3 ms·

>Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the A320). Launching the A380 count

>Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all segments more competitive. It all comes down to fuel prices. Lamenting for the age of the 747 is the same as missing those boat size finned Cadillacs. It was another era. The ETOPS ratings of modern engines and fuel efficiency of high bypass designs means we will never see a four engined passenger liner ever again. The A380 itself was outdated by the time it flew its first passengers, as the 787 was in its final stages of testing at the time. They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads, and possibly long haul first class configurations, but the economics are simply not there for mainline passenger use.

ggm 4y ago
The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747 freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors so there's only side-door loading. Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or only very close to a 747 in most cases. It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will continue to work well for state funded airlines like Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases, Jetstar run the 787. At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times and it was less than 20% load both ways. The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion, but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350, &c) are running fine. The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers. Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource, end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all complicated. It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're an armchair planner. All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it.
buildsjets 4y ago
"They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads" For outsized loads, you need an articulated nose or tail, like a cargo 747, a C-17, C5, A400M, AN124, etc. It is generally economically unfeasible to modify an aircraft to add this kind of feature, although it has been done on a limited basis for specific missions, for example the Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter with an articulated tail, or the super guppies, or Airbus Beluga. Note that those modifications were all purpose built for a specific task, not general purpose cargo aircraft. The A380 does not have a side cargo door, reinforced floorbeams, or a cabin fire extinguisher system, so currently it cannot even take on palletized freight, much less outsized loads. It is not uncommon for aftermarket companies to modify retired passenger aircraft to add reinforced floorbeams, a side cargo door, etc, so this could happen, if some company decides that it is a profitable mod. IAI is doing this with older 777s right now. https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/iai-open-boeing-777-freighter-conversion-line-south-korea https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/iai-open-bo...

ggm 4y ago

The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747 freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors so there's only side-door loading. Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or only very close to a 747 in most cases. It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will continue to work well for state funded airlines like Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases, Jetstar run the 787. At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times and it was less than 20% load both ways. The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion, but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350, &c) are running fine. The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers. Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource, end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all complicated. It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're an armchair planner. All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it.

buildsjets 4y ago

"They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads" For outsized loads, you need an articulated nose or tail, like a cargo 747, a C-17, C5, A400M, AN124, etc. It is generally economically unfeasible to modify an aircraft to add this kind of feature, although it has been done on a limited basis for specific missions, for example the Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter with an articulated tail, or the super guppies, or Airbus Beluga. Note that those modifications were all purpose built for a specific task, not general purpose cargo aircraft. The A380 does not have a side cargo door, reinforced floorbeams, or a cabin fire extinguisher system, so currently it cannot even take on palletized freight, much less outsized loads. It is not uncommon for aftermarket companies to modify retired passenger aircraft to add reinforced floorbeams, a side cargo door, etc, so this could happen, if some company decides that it is a profitable mod. IAI is doing this with older 777s right now. https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/iai-open-boeing-777-freighter-conversion-line-south-korea https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/iai-open-bo...