The behemoth is due to fly tomorrow

[Toad]

The key to success will lie in the marketing departments.

I wonder what the breakeven load factor will be for that. Probably in the 60-70% range like most of the rest.

If your marketing department can't sell that many seats on every flight, you won't make money. If you don't make money with a plane, it won't be around very long.

I assure you, the marketing department at Delta suxxors so bad they struggle to fill a 767 on the transoceanic runs. Oh, sure.. holidays are easy but we're talking day in, day out loads. That they cannot do.

As for some suddenly new factor in the marketplace that is going to engender 5x as much demand for transoceanic travel, I haven't seen it yet.  Maybe if the 380 brings fares down to $20.00 and they can make a profit at 80% load it might work.

In short, it's way too early to tell. It's nice someone built a plane this big. It's going to take a while to see if it makes enough to cover cost/expenses.

I keep thinking about how big and luxurious ocean liners were getting right about the time transatlantic jet air travel started,

You think some Steve Jobs geek is in a garage somewhere working on Scottie's transporter room right now?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by VWE
Only time will tell, but I don't see the passenger volume these behemoths are sopposed to fill.

American Airlines   
Delta Air Lines   
Southwest Airlines   
United Airlines   
Japan Airlines   
Northwest Airlines   
Deutsche Lufthansa   
Air France   
All Nippon Airways   
US Airways

10 largest airlines in the world, of course 6 are based in the U.S. and good luck surviving without selling your kitchen sink to any of them.

VWE is right in saying that the A380 will not sell in large quantities to many of the airlines he listed. But he exhibits incredible arrogance in saying that if it isn't sold to these airlines, it won't succeed.

I'll say it a third time, as the message still hasn't got through. A380 is not designed as a regional city hopper. The US market is entirely wrong for it. But that doesn't mean it won't succeed in other parts of the world. The largest airline, American Airlines, didn't even have any B747s when they were in vogue. Why's that then? Fuel costs was one, but also because they operate a huges number of routes, and therefore need lots of little tiddlers like the MD80, and won't need A380 - on those routes at least.

Now let's look at Singapore Airlines - Singapore is a tiny little country less than one sixth the size of Rhode Island.  Using VWE's logic, one might assume that they fly things like ATR42/72 turboprops. Wrong. Their fleet consists of A340-500 (their smallest) B747-400, and four variants of B777. They will be the first airline in the world to fly the A380. They have 10 on order with options for a further 15.

SIA has tripled capacity between Singapore and Brisbane, Australia in the past 4½ years, and is about to increase capacity to Beijing (capital of the world's third largest country, but not on VWE's map) by 50%.

How much does Singapore Airlines depend on America? Let's have a look...

 

Out of 59 cities served by SIA, how many are in the USA? Erm... 3.

It would help people to understand the A380 market better if they would look at a world map (the SIA route map is a start) - instead of viewing the world like this....

[NUKE]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually Master Ignorant, the A380 has 50% more floor space than the B747-400 and more cargo capacity. And even if the A380 flew with only the same amount of passengers as the B747-400 it would still be more cost effective due to superior aerodynamics. It even compares favourably to the B787 in range.

There you go with your personal attacks again.

GS, after reading your factoid about the 380, I've changed my mind.

I now view it as the most futuristic, wild and radical design in aviation history. It has a remarkable new shape and has 50% more floorspace than a 40 year old plane. All of this, PLUS an unquestioned market demand for at least the next 100 years.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
Why do you think there is only one correct mix of aircraft? I for one think both the B787 and the A380 will have prosperous futures. The B787 will replace many of the older B757, 767, 777 and similar older Airbus designs. The A380 will replace many of the B747's.

Look at the larger picture GS.  There is only one world population of aircraft.  Therfore there is only one mix of aircraft.

The share that the A380 takes and the share that the 787 takes is what the difference of forecast of Boeing and Airbus is all about.

[Habu]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually Master Ignorant, the A380 has 50% more floor space than the B747-400 and more cargo capacity. And even if the A380 flew with only the same amount of passengers as the B747-400 it would still be more cost effective due to superior aerodynamics. It even compares favourably to the B787 in range.

Really? Does that include the amortization of the 250 million purchase price? Still makes it the plane to own when you include that cost?


.

[Habu]

But to go from Chicago to Munich only takes one flight in a 787 as opposed to 3 when using an airbus so even though it hauls less passangers it also does not use any landing spots at New York to London or Paris or Holland as you would have to use in the airbus.

So in fact the 787 frees up landing spots at the hub airports. Also do you know what it costs to land a big plane at London or Paris? Huge dollars. And then you have to factor in the cost of the two feeder flights and those planes and the crew and fuel all to get the person to the same place.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, each B787 cost approx. 120 million, but carry only about 250 passengers. So you only get 2 B787 for the price of 1 A380, but only 1/3rd of the passenger capacity.

Also, most of the world's large international airports simply does not have runway slots available for 3 B787s. The A380 only takes one slot.

I hate to get involved here, but there are a couple of instances of bad math/reasoning here.

If a 787 carries 250 people, then two of them carry 500 people.  Unless the A380 carries 1,500 people, then your 'but only 1/3rd the passenger capacity' statement doesn't make much sense.

Second, you mention that the worlds large international airports don't have runway slots for 3 787s.  That might be true, but as far as I know, there are only two commercial passenger airports in the world that are currently set up for the A380.  If that's true (and I admit, I have only heard it in passing), then that would seem to be a bit more relevant to the conversation.

What I don't get is why the 787 and 380 are even being compared.  That's like arguing that the Subaru WRX is better then a 36 passenger diesel bus.  Better at what?  The 380 is better at carrying lots of people over long routes.  The 787 is better at providing service to smaller airports.  

This conversation has descended from fighting to complete nonsense.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by GScholz
London Heathrow expects 1 A380 out of every 8 planes serviced there in the near future (i don't remember the exact year).

2016, IIRC

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?

Because French labor regulations forbid the pilots from working longer than five hours between striking?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?

Hub and spoke rather than direct route between smaller cities.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Chairboy
It's so odd, there seem to be two main crowds posting here.  The 'Boeing sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd, and then the 'Airbus sucks, and I'll say/do anything to further that agenda' crowd.

What's that?  The descriptions are identical?  Well yeah, no crap.

Reading these threads is like watching hardliner liberal Soviets argue with hardliner conservative Nazi's.  Both of them abhor each other, but they both do the same stuff.  It's funny, it's as if the partisanship actually WRAPS around and touches the other side.  With just a little help, the Boeing and Airbus nuts would be bestesses of friends.

Fact: The A380 is neat.
Fact: The 747 is neat.

Almost every criticism applied to the 380 was applied to the 747 when it came out, and you Boeing fanboys are looking really stupid for trotting out those old chestnuts.

Likewise, Boeing has a fine safety record, and has done more with less subsidy then Airbus, but that's just the business model that the US supports, so you Airbus jockeys look like idiots for constantly pulling out the same tired old 'Boeing is ze funded by government too!' argument.  

The companies have different financials, do different things good and different things bad.  One thing they both share in common is that they create fine aircraft that set and maintain standards of quality and design that are alien to all other large scale industries.

Here's a difference....the 747 makes money....worldwide....will the airbus?

We'll see

[straffo]

Originally posted by NUKE
There you go with your personal attacks again.

GS, after reading your factoid about the 380, I've changed my mind.

I now view it as the most futuristic, wild and radical design in aviation history. It has a remarkable new shape and has 50% more floorspace than a 40 year old plane. All of this, PLUS an unquestioned market demand for at least the next 100 years.

NostradaNUKE ?

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Chairboy
This conversation has descended from fighting to complete nonsense.

LOL! how true

well i dont see anything bad at the 747, she maybe getting old
yes, but she still flies and doing a good job for years!

But this will not stop others to build newer planes like
the A380. The 747 is not the end in Plane Evolution
i guarantee that

And Rude is right, the 747 makes Money,
The A380 not right now, we have to wait and see.

[CMC Airboss]

Originally posted by Habu
But to go from Chicago to Munich only takes one flight in a 787 as opposed to 3 when using an airbus so even though it hauls less passangers it also does not use any landing spots at New York to London or Paris or Holland as you would have to use in the airbus.
Originally posted by GScholz
Why would the A380 have to land three times?

The statement  from Habu is that YOU would have to land three times, not the A380.  To take an A380, you have to fly from a hub. To get to or from the hub, you have to fly a different airplane on the spoke.  Each landing incurs fees regardless of the airplane type.  Incidentally, you are paying for these costs with your ticket purchase and surcharge fees.  

MiG

[mora]

Nukes permanent troll mode is getting pretty old...

I suggest you all go to Airliners.net forums and read some threads there. This has been discussed to death there. The discussion we have here is discussion is full of legends and myths from both sides.