jayunited wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

The multi-hub, generally not slot-restricted model of US airline operations is a poor fit for an A380-size aircraft. There are only a few routes worldwide flown by US carriers where additional capacity couldn't be added through additional 787/A350/777 frequencies, with lower risk and vastly more fleet flexibility.

Notice that the US carriers have ignored even the 777-9, while they busily add A330neo and 787, and all seem to be chomping at the bit for Boeing to sell NMA.

I wouldn't say US carriers have ignored the 779 I would say the 779 at this point in time is not needed. AA's 77Ws are still considered new and UA's could be considered brand new so it will be 15-20, 25 years before those 77Ws will need to be replaced. The reason US carriers are adding 787s, A330s, and A350s and are showing so much interest in Boeings NMA is because many of our mid size aircraft (757, 767) and large aircraft (772, 772ER, A330's) will need to be replaced within the next decade.

Back to the A380 I have serious doubt that any US carrier will ever have the A380 in their fleet new or used because I think US carriers no longer have a interest in 4 engine aircraft. The A380 has only been in service for about 11 years and while their have been some US carriers who have added other used aircraft to their fleet I'm not sure that will be the case for the A380, the biggest hurdle I see is maintenance cost. High maintenance cost among other factors seal the fate of 744's resulting in that aircraft type being retired earlier than most people were probably expecting. The lower cost of ownership and projected maintenance cost is also what made the 77W more attractive to UA than Boeings 748i, it probably was the same for AA while DL has chosen the A359. As A380s start to hit their teenage years I wonder what the cost of ownership will be especially as it pertains to maintenance cost. We have seen US carriers invest in life extension programs for some of their older fleet types where it makes sense financially but at the same time retire other aircraft do to actual or projected high maintenance cost. If the A380 is to have a slight (very slight) chance of entering service with a US carrier either new or used I think US carriers would like to see what would a 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 year old A380 cost to maintain.

Matt6461 wrote:

I'll just jump in to add a variation on something I say in every A380 thread, something I consider fairly obvious and stemming from basic economics, but something too little-discussed re Whalejet:

There are no U.S.-based A380s because the A380 is a bad design, not simply because it is too big.

Had Airbus achieved ~15% lower trip cost - entirely possible absent disastrous strategic decisions - some U.S. orders would have come. UA, for instance, says the A380 doesn't work because it's much bigger but not much more efficient. With 15% lower trip costs we'd see UA A380 flights from SFO, EWR, probably ORD as well. Not enough to make a 2000 A380 launch a good decision - maybe 15 frames tops.

Had Airbus waited a few more years for CFRP, the U.S. order book goes up to maybe 50.

For example, let's look at the Airbus GMF for 2004-2023.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/intro/airbus_GMF2004.pdf

On page 53 of this document, Airbus predicts that 1250 new passenger VLA's (no Freighters) will be needed to fill the market demand. Seating wise, the airplane breakdown is:

450 pax: 239
500 pax: 517
600 pax: 283
800 pax: 166
1000 pax: 45

Vladex wrote:

they stick with old equipment because they don't care as much since they have their internal monopoly.

johns624 wrote:

Vladex wrote:

they stick with old equipment because they don't care as much since they have their internal monopoly.

A350s and 787s are old equipment?

Revelation wrote:

It's hard to see how they could get 15% lower trip cost and bake in the growth potential all at the same time.

Themotionman wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK

WHAT??? One of the main reasons why ATL-MCO is so successful is because of it's frequency and ability to offer a good connection time to practically any inbound ATL flight. If Delta wanted to put widebodies on these routes then we'd already see an all B763/A333 schedule

TSA125 wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK

WHAT??? One of the main reasons why ATL-MCO is so successful is because of it's frequency and ability to offer a good connection time to practically any inbound ATL flight. If Delta wanted to put widebodies on these routes then we'd already see an all B763/A333 schedule

DL does have B763's on the schedule at the moment actually.

TSA125 wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK

WHAT??? One of the main reasons why ATL-MCO is so successful is because of it's frequency and ability to offer a good connection time to practically any inbound ATL flight. If Delta wanted to put widebodies on these routes then we'd already see an all B763/A333 schedule

DL does have B763's on the schedule at the moment actually.

F9Animal wrote:

I would love love love to see a US Airline fly the A380. Does anyone know if DL has ever kicked the tires on a 380?