A380 back in demand.

[Garfly]

 

 

[onetrack]

The article is a bit narrow in its discussion highlights. No mention of Airbus considering a freighter conversion. But the bottom line is the A380 is an expensive-to-run aircraft, with a poor cargo conversion capacity.

I think Airbus took their eye off the ball, and only considered the carriage of huge numbers of pax as their main goal, when they designed the A380.

But Boeing were more considered in their planning thought train, and the Boeings are far better suited to cargo conversion, or a pax/freight mix.

 

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/exclusive-airbus-floats-concept-for-a380-freighter-conversion

[facthunter]

LARGE planes have an efficiency advantage (scale effect) but you have to FILL them or you are losing money.  There's been plenty of B 747 cargo ops but most operators were glad to get rid of B 747's although They are a favourite of mine from a Passenger viewpoint.. I think TWO engines is pretty universal  these days to get seat cost down. Nev

[Flightrite]

The problem with making new designs is the lead in time from marketing getting the pre orders to the drawing board to V1. Years pass and during that time the world changes from one way of moving humans to another.

 

A better mouse trap has been built!

[yampy]

I’m not an airline economist , and I doubt if there are any on this site , but I do know that Alan Joyce CEO Qantas has stated many times  that the DFW- SYD non stop service could only be operated profitably by a A380 . The DFW and LHR services were Qantas’s biggest earners , both operated by the A380 . They do need to be flown at almost max capacity , although that wasn’t always the case with DFW -SYD , but filling them was never an issue on those routes . Slots at LHR are rare and ultra expensive , so large capacity aircraft really come into there own at these airports , basically uplifting double the capacity of large twin aircraft . 

[Garfly]

Recent mixed messages on the A380

 

 

 

 

[marshallarts]

On 27/10/2021 at 7:14 AM, yampy said:

Slots at LHR are rare and ultra expensive , so large capacity aircraft really come into there own at these airports , basically uplifting double the capacity of large twin aircraft . 

If you mean landing timeslots - I thought the landing fees at LHR were per-passenger, which would mean higher passenger counts have no advantage.  Are there maybe other charging components that give bigger aircraft some advantage?  I'm sure there are LOTS of charges, for everything imaginable!

[Flightrite]

Slots in pairs cost huge bucks in place like Heathrow! They are often traded between Airlines. Syd is constrained by the BS whingers around the drome! Inefficiency is something g Australia is good at!   

[Carbon Canary]

 

My understanding was that the scarcity of slots at LHR factored significantly in the original business plan for A380 development, but the global decline of the hub and spoke airport model hastened its demise.   There are still opportunities for capacity rather than frequency for specific point to point operations mostly in long haul and Emirates are clearly banking on them. 

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[Garfly]

16+ Years: Qantas’ Oldest Airbus A380 Returns To Service

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIH1ABddgSE

 

[Deano747]

Once again Australian CEO's are cleverer than the rest of the World.

A380 was a shockingly bad choice to begin with and only happened because Airbus gave away free A330's to go with the purchase deal.

[facthunter]

Filled up and operated on the right routes they are still viable. No?  Nev

[Deano747]

Greater than 80% load factor AND on routes around the 8 hours is their sweet spot. With lower passenger loads the 747-800 and 777's easily outdo it for fuel burn, and much greater then 8 hours the economics become less advantageous. Tis an exponential thing.

For a European carrier such as Emirates that have a high density economy section and short leg lengths it works and works well, and it would be OK for Oz if we only flew to Asia.......

It also works with high density and slot constraints, ie, the number of movements you are allowed at airports. But again, only with a very high passenger load as landing fees are based on airplane weight. 

With the same passenger load doing an LAX-SYD, the old 747-400 used some 30,000 kgs less fuel, and the Virgin 777's (when they were around) would do 30,000kgs less again than the 747.

The A380 can't fly as far south (Latitude) between Aus and South Africa or South America than the 747's due ETOPS, so has to fly further and more fuel. Yes, they are a 4 engine airplane, but the outboard engines provide thrust only, same as the A340's. 

The right airplane for Oz was the 747-800 but Boeing got it going too late to get enough orders in to make it viable.

 

 

 

Edited May 5 by Deano747

[Gazunda61]

they are a 4 engine airplane, but the outboard engines provide thrust only, same as the A340's. 

 

Are you sure about that? Because that would be news to me that engines 1 and 4 only provide thrust. I mean I’m typed on the 380, and flew it for that well known Australian airline for five years.

[Gazunda61]

Quote

A380 was a shockingly bad choice to begin with and only happened because Airbus gave away free A330's to go with the purchase deal.

 

i think (I know) that you will find that the so called free A330’s were in fact compensation for the two year production delay to the A380.  I know this because I picked up one of the freebies (A330) on its delivery flight to AUS.

 

Edited May 8 by Gazunda61

[kgwilson]

The A380 may not be the most efficient aircraft but it is the most popular with passengers. It is the quietest and (obviously) the largest passenger aircraft ever built. Technology improvements and innovation mean everything becomes outdated and less efficient than the new designs like the A350 family, I think now the most efficient jet aircraft ever.

[facthunter]

People have accepted the alleged safety of TWO engines.. That means you will occasionally fly on ONE. (or none).   Nev

[kgwilson]

Flying on none will be a fairly short flight.

[facthunter]

Can be something like 30 minutes. A normal descent is on flight idle.   Nev

[spacesailor]

" flight idle "

From Norway to London , all down hill .

spacesailor

[kgwilson]

14 hours ago, facthunter said:

Can be something like 30 minutes. A normal descent is on flight idle.   Nev

Yes it worked out for the Gimli glider and also the A330 that had to land at the Azores through fuel starvation in 2001. Both were very lucky, more so the A330. The Atlantic is big & mostly empty of landing places.

[johnm]

if you look at inaccurate google - your aircraft from the showroom floor is:

 

a) an A330 is $ 250 million US 

b) an A380 is $ 440 million US - reverse thrust on engines 1 & 4 are extra says the ad

 

that's a good price ? for both .................. if you get plane a) for free 

 

 

[facthunter]

Very large aircraft have higher efficiency due to scale effect (Reynold's number). Reverse thrust on jets is mostly effective at higher speeds. Get them in quickly after touchdown.   Nev

[skippydiesel]

Surly the viability of any commercial passenger aircraft, is the charge (ticket $/ income) per passenger, less the cost of operating (which includes fuel used as well as a host of other costs).

 

"Stuff" about thrust reversers, etc has little if anything to do with the above equation assuming their availability or not does not prevent the aircraft from operating on particularly popular/lucrative rout. 

 

In comparing aircraft, it's the cost of operation for each seat. The ability of the airline to fill the seats and the cost per passenger ticket (competing with other airlines). The rest is just so much woffle!!