions that A388 has. 748 is more superior than 744 when it comes to technical specification, but 744 was far more successful because it existed during the right time for such a model.

BREECH wrote:

Clipper101 wrote:

According to IATA 2015 forecast China O&D air travel market still lags that of the US, it is expected to match that of the US towards late 2020’s & should overtake it by 2034 to be the world’s biggest O&D air travel market.

Hmmm, that's a VERY pessimistic forecast. China grew by 47% from 2009 to 2014. That's 50% in 5 years. In exact numbers it's growth from 270 to 390 million. And that was during the Chinese economic recession. American air traffic is about 700 million passengers, if I remember correctly. Next 3-5 years, 390 +50% = 600 by the end of this decade. I think China will catch up to and overtake US by 2025 MAX. But likely sooner.

China is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest passenger market (defined by traffic to, from and within) by 2029. In 2034 China will account for some 1.19 billion passengers, 758 million more than 2014 with an average annual growth rate of 5.2%. Traffic to, from and within the US is expected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 3.1% that will see 1.16 billion passengers by 2034 (523 million more than 2014).

Jayafe wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

It only makes sense to compare one variant of A380, namely A388, to one variant of 747.

748 is definitely the right variant to compare to since it has to go throw the same market conditions that A388 has. 748 is more superior than 744 when it comes to technical specification, but 744 was far more successful because it existed during the right time for such a model.

With that logic you should only compare the A388 to the 748i, as there is no freighter version of the whale. In such case the result is a total knock out...