United States based A380?

[steve1840]

Just a thought that I had as I was looking at the A380 photo I have as my desktop background here at work. I'm not particularly sure if it has ever been brought up on here before or not, and please excuse my ignorance if it has.

I was just wonder if any of the airlines here in the states such as American, Delta, or United that fly overseas to Europe and Asia will ever place an order for the A380. I was just thinking how that whale would look in the all shiny metal awesomeness of American Airlines colors. Again, I appologize for any ignorance on this topic. Especially since I'm not sure if any of the airlines I mentioned would find it ecconomically feasable to operate one. However, with the amount of flights arriving daily into JFK from places like London, Amsterdam, and Mardid, etc by american carriers, maybe its not to far fetched. Just a thought. Any opinions on this?

[jerslice]

I don't think it'll happen - but that's more based on the fact that I can't forsee any US based airline that hasn't picked them up already picking them up now.

[steve1840]

There difinitely are no orders from any U.S. based airlines, but it was interesting to see all the A380s and other Airbuses for that matter that are on order. I had not realized that Emirates had 90 of these monsters on order. I can't wait to see the Virgin Atlantic livery on one of those either.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/documents/orders_deliveries_table/2011-Jan_Airbus_Orders__Deliveries.xls

[gonzalu]

Well, all American carriers have Airbuses in their fleets, so that's not a problem. But I think the Boeing 747-8i is a real win for most since it looks, feels and likely operates just like the 747 everyone has known for a long time so there is likely little changes to be made in many respects.

As for Emirates with 90 A380s, think of it, there are over 1400 747's built ... There is no reason the A380 can;t enjoy such a good life as the Queen!

[steve1840]

You make a good point Manny. As for the 90 Emirates A380s, I see your point on that, I just was never aware that there was that much traffic to Dubai that they would need 90 of them. I guess its true that you learn new things everyday. And I definitely agree that there is no reason she can't live the same life as the queen. I would love to see more and more A380s flying around.

[gonzalu]

Steve,

When I first started spotting for photography and for the sake of learning more about Commercial Airliners last year, I was simply SHOCKED to see a daily pair of 777s and an A380 to/from JFK and nearby similar traffic in Toronto... just could not believe it. But it is real.

Another point that may be lost is the fact that American travelers, I feel, are only after a cheap seat, no matter what. So packed-like-sardines is not a problem. Foreign pax seem to like a bit more luxury and they pay for it on a lot of carriers. The A380s advantage over the 747-8i I think is the flexibility to design whatever you can dream of inside of an airplane. SHOWERS? SUITES? who would have ever thought? I for one would pay anything (if I had it) to fly in a plane where I could shower and sleep horizontally 100% flat. Have done it a couple of times on 767 in Business to AMS from JFK on KLM and it was a dream [pun intended] (oh those stewardesses on KLM are soo... :tongue:) So I think the A380 is a winner for luxury markets where the 747-8i will be really good for economy markets.

[Delta777LR]

Not to forget, Both UPS and FedEX had mind for the A380Fs.. But the orders were canceled, FedEx instead went for the 777Fs while UPS went for more 767s..

[seahawks7757]

Well, all American carriers have Airbuses in their fleets, so that's not a problem.

When did American and Alaska get Airbuses? Last I checked American is all Boeing now that they retired the A300's a few years ago.

This post is mainly just meant to give you a hard time. :tongue:

[Mateo]

I'm still in moderate disbelief about 90 380s for Emirates; I just don't think their business model is sustainable in the long-run, but I've posted at length about it a few times here, so I won't this time.

Those 380/773 flights ex-YYZ (and all N.Am. destinations) make their money on the premium pax going to/from DXB, and the entire back is filled with low-yield VFR traffic heading to the Indian subcontinent. Where EK (and QR to a lesser extent) holds the advantage here is that they don't offer 1-stop service from Toronto to Delhi and Mumbai, but that they offer 1-stop service from Toronto to Coimbatore, Peshawar, Colombo, and Bangalore.

380s for American carriers? The only one I could see doing it would be CO/UA, which now has enough heavylift routes in its system (ORD/LAX-NRT, ORD-FRA, EWR-TLV, EWR-LHR) that a fleet of 12 or 16 would be adequately utilized, but even that scenario I'd cast as doubtful, at least in the near term.

[gonzalu]

When did American and Alaska get Airbuses? Last I checked American is all Boeing now that they retired the A300's a few years ago.

This post is mainly just meant to give you a hard time. :tongue:

Ha! I know Brandon :tongue: but yeah, that's what I meant, major and at least at one time. Also Embraer is not to be forgotten as is Canadair which are MAJOR foreign suppliers of specific markets .

[gonzalu]

380s for American carriers? The only one I could see doing it would be CO/UA, which now has enough heavylift routes in its system (ORD/LAX-NRT, ORD-FRA, EWR-TLV, EWR-LHR) that a fleet of 12 or 16 would be adequately utilized, but even that scenario I'd cast as doubtful, at least in the near term.


Delta and American fly daily to Narita or Japan in general no? I think anything that is done on a 757 today can be done with more flexibility on an A380, given the desire by pax for more space or luxury. You could use the same analogy back in 1969 when the 747 was about to enter service. Why would anyone want a larger plane? But the success of the 74 speaks for itself. The same could be true for the A380. Heck the Concorde never made sense yet it lasted until it literally was forced off. Had it not been for the accident, I think it would have had a few more years of service.

Passenger Cruise Ships are also getting bigger and bigger and we ask WHY? And somehow they make some sense to some people, and mostly for better spaces for perhaps the same amount of people. I can say that I'd pay a bit more for coach with more leg room, seat width (is that pitch?) Only a bigger frame can have same seating cap with better ergonomics. You'd be surprised how many people would pay extra for a little more room. This has been tested and proven by the new routine of charging more for more leg room on a lot of carriers like Jet Blue and Redwood.

[megatop412]

Passenger cruise ships are getting larger in order to accommodate passengers' ever-growing posteriors, thanks in large part to the 24/7 availability of greasy cheese-and-meat buffet entrees. I went on a cruise not too long ago and saw this phenomenon for myself- people who had no business making return trips to the chow line for another scoop of nasty, cafeteria style mac and cheese with lumps of meat in it. It's called a salad, people.

To answer the A380 question, I can't see any American carriers being able to make the business case for it. More and more widebodies are being replaced by 757's to cross the pond. I have to go to Germany this summer, and I refuse to be stuck on a single-aisle aircraft for that long, so I went with Virgin. Most of my widebody choices were foreign carriers. There are only a few markets that could make use of this beast long enough to pay them off, most of them transatlantic and a few transpacific. The Emirates strategy reminds me of what Toll Brothers was doing in the early part of the last decade and to say they got overextended is an understatement.

[dimamo1983]

Dubai is positioning itself as a hub between the East and the West (and the old West) hence the airport growth and ambitious plans by Emirates.

I think US passengers value flexibility of having multiple flights to choose from more than the aircraft size/potential comfort. That explains the very few 747s left in the fleets this side of the pond and more and more 75s making the trips. Fuel burn is another big factor. Those four giant engines suck a lot of juice which Emirates might be buying at substantially lower prices from their oil fields (this is pure speculation on my part).

And for those wanting beds and showers - that's called a Boeing Business Jet, not an A380 :cool:

[wunaladreamin]

Ugh the A380. I think there's jut too much competition from the native international carriers to justify an American based whale, especially when the equally as visually appalling B777 can do the trick perhaps at a more economical cost. Personally, I'd much rather see a surge of the B748 instead of that fat, stubby piece of crap. But that's just me.

[lijk604]

Ugh the A380. I think there's jut too much competition from the native international carriers to justify an American based whale, especially when the equally as visually appalling B777 can do the trick perhaps at a more economical cost. Personally, I'd much rather see a surge of the B748 instead of that fat, stubby piece of crap. But that's just me.

Ah Kenny, so good to have you back.

[gonzalu]

Those four giant engines suck a lot of juice which Emirates might be buying at substantially lower prices from their oil fields (this is pure speculation on my part).


I wonder if when they buy here for the return trip, they pay full price or do they get special deals or some sort of exchange etc. I do bet at home, fuel is either free or close to it

[RomNYC]

Haha Kenny. I gotta admit, I've never been a fan of the A380, shape-wise (and I'm European!). But flying it made me realize the advance that they achieved: double-decker, they can claim they were first on that forever. SILENCE: this big animal is incredibly quiet inside. Comfort: you barely feel turbulence. And those WINGS: it is only when you sit inside by the wings that you realize how huge this thing is... How they managed to put in in the air is still incredible achievement to me.

But of course, tastes differ :smile:

[NIKV69]

Why should any US carrier even consider it? Probably will never see it. Only two carriers that can benefit with multiple are Qantas and Singapore. Only reason Emirates can buy so many is they have endless capital. Be curious to see what happens if fuel really spikes again.

[Delta777LR]

US carriers have already looked at the A380 along time ago and from what I see, they dont express any interest as they dont really need them. Airlines like UA, DL, AA may not even order the aircraft at any point. UA as example is replacing their 744s with A350s, DL might eventualy order the 77W or maybe the 748i to replace the 744s in the future, but who knows..

[NLovis]

Ugh the A380. I think there's jut too much competition from the native international carriers to justify an American based whale, especially when the equally as visually appalling B777 can do the trick perhaps at a more economical cost. Personally, I'd much rather see a surge of the B748 instead of that fat, stubby piece of crap. But that's just me.

Agreed 100% kenny. But the problem is US carriers are smart. They will go with the 777 first because of the fuel savings. As is not many bought the 744 because of the 777. As much as I would love to see the 747 make a comeback as long as the 777 is in production it will be the 1st choice of US carriers. AA didnt buy any 744 nor did DAL or CO. NWA UAL were the only ones and it doesnt look like UAL will buy a 748. Even till recently a US carrier didnt place an order for a 773. AA is the only one and they are only getting 2 of them. US carriers are looking for smaller more fuel efficient long range aircraft and sad to say I dont see that changing anytime soon.
Nikv fuel prices are already exploding. This will be when we really see DAL hurt on operating DC-9-50. Great A/C but those early JT8 burn gas. We will start seeing these fuel burning A/C drop again.