Channex757 wrote:

That might be your opinion of it, but to me EK snubbed RR recently when they intimated they might be prepared to go back to Engine Alliance for their next order. Rolls Royce had been working hard to re-secure Emirates as a client, and Tim Clark had stated that their future purchases would all be RR on the A380 and 787 if they were to order that.

For that client to then declare they would go back to an inferior, non-PIPed GP7200 is a huge snub to Rolls. RR have said that future PIPs on the engine are uneconomical and a matter of diminishing returns. The only justification for a GP7200 buy would be the fantastic price EK bragged about initially, or some kind of weird spite move I fail to understand, Either way, it's a snub to Rolls who pulled out the stops to get the higher thrust Trent 900 on their aircraft.

Yes. The bizarre performance of EK towards both Airbus and RR at the the local airshow saw EK throwing their toys out of the pram. Not the sort of behavior which fits with the many years of good sense we have heard from Sir Tim Clark. I therefore put this bizarre performance down to Sir Tim's bosses. It must have pained Sir Tim to have been required to behave in such a manner. The damage has been done and will take time to undo. As my dad told me, if you have to read the small print in a contract, you should not be dealing with that firm.

Trust is the key to doing business in an honourable way. No trust, no honour, no deal.

VV wrote:

Emirates' order is so important to the A380......

But not important enough for Airbus to lose more money in building the birds.

douwd20 wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I think the main error is that Airbus didnt forecast the markets correctly .....

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work
- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane
- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.
- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

I think this plane came out 10-15 years too late. I know the technology wasnt available. Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

That is the main factor. They blew big time the market forecast just as they did for the A340. Huge jets and 4-engine jets airlines were moving in the opposite direction long ago. Boeing thought there would be a market just not very much and certainly not enough to justify billions in development. But Airbus was long anxious to dethrone the 747 as the Queen of the Skies. Unfortunately royalty is now dead.

They also didn't forsee the progress that engine OEMs were making in making honking huge engines, the payload/range gap between a 77E/773 and a A380 is massive, maybe enough to justify a model. Not so much if you strap GE90-115s to said 777s to make them 77L/77w.

neutrino wrote:

VV wrote:

Emirates' order is so important to the A380......

But not important enough for Airbus to lose more money in building the birds.

One must also consider the opportunity cost in keeping the A380 production line running instead of using the valuable real estate to build more profitable A320/330/350s..

VV wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Using your analogy, the blood has already spilled well beyond 2018, and beyond the 748 and A380. The 777X is a financial casualty, a legacy it's burdened with for close to a decade.

I really do not understand your comment.

What's so different with the 777X compared to the A350-100 or any other derivative aircraft program?
I think the 777X is doing just fine for now. It is not waiting for another program to die before it can make money.

Spending capital for new product is a normal practice, I guess. And usually it takes a little bit of time to return the investment.

For the A380 and 747-8 we know neither one is making money, unless one dies.

Why are people saying that one will only make money, if the other dies? the 748 is already dead as a pax model only selling as freighters , something the 380 will never be
AN767

Bald1983 wrote:

The A-380 model was point to mega-hub to mega hub, to point. That model did not pan out.

Balderdash. It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. Passengers flying point-hub-hub-point is just one subset of that.

And for most routes it *is* deployed hub to hub, simply because that's where you shift most passengers. In addition, EK especially has a number of hub to point routes where the "point" has enough O/D to sustain that.

ER757 wrote:

My is that the A380 is vital to EK's business model and in the end, they'll pony up with a sizable order and all this talk of the end of the program will fade away as not only EK, but the likes of BA place follow-up orders. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.......

I also think (hope, if I'm honest) that this is what will happen. EK doesn't have much choice since the A380 is vital to its mode of operation - yet at the same time they won't want to be seen as vulnerable to Airbus' whims. I have a feeling that all these snubs and rumours are simply brinkmanship between EK and Airbus to try and get the upper hand wrt. contracts and conditions - but in the end a deal will be done, the A380 will live on and, probably, will see a second lease of life with new orders and an update in a few years' time.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

....It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. ..

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

dtw2hyd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

....It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. ..

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

He's talking about slots, not gates.

If an airline has restricted slots at an airport, the only way for them to increase capacity is to use larger planes.

dtw2hyd wrote:

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

Are you seriously suggesting replacing an A380 with four 737s (180 pax)? Apart from creating a chaos occupping 8 slots instead of 2, those birds will need to grow pretty long legs...

AvObserver wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Indy wrote:

You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

That's definitely one more US trauma about the A380. The airports that could support the A380 and can't handle it (regular operation) are not more than a few around the whole world (US apart as they simply refuse slightly adapting their facilities for absurd nationalistic reasons).

What's absurd is this post. More US airports would absolutely adapt for the A380 IF it made economic sense to do so. Since no US carriers operate it, that limits the rationale for doing so. For only the biggest east and west coast airports, JFK and LAX, does it make sense. Attaching a silly nationalistic angle to this is just comical. U.S airlines rejected the A380 AND the B747-8I because big quads no longer fit their business models. If you could look beyond your apparent hatred of the U.S., you'd see that's ALL it's really about.

To rein in the rhetoric a little - Jayafe's point was that the A380 does *not* require major changes to airports and in fact most airports can already handle it... and that this false argument against the A380 seems to pop up regularly from US-based posters. I don't think US airports are as unsuited to A380 operations as people believe.

scbriml wrote:

He's talking about slots, not gates.

If an airline has restricted slots at an airport, the only way for them to increase capacity is to use larger planes.

Sorry for not subscribing to EKcentric worldview. From an airport operator's revenue perspective allowing 4 NBs from 4 different airlines(not EK) generates more revenue.

Even from EK POV, there is no need to sell discounted sixth freedom tickets at a loss to a slot restricted expensive airport. Just carry O&D, more revenue, and profit.

dtw2hyd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

....It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. ..

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

Since when can a 737/A320 fly routes like LHR-HKG, CDG-JNB or SYD-LAX.

Plus an A380 allows an airline to increase traffic during a certain period of the day without needing more slots during busy periods. Think early morning arrivals into SYD for example, ~8pm departures from JNB etc.... something that can't be done from a practical standpoint by increasing the number of flights.

dtw2hyd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

....It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. ..

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

simple mental analysis would indicate that there are precious few narrow body routes where the A380 flies, making your comparison moot.

I would suggest that whilst the A380 does have slightly longer turnarounds, you could not turn around 2x A330/B787/A350/B777 in the time it takes to turn around 1 x A380.

Egerton wrote:

... throwing their toys out of the pram...

They always have been throwing their toys, only to be replaced with new toys by A & B. This time around A walked away.

Richard28 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

....It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. ..

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

simple mental analysis would indicate that there are precious few narrow body routes where the A380 flies, making your comparison moot.

I would suggest that whilst the A380 does have slightly longer turnarounds, you could not turn around 2x A330/B787/A350/B777 in the time it takes to turn around 1 x A380.

I should have made it clear. 1 x EK A380 with 2 x Ryanair and 2 x easyJet. Does Heathrow Holdings care how big the frame or how long the flight is? IMHO 4xNBs will bring more revenue to the airport.

Wasn't this the issue with QR A380 at ATL? If it was just one flight, DL would have agreed to move their flight.

I am trying to see who is benefitting from VLAs??

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I also think (hope, if I'm honest) that this is what will happen. EK doesn't have much choice since the A380 is vital to its mode of operation - yet at the same time they won't want to be seen as vulnerable to Airbus' whims. I have a feeling that all these snubs and rumours are simply brinkmanship between EK and Airbus to try and get the upper hand wrt. contracts and conditions - but in the end a deal will be done, the A380 will live on and, probably, will see a second lease of life with new orders and an update in a few years' time.

We talking about Boeing or Airbus, have not seen such mentioned about Airbus with its customers, after all, with the enhanced commonality that is Airbus mantra, it is not logical.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sorry for not subscribing to EKcentric worldview.

There's absolutely nothing in my post that's "EKcentric", even though this thread is specifically about Emirates and the A380.

Any airline that's slot restricted at any airport can only carry more passengers by using larger planes.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

To rein in the rhetoric a little - Jayafe's point was that the A380 does *not* require major changes to airports and in fact most airports can already handle it... and that this false argument against the A380 seems to pop up regularly from US-based posters. I don't think US airports are as unsuited to A380 operations as people believe.

Interesting way to rein in the rhetoric, eh?

The counter point is how A380 fangirls got their panties in a twist when ATL did not rearrange DL's gates just so Al the Baker could show off his A380. It was insisted that ramp service wasn't good enough for this one-off visitor, and that an A380 specific gate must be had!

And while it's is literally true most airports could handle an A380, it's also literally true that my home could serve as a bus terminal. The queue for the loos might get a bit long but I'm sure if we try hard enough we could park two or more busses outside and passengers could change from one to another.

In the real world, I'll tell you what it cost for the changes needed for an A380 at a major (enough) airport, Boston Logan: $168M. It includes upgrades to make 3 gates into dual-bridgeway A380 gates, cost for expanding hold rooms needed for the surge in passengers caused by A380, cost for adding a new upper floor so that premium clubs could be moved upstairs while the security area is enlarged down stairs to make room for the surge in passengers caused by A380, and renovations to the other nine gates and common areas because you don't just modernize three gates and leave the other nine looking shabby.

A380 fans will say but but but but three dual bridgeways don't cost that much, and that's true, but in the real world you don't just dump three A380's worth of passengers into the same security area and hold rooms as you did for the previous airliners. Keep in mind an A380 capacity wise is like one 777 (10 across main deck) plus one A330 ( eight across upper deck ) so your airport that used to handle three 77Ws has now got to handle an additional three A330s worth of passengers in the same space, and that just doesn't work, you simply need to create more space, or you end up with passengers cheek to jowl everywhere. Also to serve the premium passengers you need to buy the premium tickets you need to cover the A380 costs, you need to have high level lounges with exclusive access to the bridgeways that these premium passengers are paying the big bucks for. So it's all a package deal, and in this case, the package cost $168M.

And the next question becomes: was the best use of $168M that BOS could make? I guess time will tell, but in any case, this gives the lie to the "US airports won't provide A380 facilities" argument.

"We are still talking to Emirates and quite honestly they are probably the only one in the marketplace who can take a minimum of six A380s a year for a period of eight to 10 years," he said.

"If we can't work out a deal with Emirates I think there is no choice but to shut down the program," Leahy added.

Wow. The end really is near. This most also mean there are not ANY other orders on the sidelines - or at least very few. I really thought we would be hearing that the 747 line was being shut-down - as Boeing needs the space for the MoM. This is so sad.

So what's the next shoe to drop? Airbus and Emirates agree to cancel remaining orders for additional 350s?!

Revelation wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

To rein in the rhetoric a little - Jayafe's point was that the A380 does *not* require major changes to airports and in fact most airports can already handle it... and that this false argument against the A380 seems to pop up regularly from US-based posters. I don't think US airports are as unsuited to A380 operations as people believe.

Interesting way to rein in the rhetoric, eh?

I was merely explaining Jayafe's point in as neutral way as possible. I didn't bring it up and I tried not to and push the AvB buttons.

scbriml wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sorry for not subscribing to EKcentric worldview.

There's absolutely nothing in my post that's "EKcentric", even though this thread is specifically about Emirates and the A380.

Any airline that's slot restricted at any airport can only carry more passengers by using larger planes.

You replied to only half of my post.

When both LHR and DXB are slot restricted, why funnel sixth freedom thru DXB to LHR and complain about it.

Takeout discounted sixth freedom and also ID travel, the problem disappears.

Revelation wrote:

And while it's is literally true most airports could handle an A380, it's also literally true that my home could serve as a bus terminal.

Such comparison does not allow answer. I guess you are saying your house can be used as Bus Terminal by widening a bit the corridors and getting some extra closets. Oh, yeah, the toilets idea is also and unsolvable construction inconvenient.

Revelation wrote:

In the real world, I'll tell you what it cost for the changes needed for an A380 at a major (enough) airport, Boston Logan: $168M. It includes upgrades to make 3 gates into dual-bridgeway A380 gates, cost for expanding hold rooms needed for the surge in passengers caused by A380, cost for adding a new upper floor so that premium clubs could be moved upstairs while the security area is enlarged down stairs to make room for the surge in passengers caused by A380

Nice article to be read. Did you? The argument becomes laughable when you blame the A380 (adapting 3 gates to the size, expanding the waiting area and building a VIP room upstairs) saying it caused a $168M investment. Those little details that the facility is actually a 12 gates terminal and built in 1970, that has been fully renovated are quite irrelevant.

Let´s not talk either of the increased income for the airport coming from landing fees (higher weight) and passenger charges, that actually finance its working. Investing is not spending, the rest of the world got it pretty well.

Revelation wrote:

...and renovations to the other nine gates and common areas because you don't just modernize three gates and leave the other nine looking shabby.

Expenses clearly caused by the A380 arrival and its operational infrastructure, indeed. This should not be tolerated! We were going to keep a crappy old terminal, and the European whale didnt allow us to!

Jayafe wrote:

Expenses clearly caused by the A380 arrival and its operational infrastructure, indeed. This should not be tolerated! We were going to keep a crappy old terminal, and the European whale didnt allow us to!

Fine. Provide us a real world example with price information where someone bolted a dual bridge jet way onto an an existing gate without changing the infra around it, and you will have done something useful. Then we can evaluate how that works in the real world. Till then, my point will stand.

Jayafe wrote:

....Let´s not talk either of the increased income for the airport coming from landing fees (higher weight) and passenger charges, that actually finance its working. Investing is not spending, the rest of the world got it pretty well.

When there is no ROI, investment turns into unwanted spending and even cause a debt spiral.

Assuming the gate was able to handle A330/B787/B777 how much additional revenue A380 will bring? Will that additional revenue cover the $168M for BOS.

seahawk wrote:

You mean they want to do a 787MAX already?

No. To my knowledge, EK has not yet chosen a engine supplier for their 787s.

Slug71 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You mean they want to do a 787MAX already?

No. To my knowledge, EK has not yet chosen a engine supplier for their 787s.

The problem imho is that there is no engine available that would be worth the effort, as the A380 engines are more modern than the A330CEO engines, so that the gap to the 787/A330NEO engines is really not worth the effort. You could have a engine that is worth the effort by for the A380 around 2025-2027 but that engine will not be worth the effort for the 787/A330NEO.

To be honest I can see no engine OEM willing to make a new engine for the whale. (unless EK firmly orders 150 frames or something)

What is in the running against the A380 in this order?

seahawk wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You mean they want to do a 787MAX already?

No. To my knowledge, EK has not yet chosen a engine supplier for their 787s.

The problem imho is that there is no engine available that would be worth the effort, as the A380 engines are more modern than the A330CEO engines, so that the gap to the 787/A330NEO engines is really not worth the effort. You could have a engine that is worth the effort by for the A380 around 2025-2027 but that engine will not be worth the effort for the 787/A330NEO.

To be honest I can see no engine OEM willing to make a new engine for the whale. (unless EK firmly orders 150 frames or something)

I agree. And I think a new engine is definitely out of the question. While the initial improvement from using 787/A330NEO engines will be small, at least there will be PIPs though. Once again, timing doesn't favour the A380 and Airbus seems to be between a rock and a hard place.

Revelation wrote:

Fine. Provide us a real world example with price information where someone bolted a dual bridge jet way onto an an existing gate without changing the infra around it, and you will have done something useful. Then we can evaluate how that works in the real world. Till then, my point will stand.

Your useless point doesnt stand itself against any comparison and is pretty ridiculous. You could also build a $30B airport and say that the A380 operations cost $30B because, hey, the A380 will be using the airport!. I suggest you reading it again, so you hopefully realise that your point makes no sense. And after showing you that, then you point on me to prove the costs?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Assuming the gate was able to handle A330/B787/B777 how much additional revenue A380 will bring? Will that additional revenue cover the $168M for BOS.

Again, do you realise that the 168M figure is the cost to rebuild a whole 12 gates terminal building, but you are saying it is a 3 gates expansion fault? I guess that the 3 gates and the VIP room cost 165M, and the whole rest of the building, including 9 gates and facilities, cost 3M haha

Arion640 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Someone above mentioned the A380 being a ME3 centred aircraft, it wasn't designed with that in mind.

It may not have been but they seem to be the one who has found a way to use it to the full extent. EK is operating A380's to multiple secondary airports in the UK, but BA...
Wonder what gives.....

In my mind I put it down to BA being owned by shareholders and the management must deliver.

EK on the other hand is owned by the Dubai Government who use EK as an economic catalyst, all profits get re-invested in the business. I'm a huge fan of Emirates, possibly my favourite airline to fly, but it's not run from a Profit producing point of view.

How far is your outlook horizon away is it quarterly, yearly, decades? are you looking at the "Betriebswirtschaft" or the "Volkswirtschaft" aspect.
( some companies show exceptional performance but are destructive for their national environment.)

Jayafe wrote:

you point on me to prove the costs?

Yes I point at you to provide data that you think is meaningful which would advance the discussion, rather than insults and belittlement which do not.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The A-380 model was point to mega-hub to mega hub, to point. That model did not pan out.

Balderdash. It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. Passengers flying point-hub-hub-point is just one subset of that.

And for most routes it *is* deployed hub to hub, simply because that's where you shift most passengers. In addition, EK especially has a number of hub to point routes where the "point" has enough O/D to sustain that.

My belief is that for some odd reason, the A-380 has a following of people with an irrational love of the aircraft. The A-380 is truly a magnificent piece of design and engineering but the issue was weather it fits into what air travel was going to be. The mega-hub to mega hub was the model Airbus relied upon and it was wrong. If they were right, the A-380 would be well on its way to meeting the sales predictions Airbus made, (1,200 if you had not heard.) instead of the questions now centering around "Will the A-380 survive." Calling balderdash does not change one fact. If not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead.

PW100 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

PW100 wrote:

Why?

Perhaps we're aviation nuts, and we like more diveristy. Especially 4-holers . . . ?

Well, then that is why we have photos. However, the purpose of any business is to make money.

Well, YOU asked the question. How can you be amazed that someone else is sorry if the limited diversity in airliners will get even smaller?

I gave an honest answer that I expect would suit most of our fellow members. I like discussing aviation. I like taking pictures of airplanes. The more models, the happier I am. Sorry to hear that you don't belong to that club of aviation enthusiasts.

Well then I would like to see the Vickers Viscount revived. Loved the plane. Ditto for the 727, DC-10, DC-8, 707 and a plethora of others. Probably not going to happen.

Revelation wrote:

And while it's is literally true most airports could handle an A380, it's also literally true that my home could serve as a bus terminal. The queue for the loos might get a bit long but I'm sure if we try hard enough we could park two or more busses outside and passengers could change from one to another.

That's a really extreme counter.....but I like.
Gave me the laugh of the day. No, make it of the week. On third thought, maybe, just maybe, of the month.
Lucky that I was not about to drink anything so you don't owe me a keyboard.

Btw, where did you get the $168M figure from? Just asking asking.

Jayafe wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Assuming the gate was able to handle A330/B787/B777 how much additional revenue A380 will bring? Will that additional revenue cover the $168M for BOS.

Again, do you realise that the 168M figure is the cost to rebuild a whole 12 gates terminal building, but you are saying it is a 3 gates expansion fault? I guess that the 3 gates and the VIP room cost 165M, and the whole rest of the building, including 9 gates and facilities, cost 3M haha

The primary goal of Terminal E upgrade project was to accommodate whales. Unless you have details of upgrades to other 12 gates received, I could argue they got a fresh coat of paint.

http://www.airportimprovement.com/artic ... -wide-body

Jayafe wrote:

Expenses clearly caused by the A380 arrival and its operational infrastructure, indeed. This should not be tolerated! We were going to keep a crappy old terminal, and the European whale didnt allow us to!

Game, set and match. Well played!

Bald1983 wrote:

The mega-hub to mega hub was the model Airbus relied upon and it was wrong.

Oh, so not point-hub-hub-point after all then?!? Nice move of the goalposts. Anyway, as I said, hub-to-hub was not the only model. If we're going to go down that route - has the 787 killed all hubs yet? (An equally spurious reduction of the Boeing argument... you decide which is more childish.)

the sales predictions Airbus made, (1,200 if you had not heard.)

That was the total for all VLA aircraft (Airbus definition: over 400 seats). The A380 was only supposed to capture around 40% of that. And by the way, the current fleet of 400+ seats is roughly that size.

If not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead.

As I've argued several times already, Emirates killed the market for all the other airlines and actually limited A380 sales. They did *NOT* save it.

Strato2 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Expenses clearly caused by the A380 arrival and its operational infrastructure, indeed. This should not be tolerated! We were going to keep a crappy old terminal, and the European whale didnt allow us to!

Game, set and match. Well played!

I guess neither of you understand how MASSPORT works, they definitely would be OK with keeping the crappy 70s vintage terminal setup for a few more decades.

neutrino wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And while it's is literally true most airports could handle an A380, it's also literally true that my home could serve as a bus terminal. The queue for the loos might get a bit long but I'm sure if we try hard enough we could park two or more busses outside and passengers could change from one to another.

That's a really extreme counter.....but I like.
Gave me the laugh of the day. No, make it of the week. On third thought, maybe, just maybe, of the month.
Lucky that I was not about to drink anything so you don't owe me a keyboard.

Btw, where did you get the $168M figure from? Just asking asking.

Reply #618 above has a link.

Cost for making a gate A380-ready at YUL: CA$ 600 000, some time before 2009, as per this article:
http://classement.lesaffaires.com/secte ... ans/505601

(extra cost for a two-levels jet bridge and the interface building, added on top of a complete rebuild of the international section of the airport).

We are quite far from Revelation's BOS bill… But, alas, it's only a small part of the question.

Canada's example is interesting, WRT the A380.

In YUL, we have three A380-ready gates at YUL, and no A380 flight whatsoever… ADMTL, the airport authority, started building those gates before AF received their first planes. The original plan was for YUL to be the second North American destination for AF's A380s, after JFK. It made sense, I guess, in the historic view of Airbus, which was founded around a project to build a bigger airliner, the A300, intended to ease congestion on short- and mid-haul flights by concentrating passengers on fewer flights. And, while we could not quite speak of "congestion", Montreal-Paris is, per ADMTL (2016), the busiest international route from Canada http://www.admtl.com/sites/default/file ... 2016_A.pdf

So, somehow it made sense… But it seems that even though the baggage and immigration halls were enlarged, the A380 in fact did congest the airport more, during the six months it was in use from CDG… The service did not last any longer, officially because there is not enough upper-class demand on that route. Case in point: AC's reply was to modify its 77W from 9- to 10-abreast in self-loading-cargo class.

In YYZ, on the other hand, EK flies A380 there, a few times a week, because traffic rights from the UAE have been split, so that, the other days, YUL receives QR's 772. Here, using anything else, EK could not move as many people.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The A-380 model was point to mega-hub to mega hub, to point. That model did not pan out.

Balderdash. It was supposed to increase capacity at hubs without using up more slots. Passengers flying point-hub-hub-point is just one subset of that.

And for most routes it *is* deployed hub to hub, simply because that's where you shift most passengers. In addition, EK especially has a number of hub to point routes where the "point" has enough O/D to sustain that.

Emirates is a P¹=H¹=H²=P² setup where the H=H transfer is a people mover ( i.e. intra airport. )

Any P=H connection scoops up traffic for the "obverse" hub and thus can accomodate much larger demand per spoke
than most other hubed models.

Correction to my earlier post: QR in YUL is 77W.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Is there any analysis to support this?

If 4(2 x Gates x 2 turnarounds x 180 pax each) narrowbodies can turnaround with the same amount of gate space and time of one A380 (1x525 pax) turn, 4 narrowbodies give more access to airlines and more revenue to the airport.

simple mental analysis would indicate that there are precious few narrow body routes where the A380 flies, making your comparison moot.

I would suggest that whilst the A380 does have slightly longer turnarounds, you could not turn around 2x A330/B787/A350/B777 in the time it takes to turn around 1 x A380.

I should have made it clear. 1 x EK A380 with 2 x Ryanair and 2 x easyJet. Does Heathrow Holdings care how big the frame or how long the flight is? IMHO 4xNBs will bring more revenue to the airport.

Wasn't this the issue with QR A380 at ATL? If it was just one flight, DL would have agreed to move their flight.

I am trying to see who is benefitting from VLAs??

An airport benefits per passenger. One A380 brings in 4 times more than each A320, That means moving an airline from an A320 to an A 380 quadruples the take of the airport. Maximum revenue for the airport is when every frame is an A380.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

As I've argued several times already, Emirates killed the market for all the other airlines and actually limited A380 sales. They did *NOT* save it.

That point cannot be emphasized enough and will be the topics of "what ifs" in the future. If EK did not in essence monopolized the A380, what would the airline landscape look like now?

In the end a deal will get done, I am guessing EK is trying to get "launch" type priceing but Airbus now having the upper hand (the cancellation talk is real and EK knows it) is balking and needs EK to pay more. Going to 6 or 8 A380s producted a year isn't doing Airbus's financials any favors and thats including the profitable services on the back end.

I bet there is a sizable faction in Airbus that would love for the A380 and A400M to just go away. There is a lot of profit (notice I did not state money) to be made on the core A320 and A350.

mjoelnir wrote:

An airport benefits per passenger. One A380 brings in 4 times more than each A320, That means moving an airline from an A320 to an A 380 quadruples the take of the airport. Maximum revenue for the airport is when every frame is an A380.

Well it is a bit more complicated than that. A380s take up more room, require longer turn around times, and require longer separation distances. Maximum revenue for the airport may not necessarily be when every frame is an A380, as that might actually lower the total capacity of passengers going through the airport. Most airports don't have unlimited terminal space/runway capacity available.

One A380 can take up the same amount of space as 2 A320s. Depending on turnaround times those two A320s could turn around and two new ones come in (and potentially turnaround with 2 additional new A320s coming in) in the same amount of time that the A380 is sitting on the ground.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

They also didn't foresee the progress that engine OEMs were making in making honking huge engine[, the payload/range gap between a 77E/773 and a A380 is massive, maybe enough to justify a model. Not so much if you strap GE90-115s to said 777s to make them 77L/77w.

One must also consider the opportunity cost in keeping the A380 production line running instead of using the valuable real estate to build more profitable A320/330/350s..

Yes I recall a story of the 777 and how GE quite surprised Boeing with the thrust they were saying they could get with the GE90. And with the relaxing of ETOPS all spelled the end of the 747 and now A380. You just don't need 4-engines and the big increase in costs associated with them anymore. The 777 will be the biggest aircraft for a long time.

Aircellist wrote:

Cost for making a gate A380-ready at YUL: CA$ 600 000, some time before 2009, as per this article:
http://classement.lesaffaires.com/secte ... ans/505601

(extra cost for a two-levels jet bridge and the interface building, added on top of a complete rebuild of the international section of the airport).

We are quite far from Revelation's BOS bill… But, alas, it's only a small part of the question.

Thanks for the base line information. I wish I had a line item break down for Boston as well as the complete rebuild of the international section of Montreal and we could have a deeper discussion.

Some of our members here feel the A380 only costs an airport the cost of a dual bridge jetway and some extra concrete, and the only reason many commercial airports don't support A380 is some sort of anti-A380 conspiracy.

In my case I see there is some padding in the BOS $168M number, and was the one that some of it goes to refurbishing the other gates, but to me the whole reason the terminal is being expanded is that each A380 is adding an A330's worth of passengers to the same space at the same time and unless you are in the unusual situation where you have an underutilized international terminal you are going to have to expand the terminal to service the A380.

It's far more likely the reason that A380 service is not present at various selected airports is the challenge of expanding the facilities to support the additional A380 traffic rather than some sort of anti-A380 conspiracy.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The mega-hub to mega hub was the model Airbus relied upon and it was wrong.

Oh, so not point-hub-hub-point after all then?!? Nice move of the goalposts. Anyway, as I said, hub-to-hub was not the only model. If we're going to go down that route - has the 787 killed all hubs yet? (An equally spurious reduction of the Boeing argument... you decide which is more childish.)

the sales predictions Airbus made, (1,200 if you had not heard.)

That was the total for all VLA aircraft (Airbus definition: over 400 seats). The A380 was only supposed to capture around 40% of that. And by the way, the current fleet of 400+ seats is roughly that size.

If not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead.

As I've argued several times already, Emirates killed the market for all the other airlines and actually limited A380 sales. They did *NOT* save it.

Nice try on your moving the goal posts but Airbus predicted 1,200 sales of the A-380 and planned on it being the only real VLA out there. Airbus came no here near the goal and the talk now is mostly can the A-380 be saved. Funny, we do not hear that talk about the 787 and we do not hear that talk about the A-350. The A-380 was designed to only operate from very large hubs with connections on both sides taking people to their final destination. Also, Boeing never said that the 787 would kill the mega hubs. Matter of fact, the 787 is also flying between mega hubs, like LAX to SYD. What is particularly noteworthy, is the level people, like you, take offense, when one discusses the failure of the A-380. It really comes down to a simple fact; if the A-380 were what was needed, a lot more of them would have been ordered. When you are down to trying to work a deal with ONE airline to save the airplane, or to outsource to China, your program failed.

An767 wrote:

Why are people saying that one will only make money, if the other dies? the 748 is already dead as a pax model only selling as freighters , something the 380 will never be
AN767

The 747-8 Intercontinental is already dead? As long as its freighter sibling is in production, can we say the passenger version is dead?

There won't be any miracle, for sure, but there could be specific demands here and there in small number for the passenger version and that would be enough, it would be more likely if the other completely disappears.

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The mega-hub to mega hub was the model Airbus relied upon and it was wrong.

Oh, so not point-hub-hub-point after all then?!? Nice move of the goalposts. Anyway, as I said, hub-to-hub was not the only model. If we're going to go down that route - has the 787 killed all hubs yet? (An equally spurious reduction of the Boeing argument... you decide which is more childish.)

the sales predictions Airbus made, (1,200 if you had not heard.)

That was the total for all VLA aircraft (Airbus definition: over 400 seats). The A380 was only supposed to capture around 40% of that. And by the way, the current fleet of 400+ seats is roughly that size.

If not for Emirates, the plane would already be dead.

As I've argued several times already, Emirates killed the market for all the other airlines and actually limited A380 sales. They did *NOT* save it.

Nice try on your moving the goal posts but Airbus predicted 1,200 sales of the A-380 and planned on it being the only real VLA out there. Airbus came no here near the goal and the talk now is mostly can the A-380 be saved. Funny, we do not hear that talk about the 787 and we do not hear that talk about the A-350. The A-380 was designed to only operate from very large hubs with connections on both sides taking people to their final destination. Also, Boeing never said that the 787 would kill the mega hubs. Matter of fact, the 787 is also flying between mega hubs, like LAX to SYD. What is particularly noteworthy, is the level people, like you, take offense, when one discusses the failure of the A-380. It really comes down to a simple fact; if the A-380 were what was needed, a lot more of them would have been ordered. When you are down to trying to work a deal with ONE airline to save the airplane, or to outsource to China, your program failed.

And the brutal fact is only one airline, Emirates, came in and saved the day for Airbus and ordered 150. Had Emritates for whatever reason had not been in the market for a VLA the program would have been an even bigger spectacular failure.