KE's A380s only seat 407 passengers and the article suggest they struggle to even fill half of the aircraft. Sounds like the A380 is beginning to become too much aircraft for KE.

http://www.airlive.net/korean-air-to-re ... t-roswell/

How many A380s do they have? I would think their most trafficked route would be Seoul to LAX and SFO. Can't believe they cannot fill it.

Can't say I'm shocked. We get them seasonally in Sydney and they are overkill for the route, especially with OZ sending them here as well now. Sure we have increased demand at this time of year, but we go from 333's and 772's respectively to 380's, way to much capacity, even with their high premium class configurations. It just seems they send them here because they've run out of viable destinations.

Still, I'm not complaining, the more variety the better.

Shame but not surprising.

I speculate this due to market dumping by Chinese airlines. Otherwise, all flights to LAX and SFO would be saturated.

Lightsaber

william wrote:

How many A380s do they have? I would think their most trafficked route would be Seoul to LAX and SFO. Can't believe they cannot fill it.

KE has 10 A380s, but also 10 748i's. Recently they are operating them to LAX, JFK, CDG, SYD; along with "short" run to TPE and BKK.

On the other hand, their A380 are already pretty low in density (407 pax), especially when you considered that OZ (Asiana)'s A380 seats 495 pax.

lightsaber wrote:

I speculate this due to market dumping by Chinese airlines. Otherwise, all flights to LAX and SFO would be saturated.

Lightsaber

Umm...maybe also the fact that the number of Chinese passengers using KE/OZ dropped quite a bit also? Especially with all the politics still going on over THAAD and to certain extent, North Korea.

If they cannot even fill 200 seats... maybe the largest ac they should operate is A332....

I would have thought they have their configuration wrong. 94 J seats is too many, plus a heavy bar and duty free store. Does anyone have this many J seats?

Be interesting to see the loads via Cabin, which cabin can’t they fill? To save parking a frame as an armchair CEO I’d remove the bar, move F upstairs add premium economy for a very rough config of 12/70/30/400.

On ICN-JFK I noticed they had down-gauged KE85 from an A388 to a B748 a while back. I figured it was seasonal. KE81 is still an A388. Interestingly OZ also down-gauged OZ222 from an A388 to a B772. OZ222 and KE81 land within minutes of each other.

Purely anecdotal, but I've flown the Korean 380 twice, ATL-ICN and JFK-ICN. On both flights, economy downstairs was packed to the gills. Business upstairs was essentially empty. These were August and September flights. JFK-ICN was about 1/2-3/4 full upstairs, but a LOT of empty seats. Just a small snapshot of life.

Wow! That is sad.

william wrote:

I would think their most trafficked route would be Seoul to LAX and SFO. Can't believe they cannot fill it.

And maybe ICN-JFK? Dunno if ICN-CDG is up there too in terms of most traffic in their system. I also read the information about KE not being able to fill the A380s with a bit of disbelief. It is a pity. Seems the long-term viability of the A380 within KE's fleet is in question. Maybe they would consider a reconfiguration like AF?

jupiter2 wrote:

We get them seasonally in Sydney and they are overkill for the route, especially with OZ sending them here as well now.

I agree. The A380 seems like too much aircraft for ICN-SYD.

smi0006 wrote:

94 J seats is too many

I think I agree with you. I suppose this means lots of upgrades and award seats or, worse, planes flying with the upper deck empty on a consistent basis like georgiaame experienced.

Bricktop wrote:

On ICN-JFK I noticed they had down-gauged KE85 from an A388 to a B748 a while back. I figured it was seasonal.

I wonder if KE also feels that the 748i is too much plane for them or not. KE opted to install less J-class seats in the 748i. If the 748i is making them money, this reinforces the theory that the KE A380s have way too many J-class seats and that is one of the reasons why they are not that profitable.

So, having said all that, does anyone think that the upcoming JV with DL might help? DL is rationalizing J-class seats in its newer long-haul planes. KE and ICN get DL a fantastic transfer hub in Asia to replace NRT. Perhaps KE and DL can leverage their combined demand for premium seats across the Pacific to give the A380s better load factors (and yields) in F and J.

Another question. Would KE consider installing a Premium Economy cabin in its A380s, 748is, 77Ws, and 789s? Would a smaller J cabin and a new W cabin on the A380 help KE?

Shame these aren't RR engined birds, would be an ideal pick up for BA as aircraft are of a similar age.

They surley won't retire all 10? Perhaps cut down to 6 or so?

Can't wait to see the first one scrapped! Hopefully here in GYR!

Are they RR or GP birds?

How reputable is the source...?
http://www.airlive.net says the source is https://fr.flightaware.com/squawks/view ... swell_2018

fr.flightaware.com leads to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141
...which is an entertainment poll: Is this NZ's ultimate party anthem? (Day 2)

Basically there's no source for this info.


EDIT:
Seems like it was posted by a new user at flightaware:
https://fr.flightaware.com/user/stanbutler1971
I think "fake news"...

Sounds more like a KE issue than an A380 issue.

I'm surprised they don't send it to ATL

lightsaber wrote:

I speculate this due to market dumping by Chinese airlines. Otherwise, all flights to LAX and SFO would be saturated.

Lightsaber

Well then maybe they should try some other markets with less competition.

Goodyear wrote:

Can't wait to see the first one scrapped! Hopefully here in GYR!

I guess you do not love aircraft like most of us do

[quote="smi0006"]I would have thought they have their configuration wrong. 94 J seats is too many, plus a heavy bar and duty free store. Does anyone have this many J seats?

BA's A380s have 97 Business Class seats....

oslmgm wrote:

How reputable is the source...?
http://www.airlive.net says the source is https://fr.flightaware.com/squawks/view ... swell_2018

fr.flightaware.com leads to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141
...which is an entertainment poll: Is this NZ's ultimate party anthem? (Day 2)

Basically there's no source for this info.


EDIT:
Seems like it was posted by a new user at flightaware:
https://fr.flightaware.com/user/stanbutler1971
I think "fake news"...

I realise it's only a news paper, but isn't the New Zealand Herald reputable enough for you ?

oslmgm wrote:

How reputable is the source...?
http://www.airlive.net says the source is https://fr.flightaware.com/squawks/view ... swell_2018

fr.flightaware.com leads to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141
...which is an entertainment poll: Is this NZ's ultimate party anthem? (Day 2)

Basically there's no source for this info.


EDIT:
Seems like it was posted by a new user at flightaware:
https://fr.flightaware.com/user/stanbutler1971
I think "fake news"...

... and now, just 30 minutes later, that squawk has been deleted... Are you reading this thread, Mr. "stanbutler1971"?

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

How reputable is the source...?
http://www.airlive.net says the source is https://fr.flightaware.com/squawks/view ... swell_2018

fr.flightaware.com leads to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141
...which is an entertainment poll: Is this NZ's ultimate party anthem? (Day 2)

Basically there's no source for this info.


EDIT:
Seems like it was posted by a new user at flightaware:
https://fr.flightaware.com/user/stanbutler1971
I think "fake news"...

I realise it's only a news paper, but isn't the New Zealand Herald reputable enough for you ?

I don't care about New Zealand Herald's reputation when the linked article is this: (did you even follow the link??)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141

gatibosgru wrote:

Sounds more like a KE issue than an A380 issue.

IAG wants a few, they just don't want to pay anywhere near KE's book value.

Unless short-term storage, surplus aircraft should be sold promptly to a willing buyer (IAG, Hi), and KE takes the loss.

Presumably another option is A & B will provide trade in prices for the A380's against A & B orders respectively, but they could be just as unpalatable.

Check how the aircraft has been stored. If well, GE may have suspended maintenance payments on the engines, a gesture influenced by other new aircraft currently operated and ordered using GE.

The obvious question is how is OZ doing with the load factors on the 380?

I think the A35K would be perfect for them.

oslmgm wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

How reputable is the source...?
http://www.airlive.net says the source is https://fr.flightaware.com/squawks/view ... swell_2018

fr.flightaware.com leads to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141
...which is an entertainment poll: Is this NZ's ultimate party anthem? (Day 2)

Basically there's no source for this info.


EDIT:
Seems like it was posted by a new user at flightaware:
https://fr.flightaware.com/user/stanbutler1971
I think "fake news"...

I realise it's only a news paper, but isn't the New Zealand Herald reputable enough for you ?

I don't care about New Zealand Herald's reputation when the linked article is this: (did you even follow the link??)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141

I did follow the link. Sure there wasn't much there and it may well turn out to not be true, however, I'm not prepared to right it off as FAKE NEWS just yet. When the KE CEO gets onto the media and denies the reports, then I'll agree, till then I'm prepared to keep an open mind.

This is nuts. There are tour operators in Usa right now trying to arrange a series of a dozen or more charters to New Zealand from u.s. West coast for end of 2018. They asked us if we had any suggestions as they are completely frustrated with lack of positive responses. Apparently they spoken to many Asian airlines that already fly to USA, NZ & Australia. Didn't even get to costing stage.

KE has one big problem .North Korea!!!!

No one wants to fly anywhere near n Korea.

You'd think KE would be very negotiable at present. Much better to keep aircraft flying than parking them. Ok charters are not high yield but guaranteed payments mean small profit which is much better than a loss.

TedToToe wrote:

Are they RR or GP birds?

GP engined.

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

I realise it's only a news paper, but isn't the New Zealand Herald reputable enough for you ?

I don't care about New Zealand Herald's reputation when the linked article is this: (did you even follow the link??)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141

I did follow the link. Sure there wasn't much there and it may well turn out to not be true, however, I'm not prepared to right it off as FAKE NEWS just yet. When the KE CEO gets onto the media and denies the reports, then I'll agree, till then I'm prepared to keep an open mind.

You followed that link, to an article about "NZ's ultimate party anthem", and you still had to ask if I don't find the New Zealand Herald to be reputable? It is just irrelevant if they're reputable or not, when the cited article is about a completely different topic. When you write "there wasn't much there", that's a major understatement, because there was NOTHING there about Korean Air and/or the A380.

I'm not saying that Korean doesn't have any issues with their A380s - I'm also keeping an open mind - I'm just saying that the article posted in the opening post has no source. (Well, the source it had earlier today was crap, and has since been deleted.) So at this stage this whole thread should be renamed "Do Korean Air have low demand on their A380s?"

Well,
HL7611 can't be found on FR24. Sounds like its been outta track for a few days.

407 seats is less than 50% of A380's capacity (~850Y seats). How can they afford to fly it?

Anyways, QF has the same problem on routes to LHR via DXB, where most people rather to fly on EK's A380
than on QF's (I guess because EK has scheduled more flights - not because of service or differences between them), reason why EK is dropping all routes from Australia to NZ, for exemple, giving opportunity for QF to gain travellers and also, moving QF flights to LHR back via SIN, probably, loadfactor at the time was better.
I actually can see some operators having the same issue in a short future, due to the increase of LCC and some other factors such as competition between Asian airlines (mainly Chinese ones - I've never seen so many, which is good for passangers), oil prices and etc.

People can blame the market, airline, or Country but reality is 380 is a flying dinosaur that is bidding its time for a funeral. It was never a money-maker and I know of airlines that supposedly were 'making money on it' that nightly were calling other carriers asking if they had any passengers to send over to help fill it up. Its a niche airplane that shouldn't have been built and now needs to be grounded.

oslmgm wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

I don't care about New Zealand Herald's reputation when the linked article is this: (did you even follow the link??)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment ... d=11963141

I did follow the link. Sure there wasn't much there and it may well turn out to not be true, however, I'm not prepared to right it off as FAKE NEWS just yet. When the KE CEO gets onto the media and denies the reports, then I'll agree, till then I'm prepared to keep an open mind.

You followed that link, to an article about "NZ's ultimate party anthem", and you still had to ask if I don't find the New Zealand Herald to be reputable? It is just irrelevant if they're reputable or not, when the cited article is about a completely different topic. When you write "there wasn't much there", that's a major understatement, because there was NOTHING there about Korean Air and/or the A380.

I'm not saying that Korean doesn't have any issues with their A380s - I'm also keeping an open mind - I'm just saying that the article posted in the opening post has no source. (Well, the source it had earlier today was crap, and has since been deleted.) So at this stage this whole thread should be renamed "Do Korean Air have low demand on their A380s?"

Well the actual link is just to Flightaware, the follow on link was to the New Zealand Herald and their ultimate party anthem poll. That's bigger news in N.Z. anyway, far more interesting then KE's troubles with filling planes

What a load of mumbo jumbo.

decry wrote:

What a load of mumbo jumbo.

Or in this case, super mumbo jumbo!

USAOZ wrote:

KE has one big problem .North Korea!!!!

No one wants to fly anywhere near n Korea.

You'd think KE would be very negotiable at present. Much better to keep aircraft flying than parking them. Ok charters are not high yield but guaranteed payments mean small profit which is much better than a loss.

What? While I've met a few people who have apprehensions about going to South Korea, I've never met anyone who's actually deferred their plans. I flew KE twice last year BNE-CDG and they were packed on all legs. The airline is currently profitable and in a good place and is seeing growth as I understand it. Though I'm not sure about specific airline types. I know they've filled the A380 out of SYD fairly regularly this month.

This article seems fake or a mistake to me, I don't buy it. I want sources.

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

I did follow the link. Sure there wasn't much there and it may well turn out to not be true, however, I'm not prepared to right it off as FAKE NEWS just yet. When the KE CEO gets onto the media and denies the reports, then I'll agree, till then I'm prepared to keep an open mind.

You followed that link, to an article about "NZ's ultimate party anthem", and you still had to ask if I don't find the New Zealand Herald to be reputable? It is just irrelevant if they're reputable or not, when the cited article is about a completely different topic. When you write "there wasn't much there", that's a major understatement, because there was NOTHING there about Korean Air and/or the A380.

I'm not saying that Korean doesn't have any issues with their A380s - I'm also keeping an open mind - I'm just saying that the article posted in the opening post has no source. (Well, the source it had earlier today was crap, and has since been deleted.) So at this stage this whole thread should be renamed "Do Korean Air have low demand on their A380s?"

Well the actual link is just to Flightaware, the follow on link was to the New Zealand Herald and their ultimate party anthem poll. That's bigger news in N.Z. anyway, far more interesting then KE's troubles with filling planes

Well, NOW it leads "just to Flightaware", but originally it led to a so-called squawk posted by user "stanbutler1971". This squawk has since been deleted - incidentally (?) right after I pointed out that it had no source, except for the "party anthem" article. So the fact remains: There is no source behind the airlive.net article.

n471wn wrote:

I guess you do not love aircraft like most of us do

On the contrary, an airline operating unprofitable routes with unprofitable aircraft at unprofitable yields = long term that airline ceasing to exist. It also means said airline will be forced to, eventually, buy something new to keep their numbers in the black. An A350 fleet would suit them nicely. As for scrapping them, that's just pure economics and there's no amount of faux outrage that will prevent it from happening. It's also a fascinating thing to witness happen, by the way. But what do I know? Clearly I hate aviation!

I'm sure they can deploy them on GMP - CJU since every flight on that route seems to fill up.

Glad to hear that this story turns out to be an unsourced news.

thgsr08 wrote:

Well,
HL7611 can't be found on FR24. Sounds like its been outta track for a few days.

HL7611 is doing a mech job at PUS and it will come back on 12/31, KE017 ICN-LAX. KE scheduled such that 9 A380s can cover all 7-8 routes whole next year which might have fueled this speculation.

Korean Air needs to reduce the J class seats and expand Premium Economy. Between flying to LAX, JFK, LHR and CDG should be able to keep 10 A380's flying.

n471wn wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

Can't wait to see the first one scrapped! Hopefully here in GYR!

I guess you do not love aircraft like most of us do

Obviously he's an Airbus hater trying to start the stupid Airbus vs. Boeing argument, this forum would be a much better place if we all ignored such posts.

I pulled load factor data from the Department Of Transportation on Korean Air's A380 US flights compared to Asiana's shown below for the first six months of 2017.

KE
To ICN From 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
ATL.............. 76.1% 59.3% 53.8% -......... -.......... - .........64.5%
JFK.............. 71.8% 74.0% 67.6% 71.2% 88.6% 90.4% 79.3%
LAX............. 85.0% 89.3% 76.4% 74.8% 83.9% 84.2% 82.3%

OZ
To ICN From 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
JFK.............. 72.5% 67.6% 52.9% 82.9% 93.6% 89.7% 76.8%
LAX.............. 86.3% 90.2% 70.2% 82.3% 69.3% 93.1% 81.7%

KE
From ICN To 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
ATL.............. 82.2% 64.6% 70.4% -......... -......... -......... 72.4%
JFK.............. 89.0% 63.6% 75.2% 76.1% 83.3% 80.9% 79.0%
LAX.............. 90.7% 71.7% 65.7% 76.0% 70.7% 75.7% 75.3%

OZ
From ICN To 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
JFK.............. 90.9% 67.8% 65.6% 82.9% 89.1% 88.2% 81.1%
LAX.............. 95.1% 79.3% 70.2% 80.2% 82.8% 82.0% 81.6%

Load factors for both KE and OZ are fairly similar for the first half of 2017. For reference, KE had 11.8 thousand seats available on A380 flights to/from JFK, and OZ had about 8.7 thousand available on A380 flights for the first half of the 2017. To/from LAX KE had 14.1 thousand seats on A380 flights available, and OZ had 17.7 thousand seats available on A380 flights for the first half of 2017. Based on the data above, the claim that some of KE's routes were less then half full appears to be on routes not to/from the US.

I also grabbed data from Korean Air's non A380 flight load factors.

From ICN To 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
ATL.............. 80.2% 68.6% 82.2% 85.4% 81.4% 87.4% 81.6%
DFW............. 81.6% 72.9% 74.7% 81.4% 81.4% 81.6% 79.0%
HNL.............. 88.0% 87.0% 82.1% 83.1% 75.4% 80.6% 82.6%
IAD............... 82.4% 67.8% 83.6% 83.7% 85.8% 85.8% 81.7%
IAH............... 81.8% 84.1% 82.8% 76.8% 57.0% 77.3% 74.8%
JFK............... 87.5% 64.9% 66.1% -......... -......... -......... 73.3%
LAS.............. 91.6% 72.6% 73.0% 76.4% 74.0% 74.1% 77.0%
LAX.............. -......... 91.1% 79.7% 78.0% 72.3% 63.8% 69.7%
ORD............. 83.8% 67.1% 75.7% 79.9% 83.6% 86.4% 79.6%
SEA.............. 80.8% 63.9% 70.5% 80.2% 77.1% 86.1% 77.2%
SFO.............. 93.7% 78.6% 67.0% 82.3% 68.7% 78.8% 77.5%

To ICN From 1.......... 2........... 3......... 4........ 5........ 6.......1-6
ATL.............. 77.9% 62.0% 68.6% 71.0% 87.6% 88.8% 77.1%
DFW............. 77.3% 66.8% 62.6% 64.4% 81.9% 78.9% 72.0%
HNL.............. 83.5% 90.5% 85.6% 77.7% 81.3% 81.1% 83.2%
IAD............... 73.1% 68.4% 70.4% 75.3% 79.9% 80.9% 74.7%
IAH............... 82.5% 67.1% 66.2% 59.9% 85.5% 78.5% 75.0%
JFK.............. 77.5% 74.0% 70.1% -......... -......... -......... 74.0%
LAS.............. 80.7% 72.2% 61.4% 64.6% 68.5% 67.3% 69.1%
LAX.............. -......... 86.3% 71.8% 71.2% 78.3% 64.5% 67.8%
ORD............. 72.7% 60.1% 65.9% 62.9% 86.1% 84.6% 72.3%
SEA.............. 69.0% 71.4% 65.2% 62.0% 69.4% 81.2% 70.3%
SFO.............. 77.2% 81.0% 65.4% 70.3% 78.2% 85.0% 77.0%

Most of the load factors on non A380 flights appear to be relatively similar to A380 flights.

Bricktop wrote:

On ICN-JFK I noticed they had down-gauged KE85 from an A388 to a B748 a while back. I figured it was seasonal. KE81 is still an A388. Interestingly OZ also down-gauged OZ222 from an A388 to a B772. OZ222 and KE81 land within minutes of each other.

Last winter, on a few days, KE81 was down-gauged to a B77W or a B748. The major reason why JFK (also a cargo-only destination) sees an A388 is because it's high J - F12J94Y293 (the re-configuration of the A388s is to 399 seats eliminating the 9th FA). That said, why not go 10 abreast on the B77Ws (keep the same seat pitch - 33"-34") to add more J seats? What are the J seat load factors like? (I can agree with needing to add a true W product, but OZ doesn't have W either.)

This also tells me that maybe OZ is better than KE at matching aircraft to demand, although they may be a bit behind the trend in terms of aircraft orders (they have the final B772ER built, from 2013).

The SeatGuru description for the business class seats suggests that they aren't fully flat. That, along with bad connection times, put me off booking with them. Their best prices are no better than a good deal on Cathay or Qatar so why would you take the risk on a potentially bad experience.

USAOZ wrote:

This is nuts. There are tour operators in Usa right now trying to arrange a series of a dozen or more charters to New Zealand from u.s. West coast for end of 2018. They asked us if we had any suggestions as they are completely frustrated with lack of positive responses. Apparently they spoken to many Asian airlines that already fly to USA, NZ & Australia. Didn't even get to costing stage.

KE has one big problem .North Korea!!!!

No one wants to fly anywhere near n Korea.

You'd think KE would be very negotiable at present. Much better to keep aircraft flying than parking them. Ok charters are not high yield but guaranteed payments mean small profit which is much better than a loss.

Do you have evidence and hard data to back up your claim that “no one wants to fly anywhere near North Korea”? The fact there are still hundreds of flights each day in in vicinity, in South Korea (domestically and internationally), the area in Russia, China, Japan etc is proof and evidence enough to show your claim is rubbish. Even I’d gladly transit ICN to North America or Europe if I has the money to do some international travel atm. I’ll gladly retract my statement if you can provide me proof to support your claim.

LHRApproach wrote:

The SeatGuru description for the business class seats suggests that they aren't fully flat. That, along with bad connection times, put me off booking with them. Their best prices are no better than a good deal on Cathay or Qatar so why would you take the risk on a potentially bad experience.

KEs experience in business class is good. The beds are full lie flat but not all direct aisle access on the A380. Service is a little perfunctory compared to other carriers in Asia, but is typical of Korean service standards. Overall it’s a good experience - if you go on the 747-8 with the better business class seats all with direct aisle access, then it’s a great experience.


And why would you take the risk? Because as soon as you stop taking the risk, life becomes a lot more boring :p

oslmgm wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

You followed that link, to an article about "NZ's ultimate party anthem", and you still had to ask if I don't find the New Zealand Herald to be reputable? It is just irrelevant if they're reputable or not, when the cited article is about a completely different topic. When you write "there wasn't much there", that's a major understatement, because there was NOTHING there about Korean Air and/or the A380.

I'm not saying that Korean doesn't have any issues with their A380s - I'm also keeping an open mind - I'm just saying that the article posted in the opening post has no source. (Well, the source it had earlier today was crap, and has since been deleted.) So at this stage this whole thread should be renamed "Do Korean Air have low demand on their A380s?"

Well the actual link is just to Flightaware, the follow on link was to the New Zealand Herald and their ultimate party anthem poll. That's bigger news in N.Z. anyway, far more interesting then KE's troubles with filling planes

Well, NOW it leads "just to Flightaware", but originally it led to a so-called squawk posted by user "stanbutler1971". This squawk has since been deleted - incidentally (?) right after I pointed out that it had no source, except for the "party anthem" article. So the fact remains: There is no source behind the airlive.net article.

Get over yourself mate, the link always lead to Flightware, with a single paragraph story which had the New Zealand Herald as the source.. Then there was a further "more" link which took you to the party anthem story. No doubt your doubting the story on this site, lead Flightaware to pulling the story on their site. Obviously your influence has far reaching cross site referencing

As to the story, it maybe true, it maybe a load of hogwash like a lot of the stuff posted here. Time will tell no doubt.

The title has been updated to read "unconfirmed" until the story is reported on by a solid source. Until then, this thread may just be a rumor/speculative.

✈️ atcsundevil

BS
However it is true Korea is suffering from geopolitics and the dumping from Chinese carriers - in particular to Australia. Because of this dumping it is in fact more difficult to open direct routes. This makes routes to major markets/hubs even more important. The major issue with the KAL A380 is the cabin configuration : it's difficult to fill not because there is not enough demand but because the asking fares are too high with this low density layout. When your fares are 2 to 3 times higher than China Southern or Air Asia, you are losing even your most loyal customers. Fares should not be more than 30% higher. The alternative path of using smaller jets to carry only high yield demand is a fast path to bankruptcy.