Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
Don't think so, UPS, FedEx and the International Lease Finance Corporation all ordered some but all cancelled.
stretched freight version was the original -900 launch variant, seems they now have tried to consolidate production at the -800 level.-900 mockup looks far nicer with the fuselage plugs.
Same wing for both so the -800 is "over" winged if you like, it's a very efficient wing indeed hell it stays together even with an exploding turbine buzz-sawing it!
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th July 21:31
US politics aside, I doubt it would make any sense for US carriers to get A380s. There just isn't the international demand.
US aside, it really depends on the mantra of the company. For my company, it makes zero sense, because the product offered is geared towards frequency for business and first class passengers, and carrying cargo in the belly. We continually operate at very high payloads as a result.
The operating economics don't come close to making sense, when looking at payloads. The A380 is a payload dog compared to the B777. Consequently, it would only make sense on certain routes, the ones which are 'slot limited', places like JFK and Heathrow - these airports are pretty much full, and we can't just launch another service in there too easily. Given that it doesn't have the legs to make it to JFK, it'd be bonkers to buy it for one, maybe 2 routes.
That said, I believe it will work out very nicely for BA, who are based in a slot limited airport. It is the obvious expansion plan without occupying more slots.
US aside, it really depends on the mantra of the company. For my company, it makes zero sense, because the product offered is geared towards frequency for business and first class passengers, and carrying cargo in the belly. We continually operate at very high payloads as a result.
The operating economics don't come close to making sense, when looking at payloads. The A380 is a payload dog compared to the B777. Consequently, it would only make sense on certain routes, the ones which are 'slot limited', places like JFK and Heathrow - these airports are pretty much full, and we can't just launch another service in there too easily. Given that it doesn't have the legs to make it to JFK, it'd be bonkers to buy it for one, maybe 2 routes.
That said, I believe it will work out very nicely for BA, who are based in a slot limited airport. It is the obvious expansion plan without occupying more slots.
ETOPS said:
US politics aside, I doubt it would make any sense for US carriers to get A380s. There just isn't the international demand.
US aside, it really depends on the mantra of the company. For my company, it makes zero sense, because the product offered is geared towards frequency for business and first class passengers, and carrying cargo in the belly. We continually operate at very high payloads as a result.
The operating economics don't come close to making sense, when looking at payloads. The A380 is a payload dog compared to the B777. Consequently, it would only make sense on certain routes, the ones which are 'slot limited', places like JFK and Heathrow - these airports are pretty much full, and we can't just launch another service in there too easily. Given that it doesn't have the legs to make it to JFK, it'd be bonkers to buy it for one, maybe 2 routes.
That said, I believe it will work out very nicely for BA, who are based in a slot limited airport. It is the obvious expansion plan without occupying more slots.
So what about trans-continental? How many uld's do you carry?US aside, it really depends on the mantra of the company. For my company, it makes zero sense, because the product offered is geared towards frequency for business and first class passengers, and carrying cargo in the belly. We continually operate at very high payloads as a result.
The operating economics don't come close to making sense, when looking at payloads. The A380 is a payload dog compared to the B777. Consequently, it would only make sense on certain routes, the ones which are 'slot limited', places like JFK and Heathrow - these airports are pretty much full, and we can't just launch another service in there too easily. Given that it doesn't have the legs to make it to JFK, it'd be bonkers to buy it for one, maybe 2 routes.
That said, I believe it will work out very nicely for BA, who are based in a slot limited airport. It is the obvious expansion plan without occupying more slots.
Just found http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/... I can't verify it's accuracy but an interesting read.
Looks like the 19 frame stretch may open up some areas that the big twins have the advantage in cargo terms, and it looks nicer on the eye.
Mo.
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 21st July 09:38
Mojocvh said:
So what about trans-continental? How many uld's do you carry?
Just found http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/... I can't verify it's accuracy but an interesting read.
Looks like the 19 frame stretch may open up some areas that the big twins have the advantage in cargo terms, and it looks nicer on the eye.
Mo.
Often at full volume (30+LD3) with a hefty pax load. Over 30% of our revenue is cargo, much of it belly. The slippery twin does an unsurpassed job, really. It's just very well thought through - no lost volume with crew rest up above the main cabin, things like that.Just found http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/... I can't verify it's accuracy but an interesting read.
Looks like the 19 frame stretch may open up some areas that the big twins have the advantage in cargo terms, and it looks nicer on the eye.
Mo.
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 21st July 09:38
That is an interesting read. I hear we'd be interested in a 389 model. I suppose it justifies itself a little better. That said, I still don't know how that fits in with the frequency model we use - which, incidentally, is something we've found to provide flexibility in the cargo ops. Until I see all our LHR flights operating on the jumbo, I can't see it making sense.
I think the A380 is a wonderful aircraft to pax on. Very quiet, spacious and appealing to the the likes of front-end customers. Other carriers seem to get on very well with them, also (apparently). I suppose we've a fairly conservative management who've had burnt fingers from bandwagon jumping before... Time will tell..
Apparently Korean have managed a ground strike on landing with their new one already....
But not on this video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AQDi61pAM&fea...
Did a nice job it quite difficult conditions, look at the wing tips from 9 seconds on.
But not on this video.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AQDi61pAM&fea...
Did a nice job it quite difficult conditions, look at the wing tips from 9 seconds on.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff