Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Air France A380s in doubt put Airbus goals further out of reach.
Toulouse — Air France-KLM Group said it’s exploring plans to drop orders for A380 superjumbos, in a possible blow for Airbus SAS’s flagship model that’s losing favour with customers from Australia to the U.K. (www.montrealgazette.com) Ещё...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The 747-8 is an extension of a design that is now over 40 years old. Research and development costs have long since been recovered. This program is trailing off as should be expected. The A380 is a new program which is having trouble gaining traction. These are two vastly different scenarios.
Lots of folks on this forum predicted this. Point to point service with fuel efficient long range aircraft steals customers from hub to hub service. Each airline now looks to find a niche to utilize an aircraft this big that cannot access secondary markets directly. While it might make sense for Emirates at the moment, ultimately they too will be bypassed by much of their current market customers as smaller long range aircraft join the fleets.
Back in the day, when this beast was first conceived, it was touted as a flying cattle car, handling 800+ pax on high density routes between hubs. The airlines looked past that and went with the lavish interiors and lower pax count, as well as flying routes that were really never intended. For that, you can't blame Airbus or the plane. The Airlines are responsible and things are as they are because of their greed. Unfortunatly, Airbus & the plane will suffer.
BTW I don't believe Airbus was on the sidelines disinterested, when the airlines were busy ordering flagship luxury aircraft rather than cattle car aircraft. I would be very surprised if Aurbus staff wasn't part of the sales pitch that sold the first few luxury flagships AND then every other 'you don't want to be left behind without a luxury flagship' sale thereafter.
The airlines will suffer because they bought Airbus' sales pitch, hook, line and sinker. Airbus may suffer as airlines delay, defer and/or cancel orders and don't initiate new orders. But the airlines are the the ones stuck paying the operational costs for as long as they keep the planes in their fleet. They are paying the loan/ acquisition cost to keep them on the ground and the fuel cost to keep them in the sky.
Maybe some airline(s) will wise up and sell their A380s to be concerted into cattle cars to fly Beijing-Shanghai and similar routes that have both the passengers and severe operational restrictions (airports, airspace).
The problem is that one plane could fly back and forth several times on that route, so the number of planes that cab be repurposed there would be limited (which is a central part of the use case problem to begin with).
Also, forget about quick turns, when you're boarding 800+ pax, and then deplaning the same number at the other end. The only thing worse then filling the plane, is not filling it (which is the other major use case that the plane is struggling with, even at capacities much lower than the initial cattle car configurations presented to make them seem economical to operate).
Which brings up the third issue. They just cost so much to operate.
The airlines will suffer because they bought Airbus' sales pitch, hook, line and sinker. Airbus may suffer as airlines delay, defer and/or cancel orders and don't initiate new orders. But the airlines are the the ones stuck paying the operational costs for as long as they keep the planes in their fleet. They are paying the loan/ acquisition cost to keep them on the ground and the fuel cost to keep them in the sky.
Maybe some airline(s) will wise up and sell their A380s to be concerted into cattle cars to fly Beijing-Shanghai and similar routes that have both the passengers and severe operational restrictions (airports, airspace).
The problem is that one plane could fly back and forth several times on that route, so the number of planes that cab be repurposed there would be limited (which is a central part of the use case problem to begin with).
Also, forget about quick turns, when you're boarding 800+ pax, and then deplaning the same number at the other end. The only thing worse then filling the plane, is not filling it (which is the other major use case that the plane is struggling with, even at capacities much lower than the initial cattle car configurations presented to make them seem economical to operate).
Which brings up the third issue. They just cost so much to operate.
Well, I said when it was CONCEIVED. LOL
Thanks for your comments. You said: "...Also, forget about quick turns, when you're boarding 800+ pax, and then deplaning the same number at the other end."
I don't understand why the big hub airports can't be more pro-active in assisting to transit so many pax on/off planes by utilising *all* doors. Some airbridge setups do 2 doors, but I don't know which airports clamp four airbridges onto these heavies to really exit pax in a hurry. If they are happy to dig up the apron, taxiways, runways to accommodate the heavies, why not revamp the gatelounge pods and airbridges, too?
I don't understand why the big hub airports can't be more pro-active in assisting to transit so many pax on/off planes by utilising *all* doors. Some airbridge setups do 2 doors, but I don't know which airports clamp four airbridges onto these heavies to really exit pax in a hurry. If they are happy to dig up the apron, taxiways, runways to accommodate the heavies, why not revamp the gatelounge pods and airbridges, too?
You can spend the many to add 2-4 air bridges to certain 'super' friendly gates. But it'll cost money.
But then you also have to have more cleaning cews, more baggage handlers, more food service workers and all the extra equipment that all these extra staff need just to try to 'compress' your gate time. All thise cost money.
Now imagine, you get several A380s arrive at almost the same time. Not only do you have to have enough gates that prepared to handle the larger size of the A380, but also be retrofitted with the extra air bridges, and have staff zed equipment ready and available to drop everything else, and get busy on the A380s.
And don't get me started on having to monitor the 2-3 baggage carousels needed to handle all the luggage in a shorter time frame and/or having to wait that much longer for all those other bags to pass before you can get your own.
And last but not least, if you were on the tail end of a bunch of A380 arrivals in a short time frame that were all 'fast' deplaned at high cost with lots of bridges and staff and baggage carousels, that infinitely-long immigration line is going to make you regret how quickly all those monstrous planes were unloaded at great cost.
There is just a cost to convenience when moving lots of passengers in one plane. You can throw resources at the problem, but the additional expenditure doesn't erase the cost to convenience just from the bulk of numbers.
It would seem that airlines may prefer that A380s not disgorge their entire capacity of passengers too quickly. It may be easier on their staff and facilities for passengers to trickle out more slowly over a longer period of time. All of which, makes fast turns inconvenient and costly, if not outright impossible.
So yes, you'll see many airports occupy 2 gates for A380s and use both gates' bridges, but that alone won't fix all the problems.
But then you also have to have more cleaning cews, more baggage handlers, more food service workers and all the extra equipment that all these extra staff need just to try to 'compress' your gate time. All thise cost money.
Now imagine, you get several A380s arrive at almost the same time. Not only do you have to have enough gates that prepared to handle the larger size of the A380, but also be retrofitted with the extra air bridges, and have staff zed equipment ready and available to drop everything else, and get busy on the A380s.
And don't get me started on having to monitor the 2-3 baggage carousels needed to handle all the luggage in a shorter time frame and/or having to wait that much longer for all those other bags to pass before you can get your own.
And last but not least, if you were on the tail end of a bunch of A380 arrivals in a short time frame that were all 'fast' deplaned at high cost with lots of bridges and staff and baggage carousels, that infinitely-long immigration line is going to make you regret how quickly all those monstrous planes were unloaded at great cost.
There is just a cost to convenience when moving lots of passengers in one plane. You can throw resources at the problem, but the additional expenditure doesn't erase the cost to convenience just from the bulk of numbers.
It would seem that airlines may prefer that A380s not disgorge their entire capacity of passengers too quickly. It may be easier on their staff and facilities for passengers to trickle out more slowly over a longer period of time. All of which, makes fast turns inconvenient and costly, if not outright impossible.
So yes, you'll see many airports occupy 2 gates for A380s and use both gates' bridges, but that alone won't fix all the problems.
That's quite right - but it is just moving the slow-down filter back with the aircraft which has a finite space, instead of within the terminal that has far more capacity to manage crowds. It all has to do with queuing theory (and practice).
So the place where you put the filter depends on your priorities and where you are prepared to carry the cost/loss of convenience. Gate-lounge, immigration/customs (international routes, baggage hall - or back on the aircraft. Might as well leave them in their seats for a while longer - after all, with 4 doors instead of 2, you are only going to save about 15 minutes. - Oh and 15 minutes loading. Heck - that is half an hour per plane per sector. Hmmm..... Now, how long are we going to wait for that lost passenger? :-)
So the place where you put the filter depends on your priorities and where you are prepared to carry the cost/loss of convenience. Gate-lounge, immigration/customs (international routes, baggage hall - or back on the aircraft. Might as well leave them in their seats for a while longer - after all, with 4 doors instead of 2, you are only going to save about 15 minutes. - Oh and 15 minutes loading. Heck - that is half an hour per plane per sector. Hmmm..... Now, how long are we going to wait for that lost passenger? :-)
All things being equal, it's just easier to have 2 separate flights on more modern, efficient planes.
That provides the opportunity to provide more frequencies and spread them out over time or divide them between cities of origin. The flexibility allows the offering to more closely and more efficiently match demand.
With more flights, passengers increasingly get the opportunity to fly from their own origination city and/or a choice of travel time. Also forces them less to travel through a larger hub onto larger planes with large numbers of passengers.
Having separate flights coming in from separate cities and/or at separate times from the same city, allows better use of the 'larger' terminal space to better manage the movement of people and baggage.
Airlines can choose to just put fewer seats on the 'super-sized' plane and use it as a luxury flagship. But then that kills the economic advantage of having so much room on the plane. You now must divide the cost of moving that 'super-sized' plane over a relatively smaller number of passengers.
Again the smaller, more efficient planes seem like a better solution. Not surprisingly, they are back ordered for years, while 'super-sized' aircraft orders are largely flat.
That provides the opportunity to provide more frequencies and spread them out over time or divide them between cities of origin. The flexibility allows the offering to more closely and more efficiently match demand.
With more flights, passengers increasingly get the opportunity to fly from their own origination city and/or a choice of travel time. Also forces them less to travel through a larger hub onto larger planes with large numbers of passengers.
Having separate flights coming in from separate cities and/or at separate times from the same city, allows better use of the 'larger' terminal space to better manage the movement of people and baggage.
Airlines can choose to just put fewer seats on the 'super-sized' plane and use it as a luxury flagship. But then that kills the economic advantage of having so much room on the plane. You now must divide the cost of moving that 'super-sized' plane over a relatively smaller number of passengers.
Again the smaller, more efficient planes seem like a better solution. Not surprisingly, they are back ordered for years, while 'super-sized' aircraft orders are largely flat.