747 prices tumble

I believe that ANA do in fact, operate 22 A320s at the present time. Japan has never been fertile territory for AI, and I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon, and Israel likewise, although I suspect that’s for different reasons altogether.

ANA and JAL have both gone the 787 route.

By the way, where are the Japanese orders for the A380?

As far as I know, only Skymark with 4 orders is the entire Japanese A380 portfolio.

Air Japan are short haul only – and all (relatively) small twins. Air Nippon are the same.

That leaves (any more I’ve missed) ANA and JAL. JAL are all Boeing. ANA could be the one – but they’ve went down the large twin route so far – scrapping a proposed A380 buy due to weak passenger numbers.

Maybe if the Europeans would allow more Japanese car imports……..hmmmm.

Ye reckon?

By the way, where are the Japanese orders for the A380?

I can’t think of a single more appropriate country for the aircraft: large population, wealthy, limited land area, many lucrative overseas business and leisure destinations. And ANA and JAL both have a history of having operated VLA’s: 200 or so (a guesstimate) 747’s. Yet, they haven’t ordered any A380’s. That must be terribly disappointing to Airbus. Maybe if the Europeans would allow more Japanese car imports……..hmmmm.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see an A380’SP’ type of aircraft – high density but built for short routes. .

Think you mean ‘SR’ (SP was the stubby short one with the tall tail designed for extra long range 🙂 ). Which had lower fuel capacity and strengthend undercarriage.
Airbus are supposedly going to launch the A380-900 at some point, which will be a lengthened version. I’m sure it has been said that this was the aircraft the A380’s wing was primarily designed for. This new version could fly up to 900people (or 650 in a 3-class layout). Personally I think it looks a lot better too.

Edit: Also just read that Airbus will be offering a de-rated 480ton version of the A380-800 (the current version), this would have lower range (but still enough to reach LA, Jo’burg, Seoul and Rio from LHR). This would improve fuel efficiency significantly, and, more importantly, allow airlines to use Heathrow during curfew times! Greatly improving the capacity of Heathrow.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see an A380’SP’ type of aircraft – high density but built for short routes. Reduce the amount of aircraft on those routes and you have more slots for the international routes.

They are getting A380s, but do not expect them to buy 50 of them to replace their 747s one to one.

I’m not expecting a 1 to 1 replacement right now.

I’m expecting increased pressure on ground ops to result in more A380s 15 years from now.

I see this happening over and over. Only a few airports (LHR for example) are resisting the urge to expand, and in some of those cases, alternatives exist.

Ahh, but I think this shows what your missing.

Heathrow would love to expand. However, they are being prevented from doing so by the authorities.

Your right in that many places will be able to add runways, but many “legacy” airports won’t.

I
However, they have at least 6 flights a day arriving within 20mins of another (many of which are both 744’s), basically these are at the pinch points I mentioned (start and end of working days). The only way to increase capacity here is take more slots, or get larger aircraft. BA have to consider their other routes (and feeder traffic) too.

This is where I think the A380 will come in handy for BA and makes a lot of sense.

I still think however we’ll see more 77Ws at BA than A380s.

Boeing has said in marketing campaigns that the 777-300ER carries 90% of the payload but only burns 70% of the fuel. Many factors go into total cost/seat, but it is possible to “guesstimate” fuel/seat. Fuel always varies based on a lot of factors, but a “ballpark” burn for a 772 is about 17,000 lb/hr (7.7 tonnes), the 773ER is about 20,000 (9 t). A 744 burns about 25,000 (11.4), GE’s a little less. Not sure about RR on the 744, once again these burns vary based upon many factors but I believe they are reasonably accurate. If you know the seating capacity, you can use the numbers above to get a rough estimate of fuel burn per seat. Near as I can tell, a nice ballpark number for the A380 is about 32,000 or 14.5 t.

I think the capability of 777-300ER will hurt Boeing 747-8i more than A-380. More 747-400 being replaced by 777 versions than A-380. For Airliners that depend much on business travelers (which make the bulk of long range market), 777 or A-330 and A-350 will be more economically senses than A-380. A-380 will not repeat the hight of 747 era.

Those beasts would end up flying half empty, quite literally.

As a fairly regular BA flyer, I wouldn’t mind that…instead of a full 747, a half empty A380 might be nice.
Of course, BA (especially its accountants) might have a different opinion. 😀

Would an A380 reduce costs though? I don’t know the details but I suspect that the 380 only beats out the 777 on longer routes due to better fuel burn ratios and on those flights where you don’t have enough people to fill a 777 you’ll be dealing with a larger loss maker for the A380.

I agree and disagree, I’m certainly not proposing that every single flight is swapped for an A380, as currently not all the flights support a 744.
However, there is certainly the theoretical demand, (16 777/747 flights a day is far more capacity than 8 A380’s), especially if you consider all the other airlines flying this route. A380 would reduce costs too, so would giving them a price advantage.

Certainly frequency is a large driver too, and as stated, not all the LHR-JFK’s even require 744’s.
However, they have at least 6 flights a day arriving within 20mins of another (many of which are both 744’s), basically these are at the pinch points I mentioned (start and end of working days). The only way to increase capacity here is take more slots, or get larger aircraft. BA have to consider their other routes (and feeder traffic) too.

Singapore too, 4 flights/day, all leaving wthin 2 hours (and two within 15mins!) (and one of BA’s stated A380 destinations). This is not only slot limited, but also timezone/connection affected.

Thats part of the problem isn’t it?

The cost to operate any airliner goes up as the passenger numbers and cargo goes down. Add an A380 into it and you’ve got landing fees, airport servicing fees and all sorts of things – a real loss maker for the airline.

I am sure an airline would rather be overbooked by one or two passengers per flight than being underbooked by 10s of passengers

A lot of people seem to think the A380 is the answer to everything for the airlines.
It simply is not.

If you can ditch frequency without hurting yields, then yes, it will help you with slot restricted destinations or bases.

BA cannot replace each 744 with an A380 per route. Those beasts would end up flying half empty, quite literally. BA are now doing what other carriers have been doing, replaceing 747s one to one with the 777-300ER. This allows them to keep their frequency their business model demands, but reduce their costs.

They are getting A380s, but do not expect them to buy 50 of them to replace their 747s one to one.

Currently BA have 8 return flights a day to JFK (17 if you include AA)! It’s fiercely competitive too, drop an A380 on this route, you drop your costs immediately. What about Hong Kong, Singapore, all routes with high frequency 747 routes, and more importantly, slot restricted or slot sensitive ( for connections).

But there isn’t the demand for 8 A380 flights daily.
If they use the 380, they’d reduce their flight frequency..which hurts business travellers.

About the only customer service airlines still provide is frequency…I’d hate to see them lose that as well.

Not sure that is entirely the case, up until recently, SJC-NRT was served with AA with a 777, however, it didn’t support the loads, and the 767 did not have the performance for the route. Now the 787 has 777 range with 767 loads (and low fuel use helps too!).

Ok….lets consider, for example, your argument using SFO. Hasn’t JAL already said they’re going to start 787 service from Japan to SJC? They’re using a smaller, long range airplane to avoid SFO and deliver the business pax nearer to where they want to go, the silicon valley.

I see this happening over and over. Only a few airports (LHR for example) are resisting the urge to expand, and in some of those cases, alternatives exist.

I don’t buy that argument.

Then consider that China has more than 60 airport construction projects going right now…..there was an article in Aviation Week last year, the amount of airport construction in China right now is mind boggling. They have at least 6 airports under construction right now that will copy the 4 parallel runway layout of ATL/CDG/LAX. Imagine building 6 CDG’s in one country! And I haven’t even mentioned KIX, which is now talking about a third runway!
.

I believe that simply backs up the demand for the A380. All these new airports will want to fly to places like JFK, SFO, NRT, HND and LHR. Now, not all these new airports will fly A380’s to the above, but if the likes of BA et al want to fly to these desinations, they need to get the slots from somewhere.

The other factor is timing, there are some airports which are relatively busy at some points, and others totally congested, either for connections, or simply the working day, people want to get into the city for the start of the working day, really restricting the slots (and driving up prices) at certain times.
Currently BA have 8 return flights a day to JFK (17 if you include AA)! It’s fiercely competitive too, drop an A380 on this route, you drop your costs immediately. What about Hong Kong, Singapore, all routes with high frequency 747 routes, and more importantly, slot restricted or slot sensitive ( for connections).

I see that market starting to rebound over the next 15-20 years.

The driver will be lack of runway slots. The airlines will be forced to carry 500 passengers in one slot than 550 in 2.

I don’t buy that argument.

What do ORD, ATL, HND, FRA, CDG, SEA, and HKG all have in common? They’ve all added runways in the last 10-15 years. In HKG, of course, they built a whole new airport that doubled runway capacity, and they are now talking about building a third. Then consider that China has more than 60 airport construction projects going right now…..there was an article in Aviation Week last year, the amount of airport construction in China right now is mind boggling. They have at least 6 airports under construction right now that will copy the 4 parallel runway layout of ATL/CDG/LAX. Imagine building 6 CDG’s in one country! And I haven’t even mentioned KIX, which is now talking about a third runway!

The “old gateways” of JFK, SFO, and LHR, will continue to be marginalized by long range twins overflying them and lack of political will to expand.