Airbus 380 -- Another Concorde?

[OIO]

who cares about the kids?


imagine all the flatulents multiplied by 10X

[Toad]

The business passenger has long been considered the "bread and butter" of the airline industry. They are the folks who can be gouged for huge amounts of money because they often cannot book 3 weeks ahead.

It has changed a lot over the last 20 years though. The gold mine of the businessman is starting to play out a bit.

Still, the businessman is the holy grail of airline marketers... because you can stick 'em good.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well then Stinger, you're part of the 0.1%. You see 99.9% of all people do not fly "ALOT", and certainly not "ALOT" of long flights. Using an A380 on a short domestic 2 hour flight is perhaps dumb though.

I believe there will be a place for the A380, because even if the 99.9% doesn't fly a lot, they still make up the biggest part of the airline business. There will of course be a place for the smaller planes too, just as it is now, to cater for other groups of customers ... like yourself.

I don't think the business traveler makes up just .01% percent of the flying public.  In fact I know it's not near that small.  In fact, I'd wager that the business traveler is responsible for the vast majority of the air miles traveled.  Hardly a small group of "other" customers.

You are wrong in your assumption that 99.9% of all people are not business travelers.  You're flat out wrong on your percentage, period.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Stringer

I was always under the impression that it was the business traveler that usually footed most of the bill for the airlines.  I don't know about you, but most business travelers I've met do not have more time than money.  To them, time is money.

a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler) for Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers.  If it was a choice between extra cargo and somones luggage they were told to load the cargo.

I'm not sure if this is true or not like I said I heard it from a friend.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler)

Yeah, we all saw Fight Club.  Good flic.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, we all saw Fight Club.  Good flic.

well that's what he called himself......good movie though.

He used to tell me horror storys of the watermelon people would try to pack or bring on airplanes and also how "gentle" they were with the luggage itself.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
a friend of mine who used to be a thrower (baggage handler) for Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers.  If it was a choice between extra cargo and somones luggage they were told to load the cargo.

I'm not sure if this is true or not like I said I heard it from a friend.

Pretty much true I'd say.
I know some airliners are picking the plane types they use by the amount of cargo which can carried along with the passengers.
MD-11 is a good example of this, the passenger version does fit in cargo quite nicely in comparison to some of the newer planes of its class.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Delta told me that the airlines made almost as much money hauling cargo and mail as they did the passengers.  

That was extremely true in the '80's. Used to fly all-nighters whistle-stopping across the Southland just to carry the mail. We almost gave the "owly bird" seats away because the mail paid for the flight and more.

The last few years I was there we had quit bidding on the mail contracts. They didn't pay enough to make it worth it.

Cargo pays pretty well but Delta, for one example, either isn't interested enough or managed well enough to capitalize on it. Our cargo operations weren't emphasized and, as a result, didn't contribute all that much to the bottom line.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the number is just arbitrary, and used to underline my point. However how big is the business class on your average airline jet compared to the tourist class?

Granted first class and business class passengers pay more, but still I don't think they'll make up for the numbers. I could be wrong though.

GScholz,
Not all, in fact, a minority of business travelers travel in first or business class.  I would say the majority fly coach.  That isn't to say that the majority of the folks sitting in first or business class are business travelers, I'm just saying that alot more business travelers fly coach than fly the more expensive fares.

[Toad]

Before the Frequent Flyer miles, 50% of what you saw in First Class were airline employees on passes.  

Since the mileage awards, 50% are "free upgrades". The guy the airlines love is the last minute business coach traveler that HAS to be there. The gouging knife comes out then.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Toad
Before the Frequent Flyer miles, 50% of what you saw in First Class were airline employees on passes.  
 

or "bumped up" gov't employees.

[Nilsen]

I wonder if the 380 would have more fans here if it was made by Boing or some other american company

My guess is that it would be the best thing ever if that was the case.

[Dinger]

You can say that, but it just isn't the case.  Boeing has and is making some questionable design and development decisions, and will of course try to leech as much free money out of the US (and other) governments as possible, but to see the A-380 level of government payola to a corporation for a product of questionable viability and high profile in "national pride" terms, you'd have to leave Boeing and look at the Bush administration's cheerful relations with Martin-Marrietta over this whole "mission to mars" boondoggle.

[Toad]

Nope. There's a lot of concern that the A380 is just too bloody big for the airline infrastructure that's already in place.

Before I left, my airline had considered aircraft that big and decided they were going to cause more problems than they were worth. Their position was that from reservations, to ticketing/bag check to gate parking to taxiway congestion and on down the line they were going to require far to much money to accomodate.

Taxiing around JFK in a 767-300 is tight in a lot of places. I can only imaging how the A380 will do in some of the bottlenecks there.

Boeing or otherwise I think there's a point where the infrastructure can no longer accomodate bigger aircraft. Especially if the benefit side of the equation has so little to offer.

[beet1e]

It's hard to imagine two aircraft so different - the Concorde and the A380. Concorde was all about speed. With only 123 seats and with an hourly fuel consumption of 26,000 litres, it was a commercial disaster. The ticket price for London/New York was something in the order of £5000 one way.

The A380 won't be a short hop plane, that's for sure. The 7E7 may well be more versatile for many routes, whereas the A380 is likely to be no more than a hub to hub plane. As long as those designated hubs have stands and taxiways to accommodate A380, is there still a problem? I know - emergency landings at a non-designated airport...

I live about 20 miles west of London Heathrow Airport (LHR), and have used this airport a great deal over the past 40 years. The runways are already working at capacity. There are two parallel east-west runways, plus another intersecting runway that isn't used very much.

It's getting to the point whereby no more take off and landing slots are available, with each runway recording a movement every minute. The only way to service the increasing passenger loadings on the existing runways is by using larger aircraft. LHR is the busiest airport in the world, and is the major hub between America and Europe.

American Airlines operates SIX flights per day from London to New York. If it could operate A380, it would need only three or four flights, thereby relieving runway slots to be used by other services. Similarly, British Airways operates TEN flights per day from London to New York - in some cases, the interval between flights is as little as 20 minutes. A380 will be able to reduce runway movements dramatically. Just as well, because a fifth terminal is being built at LHR, and as far as I know there will not be another runway.

The operating costs of the A380 are less than the costs of operating the B747 - in terms of fuel per seat per 100km.

Airbus says its aircraft is 12 per cent more fuel efficient, consuming less than three litres of fuel per passenger per 100km (62 miles), a rate "comparable to an economical family car". Operational costs overall are estimated to be 20 per cent lower per seat than the 747s.

Not surprisingly, Singapore Airlines is going to be one of the first commercial operators, beginning in 2006. Singapore is itself a hub between Europe and Australia. Also of critical importance to operators like Singapore Airlines will be the range of the A380, which is about 10% more than the B747.

OK, you might not see many A380 flying hops over the continental US eg. Chicago to Dallas. But I don't believe the operators that use the A380 in the role for which it was designed will have any trouble at all in filling the seats.