Member log in
Register
 


        
 
 

| Home >> Forum >> A380

0 item in your cart
Search :  

A380

Return to the forum index
Post a message for this thread

Share |
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 9:15

Does anyone know, who, after Lufthansa, is the next 380 customer? Also when is that first delivery going to be?
Thanks
Milky

User profil Private message Suggest deletion    
   
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 9:15

And also what routes it is going to be on?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 10:57

Here is a list of airlines, which have not taken an A380 delivery yet, with their respective firm order count:

Air Austral - 2
British Airways - 12
China Southern - 5
Etihad - 10
ILFC - 10
Kingfisher - 5
Korean Air - 10
Lufthansa - 15
Malaysia Airlines - 6
Qatar Airways - 5
Thai - 6
Virgin Atlantic - 6

I don't know the delivery schedule, although Airbus is having a really tough time scaling up production, so it might be a good while, before all the airlines get their planes.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 12:46

I believe BA will not get theirs untill 2013! What a shame...


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 13:40

Well, I think I read that BA will be the first customer getting the increased MTOW package, so their wait will save them some pennies in the long run.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 15:45

oh right, fantastic, i cannot wait to fly on one, with my Mum's concessions it should be a fabulous ride, anyone know what routing BA shall put them on?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Mabel

Joined:
30 Jun 2008
Number of messages:
3196
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 16:48

I heard somewhere (can't remember where but will look) that the initial route will be LHR-HKG, and other routes will be LHR-BKK-SYD (restarting the Kangaroo Route) and LHR-JFK.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 17:05

Makes sense doesn't it really?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 17:39

Before this discussion turns into a BA-specific 380 thread, let me try to answer the original question posted assuming the question really meant <Which will be the nex airline customer due to receive its 1st 380 immediately after LH?>.

I believe it's KE @ about 50-75% certainty with delivery due later this yr. No idea which route it'll be deployed on 1st fm ICN. Korean corp culture tends to be more willing to take risk in applying new tech quickly than the Japanese. Therefore, unlike how NH will deploy its 1st 787 on very shorhaul routes initially for upto 0.5yr or longer<Well, may be kinda reasonable since NH will be the 1st ever operator of the type>, I foresee KE's 1st 388 will be doing Rev$ flights on intercon trunks right off the bat<Literally within wks of delivery or may be only just days after...>. Having said that, doing a few PR flights to its biggest regional mkts such as NRT,PEK,PVG and HKG in the 1st few days is also possible.....the bragging right of being the 1st 380 operator based in N.E.Asia no less!


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 16 Apr 17:56

My unconfirmed sources suggest CZ will be nex right after KE with delivery either @ End10 or Early11.

On the other hand, BA receiving its 1st in 2013 is not surprising<Actually, a bit earlier than I expected given the still much slower than planned 380 production rate> since comparing with other customers on the list posted earlier on this thread, BA was pretty late in the game in placing its 380 order bar AirAustral. If I remember correctly, BA and Austral are the only new customers placing 380 order AFTER the type EIS in 07.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Spot planes

Joined:
02 Apr 2006
Number of messages:
473
  Topic: A380 - Sent 17 Apr 5:37

I bet KE will put their first A380 ICN-LAX.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Spot planes

Joined:
02 Apr 2006
Number of messages:
473
  Topic: A380 - Sent 17 Apr 5:40

For CZ, my guess their first A380 route will be CAN-PEK. Just to show off to the master at Beijing.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 17 Apr 9:06

Spot planes:
If past KE practice is a guide re hi-capacity+longhaul flagship, I suspect the 1st KE intercon route for its 388 will be ICN-JFK before LAX. This is purely based on how KE's 1st batch of 77Ws, where KE's latest premium R<Recently, I hv noticed R refers to the new, suite-type F-class design in some major airlines sitting above their F...>+J/C cabins were debuted, hv been utilized.

Wikipedia source indicated KE won't receive its 1st till 2011 but it does list KE immediately after LH in terms of 388 EIS.

As for CZ, I recall news fm last yr or 08 indicated its 388 fleet will be based in PVG which is kinda of weird since PVG is not really a major hub for CZ relative to PEK or even the low Intercon traffic CAN. However, it does makes sense for CZ's 1st 388 to showup @ PEK right after delivery so leaders in Beijing can see for themselves that enormous state funds in foreign currency<Not that China is short on US$ or Euro these days....> invested in this hi-tech import hv been used wisely instead of ended up in the own pockets of some state-owned carrier executives.....like the recent criminal case against the CEO of ShenzhenAir.

Wikipedia indicates CZ will recieve its 1st in 2011 right after KE.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 18 Apr 22:03

I know this is off topic, but related to BA.
Does anyone know when BA will get their first 787?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
captain bill

Joined:
07 Oct 2006
Number of messages:
3536
  Topic: A380 - Sent 18 Apr 18:15

Between 2012 and 2016


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Mabel

Joined:
30 Jun 2008
Number of messages:
3196
  Topic: A380 - Sent 19 Apr 17:36

I would bet on KE flying 388s to LAX. LAX is KE's most important long-haul destination, there are currently 2 daily 77W flights in each direction and a third flight (seasonal I believe) that goes ICN-LAX-GRU with a 77E, as well as one daily ICN-NRT-LAX 77E with fifth freedom rights for travel between NRT and LAX.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
matt757

Joined:
02 Jan 2008
Number of messages:
410
  Topic: A380 - Sent 19 Apr 18:13

As regards LH's first route with the A380, The first 388 (named Frankfurt) is due for delivery at the end of May, it will then do a couple of Crew Training sorties, and the first Revenue Flight is scheduled to be to JNB taking the German Football team to the World Cup in South Africa at the beginning of June.

Their second A380 wil be named Munich, and will feature some kind of special Livery to promote Munich's Winter Olympics bid for 2018.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 20 Apr 7:02

Yes, Mabel, LAX certainly feels like a KE overseas hub<Focus city @ the minimum> in a way similar to QF's LAX. I myself is considering to take ICN-LAS on KE for an upcoming S.West U.S. tour which is also routed via LAX on the return leg. It's most likely 1 of the 2 daily LAX outbounds on KE's 77Ws U hv mentioned continuing onto ICN. However, I didn't know KE has ceased deploying 744 on any of their LAX flights.....wow, it's pretty amazing to see a 77W plying LAS->LAX among scores of domestic 32xs/737NGs/RJs doing that 1hr sector in any case.....KE is probably the only scheduled 77W operator @ LAS.

matt757:
Not surprising that the 1st LH 388 destination will be JNB.....tons of PR value there. For the same reason, I think every current 388 operator will send theirs to JNB this summer particularly if their national soccer/football teams are qualified for this yr's WorldCup<Hv not been following the qualifier rounds so don't know if France and Australia will be going to S.Africa or not>.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Mabel

Joined:
30 Jun 2008
Number of messages:
3196
  Topic: A380 - Sent 20 Apr 16:49

FLX, yes both France and Australia will be in South Africa, including Evertonians Louis Saha (France) and Tim Cahill (Australia). I reckon AF and QF will be sending their 388s to JNB, and I would imagine EK may as well to bring Asian supporters in.

Re KE's LAX-LAS 77W, i only wish KE had fifth freedom rights on the route! It would be nice to fly to LAS (even tho it's only 45 min) in a roomy widebody with snacks and individual IFE in Y, instead of on a 737, 320 or CRJ with no food and the only IFE being watching the FA do her nails while she's supposed to be serving drinks.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 22 Apr 9:08

Latest update on A380 - KE delivery delayed to Q2 2011:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/21/340905/production-problems-delay-korean-airs-first-a380-by-four-to-six.html


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 22 Apr 14:25

Lukasz:
Thx for the update.

Lucky I did not say 100% and left some flexibility in my 1st response to this topic: < I believe it's KE @ about 50-75% certainty with delivery due later this yr >. In fact, when I predicted that 50-75% chance on this forum, I was wondering if Airbus was nearing the end of its ongoing 380 production drama since I hv not heard any related news lately....now, I guess not.

Given the domino effect, I now suspect all subsequent 388 customers in the delivery queue after KE will be affected similarly. BA which is near the end of that queue may probably not get their 1st until 2014<Slim chance for 2013 delivery>. At the beginning of 2010, Airbus targeted 20deliveries for this yr. So far they've done 3<i.e. 1unit per mth> and will hv to deliver nearly 2units per mth on avg to meet that target......slim chance again in my opinion as nex door @ Airbus' most mature<Nearly 40yrs experience> widebody production line, it currently can muster no more than 4-5units of 330s per mth.

U just can never know with reasonble certainty when Airbus will finally get its 380 production problems sorted-out.....sigh.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
CPH

Joined:
02 Oct 2009
Number of messages:
1218
  Topic: A380 - Sent 22 Apr 15:55

What sort of problems do actually Airbus have with the 380?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 23 Apr 13:53

CPH:
I don't know the details but I'm sure U can easily search the web for related news over the past 3yrs as they hv been widely reported including Airbus' own statements. I hv read before and again recently about the difficulties Airbus is still facing in the final assembly process of 388....particularly in the extremely complex wiring+system installations.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
brit5alpha

Joined:
01 Jan 1970
Number of messages:

  Topic: A380 - Sent 25 Apr 21:28

No one US ailine among the waiting customers!!!


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 26 Apr 11:22

<No one US ailine among the waiting customers!!!> is completely unsurprising.

380's capacity is way too big for the longhaul network structure of nearly all U.S. majors. Why? Go thru the list of all 388 customers today and see how many of them has more than 1.5 intercon hubs/major gateways: None with LH as the only exception in FRA+MUC

SQ: 1 in SIN
EK: 1 in DXB
QF: 1.5 in SYD+MEL<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>
Air Austral: 1 in a popular French resort island in the Indian Ocean....sorry, forgot the name.
BA: 1.5 in LHR+LGW<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>
CZ: 1.5 in PEK+CAN<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>
Etihad: 1 in AbuDhabi
Kingfisher: 1 in BOM/DEL<0.5 each due to limited intercon routes fm either>
KE: 1 in ICN
MH: 1 in KUL
QR: 1 in DOH
Thai: 1 in BKK
VS: 1.5 in LHR+LGA<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>
VietnamAir: 1.5 in SGN+Hanoi<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>

Contrast the above with the U.S. longhaul majors:
DL: 5.5 in NRT+MSP+DTW+JFK+ATL+LAX<Marginal gateway due to relatively limited intercon routes fm here>
AA: 5 in LAX+DFW+MIA+ORD+JFK
UA: 4 in SFO+ORD+IAD+LAX/DEN<0.5 each due to limited intercon routes fm either>
CO: 2.5 in EWR+IAH+GUM<Marginal gateway due to extremely limited intercon routes fm here>

To support efficient deployment/utilization of just a tiny 388 fleet, even a huge airline really needs to hv all its intercon traffic concentrated in no more than 2hubs like all 388 customers today. The U.S. mkt is simply too  spread-out  geographically, in terms of its top urban centers, for its major airlines to successfully operate a longhaul network structure with just a couple of hubs.

Similarly, even the 744 was too big for all U.S. airlines except UA and NW. And the only 2reasons 744 was useful for UA or NW were because when it was ordered but still on the drawing board<Circa mid-80s>:
1) U.S.-AsiaPcf bi-lateral agreements @ that time were extremely restrictive. It effectively allowed only these 2 U.S. carriers plus 1 or 2 airlines in each AsiaPcf country to fly each Trans-Pcf routes. With so few domestic+foreign competition in that mkt, UA/NW could easily filled a large plane like 744 on many of their Trans-Pcf flights.
2) 744 was the only type that can do all major Trans-Pcf routes non-stop, yr-round with an econ payload. Not the case re the Transatlantic mkt where airlines had many other non-747 choices such as 757,767,310 already flying nearly as efficiently as the not-yet-available 744 since the mid-80s.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
captain bill

Joined:
07 Oct 2006
Number of messages:
3536
  Topic: A380 - Sent 26 Apr 20:14

Brilliant presentation of fundamental statistics. I would never have thought about that in a hundred years.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 27 Apr 9:04

Thx captain bill.

I know many hv this notion that the key reason why no U.S. major has ordered the 380<In fact, anything bigger than a 772ER such as 77W/346/748i since the mid-90s> is that they're plain broke and not interested in investing in the most advanced hardware out there. To a certain extent, that has been true and still is. However, I strongly believe that even if U.S. majors hv the financial means to fund 380 acquistion, none of them ever will. IMHO, VLAs<VeryLargeAirplane> are nearly like a plague to them...

When the 1st 747 was still in development in the late 60s, ALL U.S. majors @ that time ordered it based on general optimism towards the mkt<i.e. nobody wanted to be left behind in the roaring 60s>. By the mid-70s, most U.S. 747 operators were shedding ALL of their 747 inventories like there were no tomorrow. Today's top dogs DL,AA,CO all got burnt by the 747 big time with UA barely being able to hang onto it due mainly to their dominant position in the Hawaii-U.S. Mainlaind mkt. Only PanAm+TWA+NW were moderately successful in 747 ops SOLELY because they were practically the only ones in the U.S. allowed to cross the Pacific and/or the Atlantic between a very exclusive set of designated intercon gateways.

Prediction: For AA,UA,CO, I see a future where even a 772ER-sized machine is a bit too big for most of them..... I suspect that's why all 3 of them hv ordered/committed to the 788/789 and the order quantity<Firm+option> of each matches quite well with their existing 772ER fleet size.....a down-sized eventual replacement for most 772ERs as oppose to complimenting 772ERs or a direct 772ER-sized replacement. In this context, UA's plan to replace all 744s with its 350 order began to make sense....the same downsizing mechanism @ work. As for DL, it's not gonna place any big order for new types, large of small, any time soon. It doesn't hv to since it has got so much capacity and size/range varieties<It's amazing that except for the 340+380, DL currently operates the most comprehensive mainline families in the world....> to play with on its hugely expanded network<i.e. Right-sizing each route> post-merger.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 29 Apr 8:50

Here's the latest update:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/29/341252/lufthansa-to-operate-first-a380-flights-to-tokyo-and.html

LH announced it will use A380 on routes to NRT, PEK, and later JNB.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 29 Apr 11:10

Smart choice by LH I say. NRT+PEK are arguably the most important *A hubs in Asia-Pcf along with SIN:
- No operator currently has any plan to fly EU nonstop fm NRT or PEK with 388.
- Along with SIN, NRT/PEK probably generate the highest yield relative to other big *A hubs in the region such as BKK<Mostly leisure>,ICN<Insufficient OD traffic>,etc.
- Both NRT+PEK generate huge premium OD traffic to/fm Tokyo+Beijing metro areas alone as a result of the already enormous trade volume between Germany and Japan and China receiving the lion's share of German overseas investments these days.
- Thx to NH, NRT T1 has become a very good *A hub for connecting intercon flights with major cities in Japan,China and elsewhere in N.E. Asia.
- Thx to CA, PEK T3 is another excellent *A hub to connect intercon traffic to/fm ANY CITIES, huge or tiny, within China.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 30 Apr 9:50

Just read fm flightglobal.com a few mins ago that MH's 388 delivery will also be delayed<1st unit will arrive 2012 instead of nex yr> as per Airbus recent request.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
CPH

Joined:
02 Oct 2009
Number of messages:
1218
  Topic: A380 - Sent 30 Apr 14:44

China got at least 3 international airports, with long haul connections, just to mention it!


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
oldbold

Joined:
16 Nov 2007
Number of messages:
37
  Topic: A380 - Sent 01 May 12:35

It's interesting how aircraft sizes on domestic US flights have shrunk. I think there are no more 747s even on United or Delta, the last DC-10s have recently gone, following long-gone L-1011s, and A300s. There are not so many 767s any more, apart from one or two major transcontinental routes.
I still think that slot, time-zone and curfew issues will affect use of VLA at some ports. The vast majority of North Atlantic eastbound seats are concentrated to arrive at European ports in the mornig, and even now, a majority are between major hubs.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Spot planes

Joined:
02 Apr 2006
Number of messages:
473
  Topic: A380 - Sent 01 May 20:23

Most airlines are running on more frequency with smaller planes. Besides the smaller plans are now capable of trans-continental.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 02 May 11:23

CPH:
That will be PEK,PVG and CAN. The 1st Chinese 388 will be based in PVG according to what I hv read re CZ's fleet plan about a yr ago.

oldbold:
Less than a yr ago, DL was still doing ATL<->HNL on 744s. U can still see some DL 772ERs/LRs running scheduled domestic trunks fm time to time mostly due to longhaul positioning. DL/UA also still do scheduled mainland<->Hawaii yr-round on 333s/772s. But I agree all these are very rare exceptions these days in the U.S. domestic mkt.

Over the past 20yrs, I hv been observing a very solid <inverse> relationship in mkt development trend worldwide<Not just U.S. domestic but it started there 1st nonetheless>: The more deregulated/liberal a mkt is, the smaller the avg aircraft capacity in that mkt

When the 1st VLA<i.e. 747 family> was born, the regulatory environment in mkts worldwide<Including the U.S.> was extremely tight relative to today's std. In a nutshell, only a few players were allowed on any trunk routes so it was easier to fill VLA on a regular basis. Today, majors are not only allowed to compete on each others' <traditional turf> but they're also forced to compete with <wild cards> such as well established LCCs.....I call that <asymmetrical warfare> since LCCs tend not to use majors' stronghold airports but attack similar geog mkt/metro areas. In such highly dereg environment such as the U.S. and EU where competitors can enter/upsize+exit/downsize any route/mkt pretty much anytime @ will, smaller-size equipments become superior assets and VLAs specializing in a limited # of trunks become inferior liabilities.

In fact, I'll venture to say that VLA thrives only in highly regulated environments such as severely slot-restricted major airports<e.g. LHR,HND,NRT,etc.> and/or big mkts where bi-laterals<i.e. Favoring flag carriers and capacity control are the hallmarks> still rule<e.g. Much of Asia's biggest longhaul mkts>.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
CPH

Joined:
02 Oct 2009
Number of messages:
1218
  Topic: A380 - Sent 03 May 10:35

VLA´s are only interesting on very long haul flights, since they are not very flexible, it simply takes to long to fill or empty them, 2 738´s or 321´s are far better for the job, and can easily be used for other jobs as well.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 11:16

Now, here's an interesting bit of news, especially considering everything that has been said here. AF is considering putting A380 on a 50 minute hop from CDG to LHR:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/11/341823/air-france-considers-paris-london-a380-service.html


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
captain bill

Joined:
07 Oct 2006
Number of messages:
3536
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 16:20

It must be too much garlic in their blood and too many frogs legs eaten recently. Well anything works these days except BA cabin staff.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
milky

Joined:
18 Jan 2009
Number of messages:
242
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 16:40

this will be epic for LHR spotters, and the airport in general. 4 operators of the type into LHR all in one at Londons biggest airport.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
matt757

Joined:
02 Jan 2008
Number of messages:
410
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 19:05

While yes, other Carriers have shown that Large Aircraft can work on Short routes, I can't quite see this working.

The first couple of times I flew LHR-CDG was on BA TriStars, which were big for the route, but back then, there was no alternative.
Nowadays, there's the Eurostar, so O/D on the route is pretty much wiped out (Certainly from City Centre to City Centre), leaving just transfer pax. I can't quite see how with major hubs at either end of the route, there are many (if any) destinations that can't be reached direct from either paris or London. Unless of course AF is trying to lure British [well, the Southeast, but that's the only British Market BA want to serve, anyway] but that's passengers with the 'prestige' of an A380 Flight on their way to wherever.

Having said all that, it would certainly give Crews a chance to clock up more Hours on the 380 quickly (2 or 3 London returns for each of 4 days of duty is more Hours than a flight to NY then a Nightstop there then back to Paris and end of duty.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 19:07

I'm just thinking out loud but can this be a tactical move by AF in relation to the looming strike @ BA? i.e. ferrying massive numbers of stranded/affected BA intercon pax fm LHR to CDG and then send them off to AF's intercon destinations which closely replicate BA's intercon network.

Not bad as far as windfall profits are concerned I'd imagine.....

But seriously, the econ per seat for flying full pax load 388 on a 1-1.5hr sector may not be bad relative to your typical 32x. And when U add-up the per trip cost<Airport fees, slots, etc.> of 3-4 32x to move the same number of pax, it may work out to be similar/a bit lower in total costs......Part of the reason why 350+seat widebodies routinely do 1-2hrs trunk routes within Asia......as long as an AF 388 leaves LHR for CDG with full pax load which is becoming easier thx to BA cabin staff and their union.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 19:23

Oh BTW, almost forgot. Isn't the WorldCup upcoming in a few wks and the U.K. probably has the biggest number of football/soccer enthusiasts in the world traveling to S.Africa to watch the matches?

AF deployment of the 388 to JNB is starting to look more like a very profitable venture than merely a national pride+branding thing.....< Welcome abroad ladies & gentlemen to our brand new Airbus A380. Today's AirFrance flight AFxxx bound for JNB from London Heathrow will make a quick stopover in Paris CDG.....>

Pure luck or conspiracy?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
speedbird9468

Joined:
01 Jan 1970
Number of messages:

  Topic: A380 - Sent 11 May 21:22

Good point FLX. I'm certain that most BA pax will be flying with another carrier now. The A380 on the JNB route is going to be very lucrative for some but not BA.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Mabel

Joined:
30 Jun 2008
Number of messages:
3196
  Topic: A380 - Sent 12 May 23:27

At the rate BA is going they could well be belly up by the June 10 kickoff...perhaps VS could wet lease some oil sheikh's personal 388 for the World Cup?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
captain bill

Joined:
07 Oct 2006
Number of messages:
3536
  Topic: A380 - Sent 12 May 6:34

I agree with matt757 on this. Back in the days before the Tunnel there was a great demand for flights from all the London airports to CDG but that has now dropped off considerably. Just look at the types that fly to/from LHR/CDG, 319, 320, 321 with BA normally having 3 x 767. There are now no services from LGW or STN with EZ having 3 Mon-Fri from LTN so numbers are way down. I remember when BCal had 5/6 flights a day from LGW with BAC500 then Air Europe with 732 and Dan-Air with BAC/732 but now as I say nothing from LGW.

Again matt757 has reminded us of the time when BA flew L-1011 to CDG as well as in these days AMS, FRA and other mainland European destination. They were great at lifting high numbers BUT because they could not be turned around in less than 75 minutes the schedule were all thrown out and by the end of the day the L-1011 could have built up more than an hour sometimes two hour delays. So how long will it take to off load and service and re-load a 380 ?

It could be that AF will use the 380 for a limited period during the BA strikes or to assist football fans going to South Africa but I, and I know I am way out of touch now with turnround times and loading procedures, but I don't think it will be a viable long term exercise.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 12 May 8:32

When comparing small and big airframes, you also need to consider ownership cost. List prices I found: A320: $77m, A380: $327m. So if you assume that A320 takes 160 pax, and A380 - 550, you end up with A380 costing $594k/pax, and A320: $481k/pax. So A320 is much cheaper to own.

If the operating costs are similar, assuming you can fill the A380 up, you would still use smaller planes, if cost is the only factor.

It would probably be possible to bring the cost per pax of A380 down to A320 level, if you stripped all the long-haul features, but I doubt any airline would go for that option.

So more than likely it is a PR stunt from AF. They can probably do it without any significant extra cost, so why not. Of course they are 'wasting' an A380, which could be saving them money on some long-haul route.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 12 May 12:02

Lukasz:
1st of all, fm your quoted list prices of 320 vs 380, I believe actual discount % for widebodies such as 388 tend to be deeper than narrowbody such as 32x. There're just simply more room to offer discount for widebodies than for narrowbodies due to big diff in profit margins. In addition, as a launch customer, AF is most likely getting the typical launch discount for its existing initial 388 order. 32x, on the other hand, has been around for so long with so much order backlog that most AF 32xs were no longer aquired @ anywhere near launch discount prices. Therefore, the diff in capital cost per seat 380 vs 320 may not be as big as U hv stated.

2nd, I agree that if op cost per seat of a 320 is the same as <Or even a bit higher than> a 388, airlines ALWAYS prefer the smaller aircraft if everything else being equal. However, everything else is NOT equal in this case as we must also consider diff capital cost+utilization. Here is why:

Longhaul ops deployment/rotation is a very diff animal than shorthaul ops. Due to vast distances+time zones, U can't maintain a daily schedule of 2 longhaul roundtrips with just a single 388 for example. If U want to do that to max utilization, your avg flight duration can't be more than 4.5hrs per sector per way - e.g. this is how such rotation will look for an AF 388:
CDG->CityA: 4.5hrs sector
Turnaround @ CityA: 2hrs
CityA->CDG: 4.5hrs sector
Turnaround @ CDG: 2hrs
CDG->CityB: 4.5hrs sector
Turnaround @ CityB: 2hrs
CityB->CDG: 4.5hrs sector
Turnaround @ CDG: 2hrs

Total deployment time per day: Exactly 24hrs

4.5hrs sector duration don't get U far fm CDG and I definitely won't call that a longhaul flight per se<Isn't it interesting/a conincidence that today's narrowbody's max range/sector duration @ full pax load is designed for about 5hrs?....just enough to allow 1 aircraft to fly 2 roundtrips daily with 1hr turnaround per stop>. By the same token, a 388 doing a single daily roundtrip rotation must stay well within 10hrs per sector on avg. Deploying 388 on flight sector just exceeding 10hrs like AF's CDG-JNB, the following will occur:
- U'll need 2 388s to maintain a daily schedule
- Each will hv plenty of idle time upto 22hrs every 2days.
- U can use the 22hrs idle time to fly another daily roundtrip on sector under 8.5hrs which is most likely how AF rotates its 1st pair of 388s on JNB-CDG-JFK leaving just about 1hr margin/idle for each every 2days.
- Another AF 388 has just joined the fleet. To avoid too much idling, it must again fly near the 10hrs per sector limit to maintain a daily schedule. However, aside fm JFK, longhaul destinations within 10hrs fm CDG AND suitable for 388-scale ops are scarce<Those suitable such as LAX,PEK,SGN,SIN are over 10hrs away>.
- AF can still choose to deploy its 3rd 388 on suitable longhaul destinations with less-than-daily schedule but that will still result in extended idling time.

Parking any brand new 388 on CDG tarmac for such long idle is very very expensive in terms of capital cost....any op cost saving by flying 320 can be easily neutralized by 380 capital cost sitting idle.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 12 May 15:28

They could always fly a daily schedule using A388 on 4 out of 7 days, and 773 on the remaining. Or some other, similar combination.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 13 May 11:26

FLX - you were dead right - they will use the 3rd plane on the CDG-JNB route, and because of the sector length, it would have to be sitting on tarmac for 18 hours between segments, in order to keep departure time the same every day. To fill that gap, they will fly a round trip to LHR.
It seems like a short term solution (summer only), until they get more A380s and get more flexibility in scheduling them on different routes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/13/341923/air-france-london-a380-flight-stops-jet-sitting-idle-in.html


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 14 May 3:51

Lukasz:
Yes, they could, as U said <always fly a daily schedule using A388 on 4 out of 7 days, and 773 on the remaining> and that's exactly what I hv stated earlier <AF can still choose to deploy its 3rd 388 on suitable longhaul destinations with less-than-daily schedule but that will still result in extended idling time.>....deploying a 77W in tandem with a 388 to maintain a longhaul daily schedule still won't remove the long idling time of that 388.

Anyway, that kind of rotation<i.e. 2 diff types on a daily schedule> has been common for all existing 388 operators and they all still face the significant 388 idle time issue. SQ uses 388 on SIN-HKG/NRT<4/7hrs sectors>. EK deploys its on plenty of medium-haul routes such as DXB-BKK/LHR<6.5/7hrs sectors>. QF doesn't seems to be eager to mitigate 388 idle time as traditionally, it accepted long idle time as part of the deal of being a predominantly longhaul player.....e.g. U can always see quite a few QF 744s parked idle @ LAX for extended hrs on a daily basis.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
Lukasz

Joined:
19 May 2008
Number of messages:
266
  Topic: A380 - Sent 14 May 8:33

Why couldn't they choose two different departure times for the same flight. i.e. one day in the morning, the other in the evening. That should significantly shorten the idle time between segments.

Is it not to confuse the customers (I doubt they would get confused) or due to some regulatory issues (like stiff slot allocation)?


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  
   
FLX

Joined:
26 Apr 2007
Number of messages:
2520
  Topic: A380 - Sent 17 May 3:47

Lukasz:
Bingo! U got it. Rigid airport slot+gate scheduling regime is one. The other is the airlines' own op scheduling @ foreign terminals being rigid. E.g., it's difficult to vary usage hrs of checkin desks, premium lounge, ground staff, etc. when these are shared with multiple carriers within a tight schedule on a daily basis in the busiest intercon hubs 388 will most likely show up. Finally, it's not really about pax getting confused but more about being convenient for frequent biz travellers on a given route to plan their own schedule. For such long flight crossing so many time zones, it's easy to run into situations where U arrive/depart @ crazy hrs in the middle of the nite<i.e. 01:00-05:00> if an airlines isn't careful with flight timing. Similarly, U also hv to consider how a varying Dep/Arr daily schedule impacts pax connection schedule on @ least 1 end of a route<Most likely a hub if we're talking about longhaul types with 300+seats>...This is why I said longhaul ops is a very diff animal than shorthaul ops.

U tend to see more varying daily Dep schedules in shorthauls by LCCs to quiet airports with little activities by any other carriers.


User profil Private message Suggest deletion  

Acces Restriction

Due to holidays, it is not possible to post messages.



© Airfleets.net 2002-2014

[Contact] [Privacy Policy] [Disclaimer] [Advertisement]


The Airport Game - Tourism in Ibiza - Tourisme à Ibiza - Tourism in Menorca  
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com