Obviously none of the three US mega airlines have chosen to order the A380 and 748, largely for good reasons (multiple hubs to flow traffic over, too few long superfat routes, aversion to a new fleet type, emergence of the 77W as an alternative, 787 fragmentation of routes). However, did any of them get seriously close to actually ordering one of the 4 engined VLAs?

In a word: no.

GSP psgr wrote:

However, did any of them get seriously close to actually ordering one of the 4 engined VLAs?

The "closest" moment was maybe when Amedeo's CEO Lapidus tried to start discussions with Delta:

“Richard Anderson at Delta is an extremely smart guy,” says Lapidus at an A380 investor event in New York on 12 June. “Once we get into discussions with them they’ll see it’s [economics are] irrefutable to argue.”

https://www.amedeo.aero/amedeo-confiden ... economics/

I don't remember if he even got a chance to talk to them...

In other words:

LAX772LR wrote:

no

N14AZ wrote:

The "closest" moment was maybe when Amedeo's CEO Lapidus tried to start discussions with Delta

Ironically, DL was also the most publicly vocal about having no interest in the aircraft:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayint ... /10652619/

UA at one time was reported to be "interested". But i believe that was one of Airbus' big last ditch efforts for a solid order.

But you fellas agree with me that no US3 Carrier with the 747 it's sad

FatCat wrote:

But you fellas agree with me that no US3 Carrier with the 747 it's sad

IMHO, NW and UA bought 747-400s for range. Once CO demonstrated 777-200ERs could fly EWR-HKG it was all over: multi-hub U.S. carriers distribute passengers into smaller increments of demand.

MIflyer12 wrote:

IMHO, NW and UA bought 747-400s for range. Once CO demonstrated 777-200ERs could fly EWR-HKG it was all over: multi-hub U.S. carriers distribute passengers into smaller increments of demand.

Sure, and 77E and 77W are more economical to fly, so they generate more revenue.
But damn it was cool the 747.
My fav: 747-100, Northwest Orient.

NW had Airbus (or perhaps Airbus offered and NW didn't say no) bring the A380 to MSP pre-DL merger for a visit and maybe a test flight for NW exec's. Not sure if this visit was before or after the 787 order by NW.

MIflyer12 wrote:

FatCat wrote:

But you fellas agree with me that no US3 Carrier with the 747 it's sad

IMHO, NW and UA bought 747-400s for range. Once CO demonstrated 777-200ERs could fly EWR-HKG it was all over: multi-hub U.S. carriers distribute passengers into smaller increments of demand.

Range was a piece of it but as we can see with DL, they're getting a lot of use out of 767's from SEA. The other piece was that there was less competition. With AA plus a lot more service from Chinese carriers, they don't need that much capacity. And, they both had "hubs" at NRT so they were taking people there then connecting them to some of the destinations they now serve nonstop from the US mainland as the demand has matured and the aircraft make it available. Basically, there are a few factors playing into the decrease need for gigantic 4 engine aircraft that cost a lot to operate.

With that said, any one able to comment on pilot pay on a 747-400 vs. a 773? Using a UA seat map for 744 vs. current AA 773 it ranges from 64 - 94 seats difference. Not a small amount but at fares today I could see a difference in pay being an additional hurdle that those seats don't make up for, especially if fuel ticks up.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

With that said, any one able to comment on pilot pay on a 747-400 vs. a 773? Using a UA seat map for 744 vs. current AA 773 it ranges from 64 - 94 seats difference. Not a small amount but at fares today I could see a difference in pay being an additional hurdle that those seats don't make up for, especially if fuel ticks up.

Regarding the UAL pilot pay - I have a copy of the UA ALPA contract and the pay for 747 vs. 777 was the exactly the same rate. There was a higher rate for the A380, though, IIRC.

FlyHossD wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

With that said, any one able to comment on pilot pay on a 747-400 vs. a 773? Using a UA seat map for 744 vs. current AA 773 it ranges from 64 - 94 seats difference. Not a small amount but at fares today I could see a difference in pay being an additional hurdle that those seats don't make up for, especially if fuel ticks up.

Regarding the UAL pilot pay - I have a copy of the UA ALPA contract and the pay for 747 vs. 777 was the exactly the same rate. There was a higher rate for the A380, though, IIRC.

Very interesting given that they only have the 772 I believe which is smaller. I guess the pilots were able to "grab" the value of the operating efficiency in their contract, or at least some of it. Shared savings if you will.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

With that said, any one able to comment on pilot pay on a 747-400 vs. a 773? Using a UA seat map for 744 vs. current AA 773 it ranges from 64 - 94 seats difference. Not a small amount but at fares today I could see a difference in pay being an additional hurdle that those seats don't make up for, especially if fuel ticks up.

Regarding the UAL pilot pay - I have a copy of the UA ALPA contract and the pay for 747 vs. 777 was the exactly the same rate. There was a higher rate for the A380, though, IIRC.

Very interesting given that they only have the 772 I believe which is smaller. I guess the pilots were able to "grab" the value of the operating efficiency in their contract, or at least some of it. Shared savings if you will.

UA flies the 77W.

American: definitely no for sure. They did not even think of ordering either, they are not even looking at those. They decided their widebody fleet would consist of twins only. They have been 747 free for now 25 years or so.

Delta and United: no, but I'm pretty sure they have been contemplating them closely because they have a large network in the Pacific Rim. Now here is an interesting question: Would Northwest have ordered the 747-8i if they had stayed independently in business?
This is what I think would have happened had the Delta-Northwest merger not happened: Delta would have stayed away from quads and done what American did, a fleet of twins only. It's obvious Delta would have never flown the 747-400 if it didn't merger with Northwest. Northwest, on the other had, would have looked at the 747-8i and the A380 closely and plan seriously to buy one or the other, or maybe the A359, for their hi capacity TPAC routes to NRT. They did order the 787, they would probably have worked out a deal with Boeing for an order of both 748is and 787s.

hOMSaR wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Regarding the UAL pilot pay - I have a copy of the UA ALPA contract and the pay for 747 vs. 777 was the exactly the same rate. There was a higher rate for the A380, though, IIRC.

Very interesting given that they only have the 772 I believe which is smaller. I guess the pilots were able to "grab" the value of the operating efficiency in their contract, or at least some of it. Shared savings if you will.

UA flies the 77W.

This is what UA flies when it comes to 777's,

Boeing 777-200 19
Boeing 777-200ER 55
Boeing 777-300ER 17

UA was likely the closest in considerations, but I doubt it ever got to serious levels. If the VLAs had come along earlier, maybe UA would have bitten.

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

NW had Airbus (or perhaps Airbus offered and NW didn't say no) bring the A380 to MSP pre-DL merger for a visit and maybe a test flight for NW exec's. Not sure if this visit was before or after the 787 order by NW.

It was a couple years after. The A380 visit was in November 2007. I've always assumed that Airbus was making a sales pitch, and, hey, I'd say yes to that too.

I honestly couldn't ever see AA (aversion to quads) and DL (decline of NRT) all that interested in the A380 or 748. I also think the A380 is too big an aircraft for UA, but had the price been right, I could have seen them going for the 748 to be used on SFO-LHR/FRA/HND/PVG/HKG/SYD, LAX-SYD/LHR, and EWR-FRA/HKG/DEL/BOM/NRT. In the end though, the 77W is almost certainly the better fit in terms of flexibility and cost for UA.

Off topic but wasn't UPS considering an A380 freighter version at one time?

dfwjim1 wrote:

Off topic but wasn't UPS considering an A380 freighter version at one time?

They and FedEx had firm orders (!!!). The rest is (painful) history...

GSP psgr wrote:

Obviously none of the three US mega airlines have chosen to order the A380 and 748, largely for good reasons (multiple hubs to flow traffic over, too few long superfat routes, aversion to a new fleet type, emergence of the 77W as an alternative, 787 fragmentation of routes). However, did any of them get seriously close to actually ordering one of the 4 engined VLAs?

I think the first couple reasons you give are spot on but I can't see where "aversion to new fleet type" comes in unless you are saying AA cancelled their A350 order for fleet simplification, but we are talking about the A380 and the 748. Fact is that AA(via US AIR), DL and UA all purchased new types (A350) so I think that is off.
As for the emergence of the 777W, one can almost say that the US3 are end of life users of the type as it was around making hey in the world before AA finally decided to jump onboard and UA followed, and it should be noted that both were already large users of the 777-200 / ER which forms a part of the family, an upgrade should have been a no brainer.
I think that more than anything said that as long as the 777-200ER met their range needs, the extra capacity of the 300ER was not needed, so A380 and 748 would have been overkill.

American 767 wrote:

American: definitely no for sure. They did not even think of ordering either, they are not even looking at those. They decided their widebody fleet would consist of twins only. They have been 747 free for now 25 years or so.

Delta and United: no, but I'm pretty sure they have been contemplating them closely because they have a large network in the Pacific Rim. Now here is an interesting question: Would Northwest have ordered the 747-8i if they had stayed independently in business?
This is what I think would have happened had the Delta-Northwest merger not happened: Delta would have stayed away from quads and done what American did, a fleet of twins only. It's obvious Delta would have never flown the 747-400 if it didn't merger with Northwest. Northwest, on the other had, would have looked at the 747-8i and the A380 closely and plan seriously to buy one or the other, or maybe the A359, for their hi capacity TPAC routes to NRT. They did order the 787, they would probably have worked out a deal with Boeing for an order of both 748is and 787s.

AA got a few 747SPs, when service on DFW-NRT started. Once that route switched over to the MD-11, then the 747s were flying to Europe from DFW.

If you remember, Bob Crandall went ballistic, when AA discovered that the MD-11s were not getting the fuel performance that McDonnell Douglas promised. AA ordered the MD-11, because McD promised earlier delivery dates than Boeing could offer with the 772. When it became clear that the performance of the 772 was exactly what Boeing touted, Crandall declared that there would be no more planes with three or four engines at AA and signed the long-term agreement with Boeing to basically replace its entire fleet, starting with the 772 replacing the MD-11s and DC-10-30s and the 738 replacing the 722s.

American 767 wrote:

Now here is an interesting question: Would Northwest have ordered the 747-8i if they had stayed independently in business?
This is what I think would have happened had the Delta-Northwest merger not happened:

I'd bet no. Remember that NW has already replaced a number of 747 routes with A330s, such as SEA-NRT. That shows they too were moving towards smaller airplanes. They had also ordered the 787.

If NW was still around their long haul fleet would probably be A330s, 787s, and maybe A350s.

All of us aviation fans mourn the loss of the Queen 747 in service, but from a business standpoint it makes sense. There are other models available that can do the same mission cheaper and allow more route fragmentation.

Only route that could support VLA for US3 would be JFK-LAX/SFO, but with that they'll miss multiple available times which is what these two routes' pax prefer, so in short, NO.

Maybe when the price is right, UA will opt for A388 for SFO-HNL.

Assuming there's not a Honu sitting at Gate 29 in HNL when UA's whale arrives.

ckfred wrote:

AA got a few 747SPs, when service on DFW-NRT started..

They got two of then, both were SP31s coming from TWA. For a while (1987-1991) DFW-NRT was the only route flown with SP equipment. Then when the MD-11 arrived in 1991, the SPs were transfered to JFK and flown to LHR and BRU. The SPs on TATL routes, it lasted one year.

When UA pre-merger made their decision for 747 replacement to split orders between the 787 and A350. A 787 and 748i order was one of the options presented but it was not seriously considered. The options most heavily considered only involved the 787, A350, and 77W.

I seem to recall reading on here that UA briefly weighed up taking on the 3 Skymark A380s for Asian routes ex SFO before they were forced on ANA.

FlyHossD wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

With that said, any one able to comment on pilot pay on a 747-400 vs. a 773? Using a UA seat map for 744 vs. current AA 773 it ranges from 64 - 94 seats difference. Not a small amount but at fares today I could see a difference in pay being an additional hurdle that those seats don't make up for, especially if fuel ticks up.

Regarding the UAL pilot pay - I have a copy of the UA ALPA contract and the pay for 747 vs. 777 was the exactly the same rate. There was a higher rate for the A380, though, IIRC.

Interesting tid bit...

The ALPA national president gets paid at the highest rate in any of the ALPA carriers' contracts. It’s no surprise that UAL has kept the 380 rate for this specific reason.

There was a lot of talk about UA ordering the A380's and I don't think that was all just rumors. At the turn of the century, with its NRT hub and heavy TPAC routes, it was not out of the realm of possibility for it to happen. However, I think the timing was all wrong. When the A380 was officially launched UA had just resolved a nasty dispute with its pilots, the dot.com bubble burst, and soon after Sep 11 happened. As a consequence of all of the above, UA entered ch11.

Speaking of quads, I understood both US Air and NW were considering (or had ordered) the A340 to replace quads at NW and to expand the network at US Air.

Because the US3 have so many hubs, the A380 and 747-8i just don't work. The only markets were it might make sense are MIA-GRU, LAX-LHR and ORD/JFK-LHR. Everything else can be handled with twins easily.

The US3 never needed the A380 or 747-8i for range, for volume, maybe....

Adam

FatCat wrote:

But you fellas agree with me that no US3 Carrier with the 747 it's sad

TOTALLY agree! Wish any of the big three would order the 748i. I know it's for economic they don't but still. Sad!

EarlyLateORD wrote:

Speaking of quads, I understood both US Air and NW were considering (or had ordered) the A340 to replace quads at NW and to expand the network at US Air.

Because the US3 have so many hubs, the A380 and 747-8i just don't work. The only markets were it might make sense are MIA-GRU, LAX-LHR and ORD/JFK-LHR. Everything else can be handled with twins easily.

The US3 never needed the A380 or 747-8i for range, for volume, maybe....

Adam

I'll take a stab at the markets where a VLA might make sense for a US3 on a year round basis:

UA: SFO-HND/LHR/FRA, maybe also HKG and SYD; LAX-LHR and maybe SYD; EWR-TLV/FRA and maybe DEL/BOM/HKG; ORD-FRA and maybe HKG; IAD-FRA
DL: LAX-HND/CDG/AMS/LHR and maybe SYD; ATL-CDG/AMS and maybe ICN and LHR; DTW-AMS/ICN and maybe CDG; JFK-TLV/AMS/CDG and maybe LHR
AA: LHR-LAX/MIA/JFK/DFW and maybe ORD, MIA-GRU and maybe EZE, and MAD, LAX-HND/SYD/HKG; DFW-SYD; JFK-MAD

Now, if you look at these you'll notice a few trends:

1) Big JV covered hub-hub trunk routes on which their alliance partner already runs or can run 380s (ie LAX-CDG, LAX-SYD). AMS isn't slotted so tightly that a VLA makes sense as a standalone, but it might allow consolidation of some frequencies. Example: from 4X 333 on DTW to 1x A380 and 2x 333. Ditto for MAD (AA/IB) and LHR (DL/VS)
2) Super heavily restricted and slotted airports: HND and LHR to a lesser extent.
3) A few heavy O&D routes on which you want to send the largest bulk plane you can once daily (NYC-TLV, SFO/EWR/LAX-HKG, LAX/SFO-SYD, and MIA-EZE)

Once you subtract away category #1...I don't think any of the US3 have so big a gap that they couldn't fill with the biggest twins in company with most of their alliance partners who do have VLAs.

MSPNWA wrote:

UA was likely the closest in considerations, but I doubt it ever got to serious levels. If the VLAs had come along earlier, maybe UA would have bitten.

I think if UA would have had money they would have bitten and at least gone for the 748i. If I'm not mistaken Boeing did pitch the 748i to UA early as a replacement for our aging 744s. But at the time and for many subsequent years UA had no money for new aircraft. I think Boeing made another attempt to land the 748i in our fleet when sUA order 25 788's but current management when for the much smaller A359 and made it clear they weren't interested in 4 engine aircraft. A few years later Airbus landed a huge order for 35 A35J's deliveries were supposed to start this year a if I'm not mistaken 9 months or a year later Boeing swooped in and offered UA an unbelievable deal to get the 77W in our fleet. If worked UA will have 18 77Ws in the fleet we probably won't have any A35J's but perhaps we will take delivery of the A359's that we have on order. If I was a betting man I would say Boeing will try to keep the A359 out of UA's fleet we will just have to wait and see what Boeing does.

A bit off topic but I'm surprised we haven't seen a Tower Air type carrier use A380's. The points above cover why it doesn't work for the US3, but I could see a high density leisure use. You could easily fill it with cheaper tickets made up for with high capacity on a significant number of routes. Just think about JFK-LAX. It wasn't that long ago that multiple carriers ran widebody jets multiple times a day. Now, AA & UA largely have niche aircraft to only fulfill business demand while DL & B6 take the bulk of leisure given their aircraft. A single 380 going once a day gets 10 hours of utilization...that's not bad.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

A bit off topic but I'm surprised we haven't seen a Tower Air type carrier use A380's. The points above cover why it doesn't work for the US3, but I could see a high density leisure use. You could easily fill it with cheaper tickets made up for with high capacity on a significant number of routes. Just think about JFK-LAX. It wasn't that long ago that multiple carriers ran widebody jets multiple times a day. Now, AA & UA largely have niche aircraft to only fulfill business demand while DL & B6 take the bulk of leisure given their aircraft. A single 380 going once a day gets 10 hours of utilization...that's not bad.

Ugh not this argument again..

An A380 stuffed with 800 seats will cost somewhat more to operate than ~4 A321s/737, Losing a shit load of time flexibility in the process. All things considered there are still some domestic widebody flying in the states (UA 772A), it will take a stupendous amount of travel growth and subsequent upguaging for domestic A380s to seem like the best solution.

FatCat wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

IMHO, NW and UA bought 747-400s for range. Once CO demonstrated 777-200ERs could fly EWR-HKG it was all over: multi-hub U.S. carriers distribute passengers into smaller increments of demand.

Sure, and 77E and 77W are more economical to fly, so they generate more revenue.
But damn it was cool the 747.
My fav: 747-100, Northwest Orient.

I'm a lorg-term NW fanboy, and I flew on their 747's with your favorite livery many times, but it is not my favorite one. I hated the bowling shoe look, but for me their last livery was the best. Silver and red, clean and sparkling. I'll try to post a picture or at least a link, but not sure it will work.

Edit: Could not get it to work! It posted the wrong picture. Can someone post such a picture?

With the 787-9/-10 and A350 online, and the 777X coming soon, the A380's economics are no longer class-leading.

That means the A380 is useful ONLY in the scenario where you combine very high demand with slot restrictions.

A few US airports are slot-restricted or are effectively slot-restricted by congestion. But right now the slot restrictions are forcing upgauges only from 50-seat CRJs up to 76-seat regionals or 150-seat mainline aircraft. It would take decades of growth before US congestion levels require something like an A380 to handle. For now, US airlines will do great with narrowbodies on internal routes and new-generation smaller widebodies (339, 787, 359) on routes where the range is required. I doubt any American airline even needs the 77X in the foreseeable future.

MIflyer12 wrote:

IMHO, NW and UA bought 747-400s for range. Once CO demonstrated 777-200ERs could fly EWR-HKG it was all over: multi-hub U.S. carriers distribute passengers into smaller increments of demand.

It wasn't just about range. A quarter century ago, the bilateral air service agreements, in particular with China, were far more restrictive. The capacity was needed in part because frequencies were so limited and it made sense to aggregate traffic to China at a hub like NRT. If I'm not mistaken, U.S. carriers had a grand total of 28 weekly frequencies to China until 1997. Once the air service agreement between China and the U.S. gradually was liberalized, coupled with the re-opening of HND to non-stop flights to the U.S., the writing was on the wall for the NW (then DL) & UA NRT hubs. And with greater fragmentation, the need for 747s in most transpacific markets disappeared.

EWR-HKG didn't just demonstrate the range of the 777 -- it also siphoned off traffic that would have otherwise flown NW or UA 747s via the NRT hub.

GSP psgr wrote:

I'll take a stab at the markets where a VLA might make sense for a US3 on a year round basis:

To the best of my knowledge, the A380 is still not permitted to operate regularly scheduled flights at HND.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

A bit off topic but I'm surprised we haven't seen a Tower Air type carrier use A380's.

I'm not. For one, Tower Air went out of business, so arguably there was something wrong with their business model. Also, they weren't using brand-new 747's -- they were using clapped-out 747-100s and -200 that looked like they were held together by baling wire and speed tape. The A380 second-hand market hasn't yet progressed to the point (i.e. dirt-cheap used planes) that would enable a carrier like Tower Air.

tmu101 wrote:

FatCat wrote:

But you fellas agree with me that no US3 Carrier with the 747 it's sad

TOTALLY agree! Wish any of the big three would order the 748i. I know it's for economic they don't but still. Sad!

+1 It's still hard for me to reconcile with the fact that UA doesn't have 747's anymore. After seeing them at ORD for all those many years they just were a part of the landscape. I really thought they'd order the 748i at some point and it was a bitter pill to swallow when I finally had to accept the reality that it wasn't going to happen.

JustSomeDood wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

A bit off topic but I'm surprised we haven't seen a Tower Air type carrier use A380's. The points above cover why it doesn't work for the US3, but I could see a high density leisure use. You could easily fill it with cheaper tickets made up for with high capacity on a significant number of routes. Just think about JFK-LAX. It wasn't that long ago that multiple carriers ran widebody jets multiple times a day. Now, AA & UA largely have niche aircraft to only fulfill business demand while DL & B6 take the bulk of leisure given their aircraft. A single 380 going once a day gets 10 hours of utilization...that's not bad.

Ugh not this argument again..

An A380 stuffed with 800 seats will cost somewhat more to operate than ~4 A321s/737, Losing a shit load of time flexibility in the process. All things considered there are still some domestic widebody flying in the states (UA 772A), it will take a stupendous amount of travel growth and subsequent upguaging for domestic A380s to seem like the best solution.

Oh they could actually fly tunnel widebodies around if they wanted that every time I jump on the AA 777W or 772 or 767 there full. It’s more so the cost to operate them on short runs

United's CFO very succinctly summed up why A380 doesn't work:

“We’ve looked at that and we are looking at it right now [but] it just doesn’t really work for us,” he says on the European superjumbo in an exclusive interview with Flightglobal in Chicago today.

Rainey cites a higher trip cost for the A380 compared to smaller widebodies like the 787 despite comparable per seat costs as the main challenge to adding the type to United’s fleet.

Any discussion of the A380 that doesn't mention its poor economics (relative to size) is missing the point.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cfo-413079