LAX772LR wrote:

That said, I'll be beyond shocked if we don't see 11abreast once we start seeing secondhand usage of enough A380s, or even as the first generation ages.

Airlines will look for ways to squeeze more efficiency/revenue out of them; and some (e.g. EK and AF) are quite public about it.

They're already researching the feasibility and practicality of doing so, and long since have. The fact that Airbus is actively encouraging 11abreast, just gives that much more credence to it.

You are going to be shocked.

The cost of re-fitting an A380, and even a 777, is a bridge too far, when you consider the remaining working life. Technology, in particular software and engine support (or cost of), will increasingly determine economic working life.

For example, the trend is for leasors to pocket as much of the EOL final balloon payment, traditionally intended to obtain another decade of revenue generation from an aircraft, in favour of a few years of ad hoc use and then scrapping.

Might be different for 'keepers' like LH and BA, who might be able to justify a complete new interior at half life.

emiratesdriver wrote:

IF you can fill it, it’s a money maker up to 10hrs or so....beyond that it in EK service it merely covers costs, as been confirmed numerous times to me, and it’s why there are more 777s than 380s in service at EK and across the planet.

You, and the uninformed with whom you are purportedly conversing, are assuming all customers are generic units. Non-scientific, but compare A380 v 777 Y prices on routes where both aircraft have flown / do fly on the same days.

Y customers especially, that have been exposed to the A380, show a propensity to fly it again. The longer the flight duration, the greater the propensity, which translates into bottom line.

When EK offered direct AKL DXB, they were surprised by the number of customers that opted to still transit via Australia on the A380, even if not making a stopover (or only in one direction).

A phone-based market research survey was undertaken targeting customers flying to DXB via Australia. Presumably EK received various messages, one of which was the Kiwi preference to travel longer distances in Y on an A380 versus 777. And that unlike the popular A.net myth, they, even the if the rest of the World can't, can tell the difference. And will pay more for the A380 experience (or expect to pay less for the 777).

WIederling wrote:

...
There is an MTOW limited A380 version around that allows to meet some LHR super low noise limitations...

And, how is EK doing at Heathrow? Just for kicks, Air India is #2 in noise certification and #1 in engine emission certification.

https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.co ... rter-2017/

LAX772LR wrote:

DWC wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

That was my reading of it.

It took one Christopher Columbus to get to America ( even if he thought he got to India ) & one Werner von Braun to make Rockets

...but it'll take the lifespan of a thousand head scratchers, to figure out what the heck this has to do with the issue at hand.

It took one man to sail West on an Earth that was known to be round against all sneers & conventional wisdom at the time.
It took one STC to take EK where they are now against all odds & sneers. Fact is, no other airline in the world has EK's biz WB model.
Actually, EK serves the whole planet. My guess is that if they are building DWC is because they want to double what they are now, you ain't seen nothing yet & no one is noticing. If you furthermore combine EY, FlyDubai & Sharjah-based Air Arabia, you have a tiny country getting to fire power of the CH3, EU3, US3. Let that sink in. And barring EY, they are all growing - even if less markedly than before but they are finetuning their stratagies & loadfactors. One might as well say that the UAE has the world's largest airline by a number of metrics. And once they move to DWC sometime late next decade, barring unpredictable factors, with world travel ever expanding, I don't see them downsizing until we run out of oil & kerozene.
All THAT led me to scratch my head a decade ago & hence my current avatar

jfk777 wrote:

If the A380 is so great then why doesn't EK fly one to Miami daily instead of a 777 to FLL ? Hey such a big airline should be able to fill an A380 to MIA with no problems.

Following your logic, maybe MIA/FLL are just not good enough for the A380

tealnz wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

A380 is profitable only on 6hr:30m to 8hr missions and PLF is higher than BELF. To everywhere else you will be burning cash. That limits A380 pretty much to DXB-Europe routes

Curious. So they're simply burning cash ferrying Aussies and kiwis to Dubai? Why would they continue to do that? And why shift to non-stop Auckland-Dubai on the 380?

at lease they still make a profit for the DXB-Europe segment so that it is still profitable system-wide.

LAX772LR wrote:

That said, I'll be beyond shocked if we don't see 11abreast once we start seeing secondhand usage of enough A380s, or even as the first generation ages.

Airlines will look for ways to squeeze more efficiency/revenue out of them; and some (e.g. EK and AF) are quite public about it.

They're already researching the feasibility and practicality of doing so, and long since have. The fact that Airbus is actively encouraging 11abreast, just gives that much more credence to it.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure I'd be shocked not to see it happen, even with the Hajj business.

Right now, the highest density 388s are going out with 615 seats, more than 250 fewer than the exit limit. In most configs, adding that 11th seat will add between 25 and 40 seats to that.

I haven't done the exact numbers, but it looks like simply reducing the amount of F/J space a few percent (something a Hajj or charter would do anyway) would probably more than overcome that amount. Alternatively, going all or almost all Y (as in the pitch and cross section EK utilize) would peobably get close enough to the exit limit anyway.

STC likes to talk about these things because it encourages Airbus to keep the A380 in a "not dead yet" frame of mind, which is something EK needs to sustain their model. But in the way of something EK would actually go to, I doubt it very much. Their 388s do well as they are.

Planesmart wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

IF you can fill it, it’s a money maker up to 10hrs or so....beyond that it in EK service it merely covers costs, as been confirmed numerous times to me, and it’s why there are more 777s than 380s in service at EK and across the planet.

You, and the uninformed with whom you are purportedly conversing, are assuming all customers are generic units. Non-scientific, but compare A380 v 777 Y prices on routes where both aircraft have flown / do fly on the same days.

Y customers especially, that have been exposed to the A380, show a propensity to fly it again. The longer the flight duration, the greater the propensity, which translates into bottom line.

When EK offered direct AKL DXB, they were surprised by the number of customers that opted to still transit via Australia on the A380, even if not making a stopover (or only in one direction).

A phone-based market research survey was undertaken targeting customers flying to DXB via Australia. Presumably EK received various messages, one of which was the Kiwi preference to travel longer distances in Y on an A380 versus 777. And that unlike the popular A.net myth, they, even the if the rest of the World can't, can tell the difference. And will pay more for the A380 experience (or expect to pay less for the 777).

Planesmart, all of what you saw may well be true of the AKL-DXB Route, but go back and read what I said, then once you’ve understood that my comments relate to the FLEET then we can discuss things in greater depth. As a general rule, Y class passengers out of NZ are notoriously low yielding which is why the 380 bled money across the Tasman given that J and F passengers from AKL diluted the higher yielding J and F passengers out of east coast OZ, combine this with horrendous hotac and airport charges in AKL and only the direct service remains. The AKL-DPS-DXB will succeed for exactly the reasons I’ve previously highlighted in my view, low yielding Y class pax travelling on a shorter sector length with the 777s ability to uplift a full load of high value cargo.
AKL-DXB is one flight, you need to look at the fleet and where the majority are deployed, the money is made UNDER 10 hrs.

Armodeen wrote:

If you read this thread or many of the others like it, you’ll know that the majority of people who have an opinion prefer the A380. It has real appeal and people go out of their way to fly on it.

Yeah, but don't fool yourself into believing that that occurs in numbers sufficient to influence airlines' strategic acquisition or usage decisions... because there's almost no evidence for that vis-a-vis sales or operations.

Planesmart wrote:

The cost of re-fitting an A380, and even a 777, is a bridge too far, when you consider the remaining working life. Technology, in particular software and engine support (or cost of), will increasingly determine economic working life.

Perhaps, but who's to say at this point in time what said "remaining working life" will be?

DWC wrote:

Fact is, no other airline in the world has EK's biz WB model.

There's a reason for that. Still trying to figure out the relevance of any of this to what we were talking about, though.

Peterwk146 wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

Sir Tim is simply an Airbus fanboy.
Everybody knows the A380 is impossible to make a profit with.

May I ask on what basis do you make that statement?
Do you have firm evidence from A380 operators?
I for one don't know that the A380 is impossible to make a profit with.

Joke humor insert smiley face.

dtw2hyd wrote:

I think Timmy left out a lot of fine print.

A380 is profitable only on 6hr:30m to 8hr missions and PLF is higher than BELF. To everywhere else you will be burning cash. That limits A380 pretty much to DXB-Europe routes

A380 is the worst for the economy class passengers, chaotic boarding, crowded fish bowl with not enough meal choices, late baggage arrival.

14 people getting 5-minute showers and 500+ imagining about showers. EK cancelled Jennifer Aniston ad campaign after one ad.

Aren't most EK A380s are low MTOW versions? Why is Timmy not getting all with max MTOW?

How do you know that A380 is profitable only on 6hr:30m to 8hr missions - do you have facts to share to back up that statement?

emiratesdriver wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

IF you can fill it, it’s a money maker up to 10hrs or so....beyond that it in EK service it merely covers costs, as been confirmed numerous times to me, and it’s why there are more 777s than 380s in service at EK and across the planet.

You, and the uninformed with whom you are purportedly conversing, are assuming all customers are generic units. Non-scientific, but compare A380 v 777 Y prices on routes where both aircraft have flown / do fly on the same days.

Y customers especially, that have been exposed to the A380, show a propensity to fly it again. The longer the flight duration, the greater the propensity, which translates into bottom line.

When EK offered direct AKL DXB, they were surprised by the number of customers that opted to still transit via Australia on the A380, even if not making a stopover (or only in one direction).

A phone-based market research survey was undertaken targeting customers flying to DXB via Australia. Presumably EK received various messages, one of which was the Kiwi preference to travel longer distances in Y on an A380 versus 777. And that unlike the popular A.net myth, they, even the if the rest of the World can't, can tell the difference. And will pay more for the A380 experience (or expect to pay less for the 777).

Planesmart, all of what you saw may well be true of the AKL-DXB Route, but go back and read what I said, then once you’ve understood that my comments relate to the FLEET then we can discuss things in greater depth. As a general rule, Y class passengers out of NZ are notoriously low yielding which is why the 380 bled money across the Tasman given that J and F passengers from AKL diluted the higher yielding J and F passengers out of east coast OZ, combine this with horrendous hotac and airport charges in AKL and only the direct service remains. The AKL-DPS-DXB will succeed for exactly the reasons I’ve previously highlighted in my view, low yielding Y class pax travelling on a shorter sector length with the 777s ability to uplift a full load of high value cargo.
AKL-DXB is one flight, you need to look at the fleet and where the majority are deployed, the money is made UNDER 10 hrs.

If Y class passengers out of NZ, are 'notoriously low yielding', they are even lower yielding when seated in a 10 abreast 777.

AKL and CHC are not the only destinations on the EK network, currently and historically, where Y yields are lower on the 777 fleet, or higher on the A380 (glass half full).

Is there anything EK are doing right or well? As an EK frequent flyer, negativity on the flight deck is a big red flag to me.

dtw2hyd wrote:

I think Timmy left out a lot of fine print.

A380 is profitable only on 6hr:30m to 8hr missions and PLF is higher than BELF. To everywhere else you will be burning cash. That limits A380 pretty much to DXB-Europe routes

A380 is the worst for the economy class passengers, chaotic boarding, crowded fish bowl with not enough meal choices, late baggage arrival.

14 people getting 5-minute showers and 500+ imagining about showers. EK cancelled Jennifer Aniston ad campaign after one ad.

Aren't most EK A380s are low MTOW versions? Why is Timmy not getting all with max MTOW?

To be honest, I believe you're talking total cr*p. It seems you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the A380.

If your 'facts' regarding A380 profitability are true, you better get in touch with Qantas, since theirs are deployed on SYD-SIN-LHR, SYD-DFW/LAX, MEL-LAX. Speak to BA, theirs must be flying unprofitably to LAX, SIN, JNB and HKG. Or maybe touch base with Singapore Airlines, those long missions to AKL, FRA, LHR, CDG and ZRH must be finishing the airline off. Not all A380 operators are accountable to shareholders but certainly BA, LH, AF, QF

Boarding through 3 aerobridges is smooth, especially for premium customers. For economy customers, Emirates have it mastered; they enforce a boarding protocol to ensure an anything but chaotic process. I can testify with this given I fly on EKs A380s every 2 weeks and having flown them over 120 times.

Just how many meal choices do you expect? Most airlines including EK always offer two choices in Economy; Qantas offer three. In the premium cabins you get the number of choices you'd expect regardless of aircraft type on A380 sectors.

And, yeah, the A380 is just awful in Economy...especially compared to those lovely 3-3-3 787 configs with aisles you need to walk sideways down. Or those super wide Y seats on the 777...You need to remember, when you're travelling economy, you're travelling economy. What do you actually expect?

What you're saying just doesn't stack up.

emiratesdriver wrote:

the money is made UNDER 10 hrs.

But the same is true of just about every long-range aircraft type.

For someone who claims to fly for them, you seem to be very ignorant of exactly how EK works. The vast majority of EK's traffic is connecting traffic, so even if some routes are being operated at break-even or less (and I'm not convinced by your assertion that this is actually the case at EK), most of those passengers then transfer on to routes that make good profits.

dtw2hyd wrote:

And, how is EK doing at Heathrow?

My understanding, from talking to people at EK, is that LHR is one of their most profitable destinations.

Kindanew wrote:

I for one don't know that the A380 is impossible to make a profit with.

That's because it isn't, as many airlines prove, every day.

d8s wrote:

it is tough to make profit with them

And yet, almost every airline operating them today is managing to do exactly that.

dtw2hyd wrote:

WIederling wrote:

...
There is an MTOW limited A380 version around that allows to meet some LHR super low noise limitations...

And, how is EK doing at Heathrow? Just for kicks, Air India is #2 in noise certification and #1 in engine emission certification.

https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.co ... rter-2017/

Difficult to see the argument you are making.

Emirates flies solely A380 to LHR in a less than dense seating arrangement.

Air India flies 787 ( and the occasional 767 ) in a rather high density layout.

normalised per seat figures will show that and not much else.
passenger numbers moved through LHR for these two should be vastly different.

@ WIederling: there is still time to edit your reply. I think it should read „(occasional 777)“, correct?

But the same is true of just about every long-range aircraft type.

For someone who claims to fly for them, you seem to be very ignorant of exactly how EK works. The vast majority of EK's traffic is connecting traffic, so even if some routes are being operated at break-even or less (and I'm not convinced by your assertion that this is actually the case at EK), most of those passengers then transfer on to routes that make good profits.

Speedbored.

We aren’t discussing just about every long-range aircraft type are we.

As for the rest of your comment, I will happily leave you to be the CEO wannabe, I’m merely parroting what I get told by various senior management types who do the airline management thing for a living for the airline we are discussing.

Meanwhile I will go back to my cockpit, drink my coffee and enjoy my pay-cheque.

N14AZ wrote:

@ WIederling: there is still time to edit your reply. I think it should read „(occasional 777)“, correct?

no idea. what I found was 788 and 763. don't the 777 mostly go over the pond to the US?
any body got the proper numbers? where to do they fly their last 4 747 ?

Looked over at FR24:
AI does 4 flights 788 per day.
Emirates a lot more with A388 and into "high noise cost" times.

I have to agree with Thomas Cook. I was a frequent flyer for over 10 years with Emirates. I flew First, Business and Economy classes depending on the Oil Company I worked for.
I flew on A330, all A 340 models. All the Boeing 777 models and the A380 with GE and RR engines.
In economy even if they do go 11 across on the A380 there will still be more room than a 10 across
Boeing 777.
I have flown on the Boeing 789 on a 3-3-3 configuration definitely not comfortable in fact tight. The Airbus A359 in the same configuration definitely quieter and roomier than the 787
However both of them do not give you that roomy comfortable feeling of the A380 in my view.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Planesmart, all of what you saw may well be true of the AKL-DXB Route, but go back and read what I said, then once you’ve understood that my comments relate to the FLEET then we can discuss things in greater depth. As a general rule, Y class passengers out of NZ are notoriously low yielding which is why the 380 bled money across the Tasman given that J and F passengers from AKL diluted the higher yielding J and F passengers out of east coast OZ, combine this with horrendous hotac and airport charges in AKL and only the direct service remains. The AKL-DPS-DXB will succeed for exactly the reasons I’ve previously highlighted in my view, low yielding Y class pax travelling on a shorter sector length with the 777s ability to uplift a full load of high value cargo.
AKL-DXB is one flight, you need to look at the fleet and where the majority are deployed, the money is made UNDER 10 hrs.

EKs last annual report says Europe and East Asia/Australia basically contributed the same amount of revenue, around 22-24 billion for each region. The US had a lower contribution, about 12 billion. The annual report specifically states that west Asia and Africa saw the largest drops in revenue which are clearly in your 10 hour range. The airlines average load factor was 75.1%, and break even load factor of 64.5%.

It would be interesting to see if the 777 or A380 contributed more in terms of ASKs to the overall revenue of EK, however that detail is not reported. Despite the A380 fleet being smaller in number, it would not surprise me if they provided more ASKs to the airline by flying more seats over a greater distance.

Not sure what high value cargo will be traveling AKL-DPS-DXB, again according to EKs annual report despite increased cargo quantities carried the revenue from that cargo decreased by around 5%, they said cargo yield decreased.

WIederling wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

@ WIederling: there is still time to edit your reply. I think it should read „(occasional 777)“, correct?

no idea. what I found was 788 and 763. don't the 777 mostly go over the pond to the US?

I don’t know much about Air India but what I know is that they don’t have any B767s (they used to have A310s). That‘s why I mentioned it.

Anyhow, it’s just a detail of your reply and somehow I have the feeling the world will keep on spinning even if this issue cannot be clarified

zeke wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

Planesmart, all of what you saw may well be true of the AKL-DXB Route, but go back and read what I said, then once you’ve understood that my comments relate to the FLEET then we can discuss things in greater depth. As a general rule, Y class passengers out of NZ are notoriously low yielding which is why the 380 bled money across the Tasman given that J and F passengers from AKL diluted the higher yielding J and F passengers out of east coast OZ, combine this with horrendous hotac and airport charges in AKL and only the direct service remains. The AKL-DPS-DXB will succeed for exactly the reasons I’ve previously highlighted in my view, low yielding Y class pax travelling on a shorter sector length with the 777s ability to uplift a full load of high value cargo.
AKL-DXB is one flight, you need to look at the fleet and where the majority are deployed, the money is made UNDER 10 hrs.

EKs last annual report says Europe and East Asia/Australia basically contributed the same amount of revenue, around 22-24 billion for each region. The US had a lower contribution, about 12 billion. The annual report specifically states that west Asia and Africa saw the largest drops in revenue which are clearly in your 10 hour range. The airlines average load factor was 75.1%, and break even load factor of 64.5%.

It would be interesting to see if the 777 or A380 contributed more in terms of ASKs to the overall revenue of EK, however that detail is not reported. Despite the A380 fleet being smaller in number, it would not surprise me if they provided more ASKs to the airline by flying more seats over a greater distance.

Not sure what high value cargo will be traveling AKL-DPS-DXB, again according to EKs annual report despite increased cargo quantities carried the revenue from that cargo decreased by around 5%, they said cargo yield decreased.

Zeke, I don’t disagree with any of that, in fact the figures bear witness to what Clark is saying regarding what he sees as the 380s advantages, I’m merely pointing out that as has been explained to me, the 380 does its best (most profitable work by a considerable margin) on sectors less than 10 hours.
As for the AKL-DPS-DXB, again the route specific details I’ve seen show cargo as a large revenue component. Almost all the high yielding items that are shipped by Sky cargo in AKL (shellfish, perishables, specialty meats, specialty diary products etc etc) are currently transported ex SYD via QFs 767 as the 380 cannot uplift more than a token amount returning to DXB, which incurs additional delays and handling along with bulk and payload restrictions onward to DXB.
The export market out of NZ has been experiencing rapid growth of late, and high value air cargo is no exception, EK has a large piece of that pie but has added cost and lost flexibility with the deletion of the Tasman sectors.

WIederling wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

WIederling wrote:

...
There is an MTOW limited A380 version around that allows to meet some LHR super low noise limitations...

And, how is EK doing at Heathrow? Just for kicks, Air India is #2 in noise certification and #1 in engine emission certification.

https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.co ... rter-2017/

Difficult to see the argument you are making.

Emirates flies solely A380 to LHR in a less than dense seating arrangement.

Air India flies 787 ( and the occasional 767 ) in a rather high density layout.

normalised per seat figures will show that and not much else.
passenger numbers moved through LHR for these two should be vastly different.

Just a reminder, you are the one who bought up the LHR noise level issue.

In normalized noise/seat quota category, BA short haul is #1, I am guessing with mostly NBs.

There is only one explanation for all these gloat-and-flame threads.

Someone makes an incoherent statement and entire PR is trying to reverse engineer a logic to fit initial incoherent statement.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a reminder, you are the one who bought up the LHR noise level issue

He merely mentioned it as an explanation as to why EK has some lower MTOW versions of the A380. You are the one who tried to turn it into some sort of "our aircraft is less noisy than your aircraft" pissing contest, for absolutely no apparent reason.

speedbored wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a reminder, you are the one who bought up the LHR noise level issue

He merely mentioned it as an explanation as to why EK has some lower MTOW versions of the A380. You are the one who tried to turn it into some sort of "our aircraft is less noisy than your aircraft" pissing contest, for absolutely no apparent reason.

No, he/she was passing it as an achievement at LHR. That is not a valid explanation either.

With money sources from oil-based neighbors dwindling down, EK is taking deliveries for the sake of taking deliveries with low MTOW and with outdated interiors. How are they useful for ULR missions. Its premium cabins are not at par with competitors. Do you think EK's 2-3-2 angled flat is better than QR's Q-Suite?

Why couldn't they start Auckland or Panama City with 77L? Because they threw away aux tanks to save license money to Boeing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

speedbored wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a reminder, you are the one who bought up the LHR noise level issue

He merely mentioned it as an explanation as to why EK has some lower MTOW versions of the A380.

No, he/she was passing it as an achievement at LHR.

Hmmmmm, here is the relevant section of the discussion:

WIederling wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Aren't most EK A380s are low MTOW versions?

Why is Timmy not getting all with max MTOW?

[...]
There is an MTOW limited A380 version around that
allows to meet some LHR super low noise limitations.

.. then why pay for higher MTOW when you don't need it?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a reminder, you are the one who bought up the LHR noise level issue.

No.
I mentioned that Airbus offers an MTOW reduced version that is "flüsterleise" for some LHR noise abatement scheme.
( working via reduced thrust is my guess.)
I don't know and did not write that Emirates has that version or not.

the Air India counter offer to that imho was disingenuous.

dtw2hyd wrote:

No, he/she was passing it as an achievement at LHR.

Not the way I read it (i.e. with an open mind), he wasn't.

dtw2hyd wrote:

With money sources from oil-based neighbors dwindling down

Great, here we go again. Apart from the small amount of start-up funding, EK have only ever raised funds on the open market.

dtw2hyd wrote:

EK is taking deliveries for the sake of taking deliveries

???! Yes, that would explain why they have ordered even more, wouldn't it? Oh wait ...

dtw2hyd wrote:

How are they useful for ULR missions.

Why do they need to be? The majority of EK routes are not ULR.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Its premium cabins are not at par with competitors. Do you think EK's 2-3-2 angled flat is better than QR's Q-Suite?

It doesn't matter which seat is better, nor which service is better. What matters is which airline is more successful (i.e. makes most money). EK are definitely beating QR on that.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Why couldn't they start Auckland or Panama City with 77L? Because they threw away aux tanks to save license money to Boeing.

Fail to see why that has anything to do with the topic being discussed.

WIederling wrote:

"flüsterleise"

= "whisper quiet"

I have flown on the Boeing 789 on a 3-3-3 configuration definitely not comfortable in fact tight. The Airbus A359 in the same configuration definitely quieter and roomier than the 787.


Oh gosh, here we go again. If we say it often enough that makes it true!
Let's get real, we all know the business case for the A380 did not exist. It was built solely as a "vanity project" as Airbus did not enjoy playing second fiddle to the ICONIC 747...something no Airbus aeroplan will ever be. That is because their products, while marvels of engineering, are dull as dishwater.

speedbored wrote:

...???! Yes, that would explain why they have ordered even more, wouldn't it? Oh wait ....

They don't need more than 40 to use on profitable routes, they have 100 with more on order. Go figure.

Sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around (or) on a 14 hr ULH with whole sections blocked off is not a sign of well-run numbers business.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around (or) on a 14 hr ULH with whole sections blocked off is not a sign of well-run numbers business.

Go on then, do enlighten us, why not?

dtw2hyd wrote:

speedbored wrote:

...???! Yes, that would explain why they have ordered even more, wouldn't it? Oh wait ....

They don't need more than 40 to use on profitable routes, they have 100 with more on order. Go figure.

Sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around (or) on a 14 hr ULH with whole sections blocked off is not a sign of well-run numbers business.

It is perfect for Emirates Business case up to 10 hours. I have even flown on it 55 minutes DXB-DOH. Emirates make it work because of the service provided. Better than any European or US based airline in economy. You obviously don't like the aircraft that's you prerogative
It does not change the fact for the majority of people who fly in it. It's the most comfortable aircraft to fly in.

Planesmart wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

IF you can fill it, it’s a money maker up to 10hrs or so....beyond that it in EK service it merely covers costs, as been confirmed numerous times to me, and it’s why there are more 777s than 380s in service at EK and across the planet.

You, and the uninformed with whom you are purportedly conversing, are assuming all customers are generic units. Non-scientific, but compare A380 v 777 Y prices on routes where both aircraft have flown / do fly on the same days.

Y customers especially, that have been exposed to the A380, show a propensity to fly it again. The longer the flight duration, the greater the propensity, which translates into bottom line.

When EK offered direct AKL DXB, they were surprised by the number of customers that opted to still transit via Australia on the A380, even if not making a stopover (or only in one direction).

A phone-based market research survey was undertaken targeting customers flying to DXB via Australia. Presumably EK received various messages, one of which was the Kiwi preference to travel longer distances in Y on an A380 versus 777. And that unlike the popular A.net myth, they, even the if the rest of the World can't, can tell the difference. And will pay more for the A380 experience (or expect to pay less for the 777).

I haven't had the opportunity to fly the Emirates A380 in economy, but I have flown Lufthansa's A380, and I would not recommend their seats. The seat is hard much like Lufthansa's slimline seats in its A320 series aircraft. The seat cushion is just as hard as the seat back. I have had back surgery and need good padding in the seat cushion especially on long flights. Putting minimal cushioning in the seat does absolutely nothing to allow tighter pitch.

There is a lot of myths masquerading as facts on this forum, one of which is that EK's 380's have seats blocked on ULH routes..
This is not true, the 569T Aircraft can comfortabley operate over 14.5hrs with a full load, the newer 575T aircraft are capable of carrying a full load out to about 16 Hrs.
Only on the AKL-DXB sector is their a possibility of restrictions as the sector length can get up to nearly 17hrs.

The other discussion is around the general profitability of ULH Routes, in this case most are marginal at best, however given EK's premium heavy Config they may be able to carry the revenue to offset the costs involved.

jumbojet wrote:

so one out of several hundred airline CEO's thinks this. Not very impressive.

EXACTLY

Ugly51 wrote:

...
It is perfect for Emirates Business case up to 10 hours. I have even flown on it 55 minutes DXB-DOH. Emirates make it work because of the service provided. Better than any European or US based airline in economy. You obviously don't like the aircraft that's you prerogative
It does not change the fact for the majority of people who fly in it. It's the most comfortable aircraft to fly in.

What kind of service a first class passenger gets on a 55 min DXB-DOH. PDB, full course meal, Dom, shower and turndown service with spare time to browse 2500 channels on ICE.

I don’t get why people in this thread think they know more or are better informed than Tim Clark,
Or is it just because they are narrow minded and don’t like the A380 (which is consistently regarded as the best aircraft to fly on by the travelling public, to which I agree)

DJ's take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHwIdxOpN-E

I think if there was ever a person who would know...it's Tim Clark. He has spent billions of dollars at both Airbus and Boeing, has ordered billions of dollars worth more from both, and his airline flies tons of quads and twins.

His track record does most of the speaking for him, and besides, I'm not sure what he could gain by lying about the advantages of one over the other, so I'm willing to pretty much take him at his word on this.

It seems to me if there ever was a real world expert on the advantages of one over the other...it would be Tim Clark.

dtw2hyd wrote:

What kind of service a first class passenger gets on a 55 min DXB-DOH. PDB, full course meal, Dom, shower and turndown service with spare time to browse 2500 channels on ICE.

I've flown 35 minutes from DOH-AUH, (granted on a 320, not 380), but in that time, all passengers got a drink and a sandwich. Start of service to cleanup was 25 minutes.

It was a pleasant, but unexpected, treat.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Zeke, I don’t disagree with any of that, in fact the figures bear witness to what Clark is saying regarding what he sees as the 380s advantages, I’m merely pointing out that as has been explained to me, the 380 does its best (most profitable work by a considerable margin) on sectors less than 10 hours.

And?

There are reasons for that which are not specific to any aircraft.

Did you bother yourself to go and find out similar profitability sector lengths for other aircraft?


[I suspect you will find a healthy degree of correlation between profitability vs. the distance between major city pairs, the wealth of the cities and the traffic between the cities.]

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around (or) on a 14 hr ULH with whole sections blocked off is not a sign of well-run numbers business.

Most EK A380's are leased.

A commercial aircraft lease has a primary lease document, which may or may not be publicly disclosed, depending on how Part A and B funding is sourced.

An integral part of the primary agreement, are multiple side agreements, which are never published, but will be shared with financiers.

One of those side agreements will cover utilisation - hours and cycles, which forms one part of the final balloon payment made at the end of the lease (EOL).

These are banded, so up to a specified value of hours and cycles, the leasee incurs no additional EOL cost for this component.

If at EOL, cycles and hours fall in the 'agreed' band, then no additional cost is incurred. If at EOL, cycles and hours fall in the 'above' band, then the leasee incurs excess utilisation charges, added to the EOL final balloon payment. If at EOL, cycles and hours fall in the 'below' band, then the leasee receives a credit, to be applied against other EOL costs (the 'below' credit is significantly lower than the 'above' charge for excess use).

If at EOL, cycles and hours are not synchronised (in the same band), then the higher of the two applies, and charged accordingly. For example, if hours are in the 'above' band, and cycles in the 'agreed' band, then the EOL utilisation cost is based on 'above' charges.

EK is big enough to have it's own lease templates. Values will not be fixed in the side agreements, and could be negotiated on an aircraft by aircraft basis, though more likely on a tranche by tranche basis.

So in the real world, EK fleet planners will want to minimise EOL utilisation payments (actually they want them to be zero), by returning leased aircraft as close as possible to the maximum 'agreed' hours and cycles band. Ideally, they want them to max out 30-90 days before EOL, so they can perform accrued maintenance and other requirements within the lease period.

Based on published lease data, EK still have A380's with high hours and low cycles, though a quick look at some of these, shows that average hours are trending down and cycles up.

Savvy leasees want to harmonise air frame lease and engine PBTH cycles and hours banding, though with engines there are more (and narrower) bands, and hours and cycles are usually separated. And a few extra categories added too.

So sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around is a sign of a well-run numbers business.

Not sure if on 14 hr ULH whole sections have really been blocked off, and if it's happened, whether a regular or one off. I've flown on 737 combi, F27 and F28 in the past, where seats were blocked off because of cargo weight. If the cargo yield is higher than the equivalent passengers, that's good business too.

Planesmart wrote:

...
So sending an A380 on a 2hr 30min turn around is a sign of a well-run numbers business.

Not sure if on 14 hr ULH whole sections have really been blocked off, and if it's happened, whether a regular or one off. I've flown on 737 combi, F27 and F28 in the past, where seats were blocked off because of cargo weight. If the cargo yield is higher than the equivalent passengers, that's good business too.

Your analysis is valid if EK is the only player in those markets. The 2hr 30min example, DXB-BOM, there are 5 Indian private carriers competing with narrowbodies with much lower operational cost. Cycles/Hours aside a half full A380 is not going to make money while competing with NB with a 1/4th operational cost.

IMHO, Saudia has the most profitable regional widebody A333R.
QF an A380 operator replacing MEL-DXB-LHR with MEL-PER-LHR to 789.
SQ an A380 operator chose all business A350ULR.

None of these CEOs know what they are doing?

caljn wrote:

Let's get real, we all know the business case for the A380 did not exist. It was built solely as a "vanity project" as Airbus did not enjoy playing second fiddle to the ICONIC 747...something no Airbus aeroplan will ever be. That is because their products, while marvels of engineering, are dull as dishwater.

When you say “we all” you mean YOU, right? Because the amount of birds flying around seem to disagree with your rage. But hey, up to you.

If a plane that is widely recognised wherever goes, loved by even Y passengers, most relevant piece of marketing and advertising for one of the biggest airlines in the world, a profile recognised everywhere it goes, and a marvel of engineering is not iconic, some serious therapy is needed here pal.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

zeke wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

EK's success (albeit flat recently) with the A380 is entirely dependent on DXB's location and EK's scissor-hub strategy. If you don't have all three factors in your business model (A380, DXB, and scissor-hub strategy), you have no need for 100+ A380s, or any new A380s. That's why only STC wants more A380s and no other CEO is interested. EK is "the ME bubble that worked" as a result of its first-to-market (in that business model) advantage, leaving two nearby, but later, bubbles rapidly contracting despite implementing the same business model.

I don’t agree, EKs business model in my view is high volume lower yields. The airline simply could not work with a fleet of mid size twins only. The large twins and quads gets them high volumes. With high volumes they can reduce their overheads which makes them super competitive in the marketplace.

I really wonder how much net profit EK makes on a yearly basis ...... while the 380 is a giant whale.... filling the entire airplane on a regular basis and maintenance costs for those planes has to be insane.

Could not agree more. EK and the 380 are joined at the hip. One without the other would be unsustainable.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Your analysis is valid if EK is the only player in those markets. The 2hr 30min example, DXB-BOM, there are 5 Indian private carriers competing with narrowbodies with much lower operational cost. Cycles/Hours aside a half full A380 is not going to make money while competing with NB with a 1/4th operational cost.
IMHO, Saudia has the most profitable regional widebody A333R.
QF an A380 operator replacing MEL-DXB-LHR with MEL-PER-LHR to 789.
SQ an A380 operator chose all business A350ULR.
None of these CEOs know what they are doing?

Talk about an apples & oranges comparison!
None of those comparisons are valid.
EK chooses to NOT operate a regional widebody, they believe streamlining their fleet will make them more money.
QF is not so much replacing the A380, they are opening up a new route with a new aircraft type. Do not underestimate the importance to QF [and Australia as a whole] of the "out-of-the-box" thinking that Project Sunrise encompamses.
SQ brought a new aircraft type for a specific market! Nobody ever said the A380 is ideal for all markets.
Do us a favor next time and compare apples with apples.

Gemuser

@Planesmart. "Aircraft Leasing in a nutshell". Nice post.

@dtw2hyd. Your examples of SV, QF, and SQ reflect those operators' fleet utilization and network planning decisions. Different network, different frame = not directly comparable to EK and A380s, even though QF and SQ also operate A380s. Don't see the direct relevance of SV's A333Rs, but indirectly... different network, different frame.

Sorry to enter your battle dtw2hyd and Gemuser.

First of all, the A380 can make money by itself if operated the way they should be. I doubt that EK can be competitive against Indian LCC's operating narrowbodies to the Middle East because the reality is that narrowbodies have better economics than widebodies.
For EK the A380 is not a matter of profits but a matter of productivity. They are a small nation trying to be one of the largest airlines in the world, so that involves carrying the max amount of people on each flight.
Their aircraft count may not be as impressive as many US airlines, but the fact is that they are one of the biggest people carrying airlines in the world, thanks to the A380.
The A380 is what gives their subsidised business model mass and some sustainability thanks to passenger preference. Cut off the A380 and replace them by B777X's and suddenly the business model stops working because people won't choose them as much.

The A380 is IMO not a destination in itself, but there is a reason why some people buy a BMW or Lexus over a cheaper Citroen. They all have 4 wheels but people still have to make that choice.
If offered at the same price, the better cars will get the sale, no doubt.
BA may also be better served pushing for A380 gate space in JFK. Why fly on a crappy DL B763ER when you could get a seat on an A380 for the same price?

The A380 brings out the kid in each of us. Everyone wants to fly on a double decker, but who wants to be on a flying dil**?

Yes, to airline CEO's a seat on a plane looks like a seat on a plane. To the paying passenger, an A380 is that one more reason to choose for that flight option.

Waterbomber wrote:

Sorry to enter your battle dtw2hyd and Gemuser.

First of all, the A380 can make money by itself if operated the way they should be. I doubt that EK can be competitive against Indian LCC's operating narrowbodies to the Middle East because the reality is that narrowbodies have better economics than widebodies.
For EK the A380 is not a matter of profits but a matter of productivity. They are a small nation trying to be one of the largest airlines in the world, so that involves carrying the max amount of people on each flight.
Their aircraft count may not be as impressive as many US airlines, but the fact is that they are one of the biggest people carrying airlines in the world, thanks to the A380.
The A380 is what gives their subsidised business model mass and some sustainability thanks to passenger preference. Cut off the A380 and replace them by B777X's and suddenly the business model stops working because people won't choose them as much.

The A380 is IMO not a destination in itself, but there is a reason why some people buy a BMW or Lexus over a cheaper Citroen. They all have 4 wheels but people still have to make that choice.
If offered at the same price, the better cars will get the sale, no doubt.
BA may also be better served pushing for A380 gate space in JFK. Why fly on a crappy DL B763ER when you could get a seat on an A380 for the same price?

The A380 brings out the kid in each of us. Everyone wants to fly on a double decker, but who wants to be on a flying dil**?

Yes, to airline CEO's a seat on a plane looks like a seat on a plane. To the paying passenger, an A380 is that one more reason to choose for that flight option.

those economics change when airlines use their wide bodies to haul cargo- all of a sudden narrow bodies are more expensive....