The A380 and US airlines: Too late or still a chance?

fsxfan38 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:06 am

I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

dredgy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:24 am

What? HA have expressed interest in A330neos and 787s for flights to Europe. No way in hell they’d buy A380s to drop into a brand new market with largely untested demand.

Can’t imagine any US airlines ever going for something that size.

jubguy3 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:27 am

Maybe they could use it for Tokyo and possibly Los Angeles services; ANA is planning to send their A380s to Honolulu. It's the second busiest international route from the US.

I know Delta has been on record saying it's too big of an aircraft, and they operate the largest hub in the US. The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK, JFK/DTW/ATL-AMS, and ATL-CDG where there is less competition and higher frequencies. But it has a limited enough scope that I don't think it would ever be useful for them. The kinds of routes you see non-EK carriers using A380s on outside the US are not the kind of routes that really exist in the US that can't be served just as well with higher frequencies on a 777.

I don't see it being useful for United or American either. Rather than the traditional single hub airlines like SQ or KL, US airlines operate a variety of hubs with a variety of market focuses. This complicates the viability of the A380 in the US - it really only works for bringing in large amounts of passengers on high frequency routes over long distances. It's not something the US really needs. If anybody would need it, it would be Delta, and they have said that they have no interest. Maybe Airbus could cut them a deal? There are always those parked SQ A380s and the ones that MH is seemingly trying to get rid of. I know that could help ease the sticker shock for some airlines here, and operating older frames isn't a problem with effective maintenance.

The world does not have enough Emirates for Airbus.

OldAeroGuy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:37 am

You should read the thread about the 787-9 replacing the A330-800 at HA.

The argument is that the 787-9 is too large as Europeans have no interest in visiting Hawaii.

FlyHappy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:55 am

There's zero chance HA would take an A380 for free.
There's zero chance that the US3 would operate the A380. There's a reason why they eliminated the B747, and never ordered any 748. Too big, doesn't provide flexibility desired.

Its easy to bash the US3 in contrast to the big long haul operations, be it ME3, BA, LH, CX, SQ - but none of them have to support long haul from more than 1 or 2 hubs. Its alot easier to fleet plan when your operations are so clearly defined.

JayBCNLON · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:27 am

It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen. The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective, and also the safest. Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL. If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers. As the second-hand market for A380s develops and pax numbers grow even more it will happen. Give it 2 - 3 years

N14AZ · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:46 am

fsxfan38 wrote:
[...] as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

Years ago there was a rumour that HA would be interested in A380s but nothing materialised, obviously: http://usat.ly/2dn8hgx

Do you refer to that rumour?

AR385 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:54 am

The A380 simply does not fit with US3 commercial model. No way they would get it. No even second hand.

seabosdca · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:07 am

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.

JayBCNLON wrote:
and also the safest.

Citation needed. All new-generation widebody aircraft are exceedingly safe, but there's zero support for any claim that the A380 is safer than the A350 or 787.

chrisp390 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:11 am

Airbus talked with HA about the A380 but nothing ever came of those talks.

LAX772LR · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:29 am

JayBCNLON wrote:
It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen.

Ridiculous, lol.

JayBCNLON wrote:
The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective,

That's an opinion, not a fact.

JayBCNLON wrote:
and also the safest.

...and that's not even a fact, that's just you making things up.

JayBCNLON wrote:
Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL.

And yet, DL/UA/HA have zilch interest in an A380

JayBCNLON wrote:
Give it 2 - 3 years

This post was (a weak attempt at) comedy, right? :roll:

chrisp390 wrote:
Airbus talked with HA about the A380 but nothing ever came of those talks.

You could scratch HA and insert the name of just about any significant US carrier, and it'd still read the same. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus even talked to LoCos about it. They'd be derelict to have not.

Themotionman · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:47 am

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

Also look at the highest volume intercontinental routes of the US3. UA have multiple daily B763s on EWR-LHR - If they wanted something big then they'd have to reduce frequency which would piss of the front of the cabin. The 77W is as big as the US3 will ever need to go.

packmedic · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:00 am

DL and UA just got rid of their 747s, replacing them with smaller 787s/77Ws (UA) and A350s (DL). Neither one ordered the 748 as it was too much aircraft and would have very limited use in their systems. Why would they go for something larger, that has an even more limited use?

Add to that, HA is expanding using A321Ns and I can't see them ever having the demand to fill an A380

N14AZ · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:14 am

chrisp390 wrote:
Airbus talked with HA about the A380 but nothing ever came of those talks.

HA was visited by a certain Mark Lapidus as well... ;-)

jayunited · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:55 pm

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.

aemoreira1981 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:19 pm

The US airline business model is based on frequency. The only wide-body domestic routes one sees are generally major trunk routes (New York area to LAX and SFO), repositioning flights operating as revenue flights (i.e., MIA to JFK or MIA to LAX), or East Coast to Hawaii (New York to HNL). The A380 thus is inefficient for any domestic service.

As for the B777X, UA and AA already have B77Ws and DL has gone with the A359. It will be a long time before the B777X considered by a US carrier.

Revelation · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:53 pm

jayunited wrote:
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.

I agree, the relatively small/concentrated A380 fleet is going to make it hard to keep maintenance fees in check as the aircraft age. I suppose the "good news" is that the "terrible toddlers" are not getting any interest on the used market so if the used market does not get established there could be some scrapped airframes to scavenge.

Another thing is that A380 now seems to be stagnant. 78J and 789 had improvements on 788. 77W has been taking in improvements designed for 77X. EK has gotten one PIP from RR and is trying to entice EA into doing one too, but they have said they do not want any of the 'plus' features. So we see cases where other aircraft get entire new generation wings ( 77X ) and engines ( 77X, A330neo ) whereas in the same time frame A380 can only get PIPs and can't even justify new winglets never mind a new wing.

Bald1983 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:53 pm

fsxfan38 wrote:
I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

Not a chance. Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost. The A-380 is too big. You will never see one in the livery of an airline flagged in the United States.

Bald1983 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:55 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
Maybe they could use it for Tokyo and possibly Los Angeles services; ANA is planning to send their A380s to Honolulu. It's the second busiest international route from the US.

I know Delta has been on record saying it's too big of an aircraft, and they operate the largest hub in the US. The A380 would be good for routes like ATL-MCO, ATL-JFK, JFK/DTW/ATL-AMS, and ATL-CDG where there is less competition and higher frequencies. But it has a limited enough scope that I don't think it would ever be useful for them. The kinds of routes you see non-EK carriers using A380s on outside the US are not the kind of routes that really exist in the US that can't be served just as well with higher frequencies on a 777.

I don't see it being useful for United or American either. Rather than the traditional single hub airlines like SQ or KL, US airlines operate a variety of hubs with a variety of market focuses. This complicates the viability of the A380 in the US - it really only works for bringing in large amounts of passengers on high frequency routes over long distances. It's not something the US really needs. If anybody would need it, it would be Delta, and they have said that they have no interest. Maybe Airbus could cut them a deal? There are always those parked SQ A380s and the ones that MH is seemingly trying to get rid of. I know that could help ease the sticker shock for some airlines here, and operating older frames isn't a problem with effective maintenance.

The world does not have enough Emirates for Airbus.

I doubt there is a single route where the A-380 would be better than a large twin, like the A-350 or the 787.

BN727227Ultra · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:10 pm

JayBCNLON wrote:
It’s totally un-American to think small and unambitious. So it will happen. The A380 is the best aircraft flying in the long-haul space from a customer perspective, and also the safest. Asian routes out of LAX, SFO, DTW, JFK and ATL would work for DL and UA and HA from HNL. If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers. As the second-hand market for A380s develops and pax numbers grow even more it will happen. Give it 2 - 3 years

That explains all the 748s at KPAE being painted in WN colors. #Murica.

StuckinCMHland · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:17 pm

It is pretty clear that no regular US airline would want the 380, but is it possible that a charter service might get a few for something like military airlift? If there is another significant war in the future involving the US/NATO/SEATO (if SEATO still exists) a 380 might be a good plane to use to quickly transport troops to a conflict zone.

It might also be something that NGO's might look at in the future, say for quick transport of relief workers to a place stuck by natural disaster (i.e. an earthquake/tsunami in AK, or SE Asia), or a a flying hospital as other charities have used smaller aircraft for in the past.

I understand that both of these things are longshot ideas, since nobody is going to buy A380's and store them for a rainy day if they cannot be used for other purposes, and the cost of maintaining the plane and a core of people fly and maintain them would be very expensive. But finding a way to use an A380 as a people-mover in these situations is a better use of the frame than turning it into scrap before its time.

JamesCousins · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:33 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
The US airline business model is based on frequency. The only wide-body domestic routes one sees are generally major trunk routes (New York area to LAX and SFO), repositioning flights operating as revenue flights (i.e., MIA to JFK or MIA to LAX), or East Coast to Hawaii (New York to HNL). The A380 thus is inefficient for any domestic service.

As for the B777X, UA and AA already have B77Ws and DL has gone with the A359. It will be a long time before the B777X considered by a US carrier.

Spot on. Here in Europe, and even across to Asia there are less airlines to choose from, with greater segregation between 'business' and 'leisure' travelers (with some overlap of course). You also have to look at the size of airports in the US, ATL & JFK are good examples - here in Europe you don't tend to get airports that take planes from CRJs right up to 380s, in large quantities at once. The huge US airports allow airlines to offer greater frequencies, preferable to customers.

I think we will see 777X orders from AA and UA eventually, but I don't expect them to be particularly large orders...

Flighty · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:36 pm

StuckinCMHland wrote:
It is pretty clear that no regular US airline would want the 380, but is it possible that a charter service might get a few for something like military airlift? If there is another significant war in the future involving the US/NATO/SEATO (if SEATO still exists) a 380 might be a good plane to use to quickly transport troops to a conflict zone.

It might also be something that NGO's might look at in the future, say for quick transport of relief workers to a place stuck by natural disaster (i.e. an earthquake/tsunami in AK, or SE Asia), or a a flying hospital as other charities have used smaller aircraft for in the past.

I understand that both of these things are longshot ideas, since nobody is going to buy A380's and store them for a rainy day if they cannot be used for other purposes, and the cost of maintaining the plane and a core of people fly and maintain them would be very expensive. But finding a way to use an A380 as a people-mover in these situations is a better use of the frame than turning it into scrap before its time.

There will be A380 charter operators globally. Probably not in the USA. To imagine a US-based charter operator buying A380, would have to know more about the global charter market (legalities) to make a good prediction. The jobs in the USA would not justify. It would have to serve a global need. My prediction is no.

JamesCousins · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:39 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
fsxfan38 wrote:
I personally believe that there is a very, very slim chance that we could see a US carrier pick up an A380...it's all depending on whether or whether not Hawaiian Air decides to start flying to Europe, as it is rumored that they would also buy the A380 if that were to happen.

Not a chance. Airbus bet on the future being mega hub to mega hub. They lost. The A-380 is too big. You will never see one in the livery of an airline flagged in the United States.

You say 'they lost' but did they really? They may have predicted a larger market for the aircraft, but it clearly has its space in the market, and I dare say, could become profitable one day. They've seen orders from some of the worlds largest airlines, with BA potentially looking at more and EK having 61 on order, that's a very hefty number for such an expensive plane.

That being said I agree on your point about US airlines, unless something unbelievably drastic happens 380s don'r really have a place with the US 3 (or US 6 depending on how we're looking at it)

NZ321 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:39 pm

The US major carriers (international) have not bought A380 because they can't or don't want to compete for international high yield business traveller and it isn't a freight carrying aircraft like the 77W. Such travellers - I am one - chose other airlines. I avoid all US airlines because of their shoddy service on long haul across nearly all aircraft.

I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work. But these carriers have convinced their Boards on their own they can't justify the investment. Look at the frequency and ability of some long haul carriers re A380 to the US. Shows it can work. If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it. It's in the too-hard-to-play and we-can't-win-at-that-game-so-we're-not-playing category. Can't blame them entirely given their history but...... A radical shift in thinking could move things to a different dimensions at one or other carrier. Not holding out hope though. I think this is extremely unlikely. I don't think this aspect is divorced from the point-to-point strategy of by-passing hubs that US carriers have employed. This is a competitive response.

But considering available airfares, I avoid US carriers long haul every step of the way if I can. A380 J class in KE, TG, SQ or OZ or EK, QR or EY is on another planet from what the US airlines offer. US majors are just not competitive for the international business traveller. I doubt anything is likely to change in the near future.

Tedd · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:10 pm

If there`d been a sniff at an aircraft of the size of the A380 by any US airline wouldn`t that sniff have been
directed at the B747-8I first & foremost? Since there hasn`t been, I think it fair to conclude that there would
be little or no chance of A380 interest, now or in the future.
Could it be said that B777x is a little too large & pricey for the US airlines? I`m not sure how it will pan out
for it, it seems to me that Airbus might just have hit the "sweet-spot" for size & economy with the A351 when
these airlines look for B777-200 & 300ER replacements, time will tell but it`s got a better chance of purchase
than Airbus`s big`un.

EChid · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:40 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
There are always those parked SQ A380s and the ones that MH is seemingly trying to get rid of. I know that could help ease the sticker shock for some airlines here, and operating older frames isn't a problem with effective maintenance.

Actually, I don't think the MH A380s are on the market anymore. After the change in leadership, they reversed their plan and indicated they still had use for them and were actually getting decent yields on them since recovering from the two crashes in 2014. This was part of the reason the rumour of BA buying more new A380s surfaced (in addition to the the fact that they seemed to realize re-furbishing old A380s was far more expensive than they initially thought).

Steelhead · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:51 pm

Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

Blotto · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:57 pm

If almost any operator chooses to fly the A380 into either LAX or JFK or both, there has to be enough demand for US carriers to fill the aircraft as well. In fact there are A380s home bases that see less A380 traffic than LAX/JFK.

The US3 will have their reasons to ignore the aircraft.

dmstorm22 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:27 pm

NZ321 wrote:
I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work. But these carriers have convinced their Boards on their own they can't justify the investment. Look at the frequency and ability of some long haul carriers re A380 to the US. Shows it can work.

What's your example of these long-haul carriers with A380 to US? The max I think is EK to JFK at one point had 4 (one via MXP), and even that they've down-sized to converting one of the A380 non-stops to JFK to a 77W to EWR.

Other than that max frequency is 2x right?

NZ321 wrote:

If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it. It's in the too-hard-to-play and we-can't-win-at-that-game-so-we're-not-playing category. Can't blame them entirely given their history but...... A radical shift in thinking could move things to a different dimensions at one or other carrier. Not holding out hope though. I think this is extremely unlikely. I don't think this aspect is divorced from the point-to-point strategy of by-passing hubs that US carriers have employed. This is a competitive response.

Why do you think that model would fit US international traffic. The US has enough major population centers that have OD demand to justify multiple places running Long-haul routes to the same market. Allows them to pick up the business travelers from those markets as well. What would UA gain by flying a A380 ORD-FRA instead of multiple 77Es from EWR-FRA & ORD-FRA?

klm617 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:38 pm

The A380 does not fit into the cooperate strategy of wanting to tightly restrict capacity to have a maximum return on investment. So hence no US airline will order the A380 unless Airbus gives them away.

neomax · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:08 pm

Steelhead wrote:
Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

We're gonna have way bigger problems than the A380 if we plan on moving large amounts of US troops somewhere anytime soon. The last thing this planet needs is more instability in an already volatile world. You think throwing billions of dollars and troops into another conflict is worth it? Imagine the humanitarian crisis, power vacuum, regional turmoil and difficulty of rebuilding yet another war torn country. The only thing an astronomical defense budget and the equally ridiculous war that ensues is worth nothing more than an ego boost for a few politicians who want to distract the country from their own internal troubles.

I want to see a US airline buy the A380, but if it meant starting another widespread global conflict just to move US troops, I'd rather take the A321 and skip the war.

Polot · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Blotto wrote:
If almost any operator chooses to fly the A380 into either LAX or JFK or both, there has to be enough demand for US carriers to fill the aircraft as well. In fact there are A380s home bases that see less A380 traffic than LAX/JFK.

The US3 will have their reasons to ignore the aircraft.

That line of illogical thinking is akin to saying since EK flies to MAN 3x daily with the A380 BA should be using theirs there too.

seabosdca · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:01 pm

NZ321 wrote:
If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it.

That would kneecap the US airlines' entire competitive advantage. Their business models are based on a multi-hub strategy where capacity can move between hubs flexibly as the market demands. It allows the entire system to benefit from growth at one hub and keeps constraints on growth at one hub from holding the entire system back. For example, in UA's case, if there are temporary or permanent capacity constraints at EWR, then some transatlantic connecting traffic can shift seamlessly to IAD, and vice versa.

In any case I don't think they need the A380 to compete for "high yield business travelers." There is nothing wrong with any other widebody aircraft, even the 767, for such travelers. For US-based travelers, they compete on network strength, and do it well. For travelers based elsewhere, they need to improve hard and soft products. The hard products have progressed while the soft ones still lag a bit, but they are filling the cabins.

blockski · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:27 pm

NZ321 wrote:
The US major carriers (international) have not bought A380 because they can't or don't want to compete for international high yield business traveller and it isn't a freight carrying aircraft like the 77W. Such travellers - I am one - chose other airlines. I avoid all US airlines because of their shoddy service on long haul across nearly all aircraft.

I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work. But these carriers have convinced their Boards on their own they can't justify the investment. Look at the frequency and ability of some long haul carriers re A380 to the US. Shows it can work. If a particular carrier were to focus the majority of feed through one or two hubs internationally, for arguments sake, UA through ORD and SFO or DL through DTW there might be a solution that can justify A380 but I don't see it. It's in the too-hard-to-play and we-can't-win-at-that-game-so-we're-not-playing category. Can't blame them entirely given their history but...... A radical shift in thinking could move things to a different dimensions at one or other carrier. Not holding out hope though. I think this is extremely unlikely. I don't think this aspect is divorced from the point-to-point strategy of by-passing hubs that US carriers have employed. This is a competitive response.

But considering available airfares, I avoid US carriers long haul every step of the way if I can. A380 J class in KE, TG, SQ or OZ or EK, QR or EY is on another planet from what the US airlines offer. US majors are just not competitive for the international business traveller. I doubt anything is likely to change in the near future.

So. What does that have to do with the A380?

If a US Airline bought the A380 and you had a choice between flying that or flying, say, a KE 777, which would you pick?

tjh8402 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:58 pm

Steelhead wrote:
Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

The US military already has an arrangement with the airlines, cargo carriers, and charter operators called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, where, in exchange for government contracts, they pledged to have aircraft and crews continuously available to the military for supplemental lift in the event of an emergency.

The airlines contractually pledge aircraft to the various segments of CRAF, ready for activation when needed. To provide incentives for civil carriers to commit aircraft to the CRAF program and to assure the United States of adequate airlift reserves, the government makes peacetime DOD airlift business available to civilian airlines that offer aircraft to the CRAF. DOD offers business through the CRAF Charter Airlift Services contract.

To participate in the international segments of CRAF, carriers must maintain a minimum commitment of 30 percent of its CRAF capable passenger fleet and 15 percent of its CRAF capable cargo fleet. Aircraft committed must be U.S.-registered and carriers must commit and maintain at least four complete crews for each aircraft...

...
Three stages of incremental activation allow for tailoring an airlift force suitable for the contingency at hand. Stage I is for minor regional crises and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HADR) efforts, Stage II would be used for major theater war and Stage III for periods of national mobilization.

The commander, U.S. Transportation Command, with approval of the Secretary of Defense, is the activation authority for all three stages of CRAF. During a crisis, if AMC has a need for additional aircraft, it would request the commander of USTRANSCOM to take steps to activate the appropriate CRAF stage.

Each stage of the CRAF activation is only used to the extent necessary to provide the amount of civil augmentation airlift needed by DOD. When notified of call-up, the carrier response time to have its aircraft ready for a CRAF mission is 24 to 48 hours after AMC assigns the mission, depending on which CRAF stage is activated. The air carriers continue to operate and maintain the aircraft with their resources; however, AMC controls the aircraft missions.

http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/ ... air-fleet/

vatveng · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:39 pm

JayBCNLON wrote:
If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers.

Exactly zero US airlines are flying the US-built 747-8i. And only two US cargo airlines are flying the 747-8F.

Meanwhile, the US3 seem to like the A320 and A330 lines just fine.

par13del · Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:45 pm

blockski wrote:

So. What does that have to do with the A380?

If a US Airline bought the A380 and you had a choice between flying that or flying, say, a KE 777, which would you pick?

Why do some people have to inject sanity into a go ole bash the A380 and USA carriers thread, next someone is going to mention Chpt.11 and DL still being with us.....

StuckinCMHland · Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:54 pm

neomax wrote:
Steelhead wrote:
Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

We're gonna have way bigger problems than the A380 if we plan on moving large amounts of US troops somewhere anytime soon. The last thing this planet needs is more instability in an already volatile world. You think throwing billions of dollars and troops into another conflict is worth it? Imagine the humanitarian crisis, power vacuum, regional turmoil and difficulty of rebuilding yet another war torn country. The only thing an astronomical defense budget and the equally ridiculous war that ensues is worth nothing more than an ego boost for a few politicians who want to distract the country from their own internal troubles.

I want to see a US airline buy the A380, but if it meant starting another widespread global conflict just to move US troops, I'd rather take the A321 and skip the war.

I greatly appreciate your post and I hope we never have to deal with such a crisis in the future. However, we are talking about humanity, and the next war is always coming, it is better the face that reality now.

In my opinion the gross failure of the previous US administration's foreign policy (and belief system) and ones before them in certain cases have made the world a very dangerous place. China, North Korea, Iran, several other non-government actors in the Middle East and Africa, even some in South America could be places where confrontations happen sooner rather than later. It would be great not to have to think about such things but the US and their allies have to do so.

If the charters and other organizations discussed quite well in tjh8402's post see a place for 380's they will get some. And if there were/are NGO and relief organizations who were until recently using MD-11 and 727 (I think these models are correct) in time a 380 might be perfect for their use if the price is not prohibitive. If dreamers can some how predict that Space X's 'BFR' (what an ugly title) will become an orbital/ suborbital passenger carrier in the next few decades, it is not beyond the realm of possibility the A380 has a place too.

Dutchy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:57 pm

If there will be an A380-9NEO and there will be strictly enforced carbon tax and the A380 will have at least a CSAM which is lower then 30% then its competition, than there might be a change.....

I won't hold my breath....

45272455674 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:09 pm

I can't see it happening any time soon.

The future is single aisle long range aircraft. That's the best solution for the USA carriers. What they need is single aisle planes that will do trans-pacific flights carrying about 200 passengers, all crammed in. People want cheap flights and frequency.

UAL747422 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:44 pm

As much as I would like to agree with you, and I'm still wishing that they will maybe pick up a 747-8i too, the chances are very very slim. With the 787, 777, A350, etc. out now, its kind of like no turning back. I mean if they really really wanted to I'm sure they could go back to the four-engine jet days. These new aircraft are much more efficient and can carry about the same amount of people. Besides, 2 major US airlines parked their 4 engine jets within the last 6 months. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a 747 or an A380 wearing a United livery at O'hare. It's just very unlikely.

neomax · Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:51 pm

Frequency be damned

Kilopond · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:00 pm

NZ321 wrote:
[...]I avoid all US airlines because of their shoddy service on long haul across nearly all aircraft.[...]

Haha, what a nasty word! Back in time, I had been tought that a PANAM stewardess offering peanuts from her pantsuit pocket had been casual, easygoing, nonchalant and cool.

NZ321 wrote:
[...]I actually don't buy the argument that it couldn't work.[...]

At least the A380 could work perfectly from NYC to all major global hubs and to some fly-in-fly-out countries like India and Israel.

Vladex · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:04 pm

US airlines are all about hard cash flow and quick profits right now and the easiest way to do it is by establishing a monopoly and lowering the expectations . If they had A380 , they would be competing with others and would raise expectations which would be bad for their business plan. They are just financial institutions masquerading as airlines.

klm617 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:05 pm

cpd wrote:
I can't see it happening any time soon.

The future is single aisle long range aircraft. That's the best solution for the USA carriers. What they need is single aisle planes that will do trans-pacific flights carrying about 200 passengers, all crammed in. People want cheap flights and frequency.

We've come full circle from the DC8 and Boeing 707

Andre3K · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:10 pm

Why are some of you so butthurt that no US airlines has any plans to get A380's? If you really want to fly on one, there are plenty of opportunities.

If they didn't like the 748 then the A380 was a no-go from the get-go. Long live twins. Just be happy Delta is leaning to an all Airbus heavy fleet. I'm sure the experience on an A350 is almost identical to the A380 if not better.

FlyHappy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:14 pm

JayBCNLON wrote:
If the A380 was a US product they would no doubt be flying with US carriers

So, the 53 A300 UPS purchased and flew (the most of anyone), 42 for Fedex, 35 for AA, 34 for Eastern, 12 for Pan Am . Don't count huh? Despite basically establishing Airbus as a viable entity outright?
In fact, US carriers purchased far, far more than anyone else. Plenty of A300's still flying cargo in US skies.

Shall we discuss the 394 A32x family aircraft AA has purchased (you realize largest operator on Earth, no?). The 152 for Delta? The 176 for Jetblue? The 162 for United? The 108 for Spirit?

Not sexy enough? Too old?

How about Delta's 42 A330 ? AA's 24?
Is Delta's entire B747 replacement with the A350 as its flagship (along with the silly marketing hype) not good enough for you?

***
I know the US3 (and US in general) is a beloved punching bag around here, but if you're gonna criticize them, it'd best not be about being nationalistic.

FlyHappy · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:21 pm

Steelhead wrote:
Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

you're kidding, right?
Have you ever seen how troops are flown about when in need? Makes Basic economy look really, really nice. I wish I had a picture, but I don't.
Picture this: cargo plane, folding chairs (basically), 1000 abreast with single aisle (okay, slight exaggeration).

The military has no need to conform to pesky, inconvenient, and expensive civilian regulations.
getting the picture?

45272455674 · Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:50 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
Steelhead wrote:
Would the A-380 be useful in a future global conflict to move large amounts of US troops anywhere in the world?

you're kidding, right?
Have you ever seen how troops are flown about when in need? Makes Basic economy look really, really nice. I wish I had a picture, but I don't.
Picture this: cargo plane, folding chairs (basically), 1000 abreast with single aisle (okay, slight exaggeration).

The military has no need to conform to pesky, inconvenient, and expensive civilian regulations.
getting the picture?

The only advantage of an A380 might be that it can go more quickly than typical military freight type aircraft. But it also can't operate in many places where the C17 can, plus unloading and loading is far more difficult. So not really any real benefit.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net