Airline Fleet/Management in a crisis

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
The A380s were already headed for the desert long before the crisis. That just accelerated the move.


Every type has the desert as its ultimate destination.
There were carriers that could make the A380 work well for them and there were others that took delivery that couldn't.
Imagine one of these bad boys with seats for about 80% of the aircraft's evacuation limit flown on medium range leisure routes, like EU to the Caribbean or MCO. Really low CASM and the operator wouldn't need to fly a lot of hours to make what would be a cheap frame pay.
What about the airports?
Well, if they could handle a B747 they can handle an A380.
Anyway, there are lots of serviceable smaller twin aisle twins hitting the resale market ATM along with some almost new frames from now bankrupt carriers that lessors are anxious to place even with only very low lease rates.
A little cash income on an owned asset beats none.
My point was that there may be an opportunity here that hasn't been there for decades and will likely not come again for decades more.
Lots of serviceable big boys and crews just looking for a home.




A number of airlines bought the A380 as a ego flagship so to speak. They are also the first to get rid of them. Thai and Malaysia are two examples.

As for airports, a lot of airports can handle 747s but not 380s. A side effect of this are the airports that recently spent huge amounts of money to upgrade in order to handle the whales and now they won't be showing up.

Also, I have read that they are not suitable for repurposing to freighter status. That's a real shame if true. The 747 can do that.

Yes, airports had to invest huge amount of money to accommodate A380. And you are right, as cargo, A380 is really not attractive. There is a lot of ego issues with that plane, from why it was built to ownership.

 

[4WD]

LAX was no surprise.
IAH surprised me … timing was such that LH could have moved the B748i in behind the old B744.
But here comes the A380. Doubt seriously it worked out for LH or the city.
The A380 novelty quickly wore off for me … they all buy the seats and decide how many to stuff inside.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by 4WD
LAX was no surprise.
IAH surprised me … timing was such that LH could have moved the B748i in behind the old B744.
But here comes the A380. Doubt seriously it worked out for LH or the city.
The A380 novelty quickly wore off for me … they all buy the seats and decide how many to stuff inside.




I thought Lufthansa had both the 748i and the 380?

I think the only advantage to the 380 for passengers is the First Class and sometimes the Business Class seating and that is airline specific. The Middle East airlines upped the game on that. For coach passengers it makes a smaller difference.

LAX just spent billions upgrading the Tom Bradley terminal to accommodate more 380s. I'll bet there are some red faces there. Another airport whose location escapes me at the moment spent untold $$ to move a entire runway in order to put in taxiways that were 380 capable.

 

[4WD]

LH bought around 20 of the 748i's …

IMO, the money spent on lavish 380 nonsense left some of the ME airlines's B773 cabins falling behind … I caught several in Business that were not that great …

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
LAX was no surprise.
IAH surprised me … timing was such that LH could have moved the B748i in behind the old B744.
But here comes the A380. Doubt seriously it worked out for LH or the city.
The A380 novelty quickly wore off for me … they all buy the seats and decide how many to stuff inside.

A380 was always political project of EU.

 

[DeepFriar]

A380 was always political project of EU.

As was/is the A400M cargo aircraft. Their whole aerospace sector is a subsidized activity to maintain engineering capability, manufacturing base and R&D base. You could say ours is the same but that would be incorrect. Boeing, in the end, has to turn a profit at some point. Airbus not so much. Airbus provides a way for the Europeans to maintain a facade of fair competition to keep Boeing's, and others, prices down. If I, as Airbus, can more or less always price whatever I want, and lose money without regret even if I win, then that's my job. Keep the game going. Years ago Tom Anders, president of Airbus, said publicly that the 380 would never make a bit of profit. On the A400 they have been back to the well for more government funding so often it would embarrass Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Electric Boat, etc combined and that's going some! Ridiculous socialist enterprise.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by DeepFriar
A380 was always political project of EU.

As was/is the A400M cargo aircraft. Their whole aerospace sector is a subsidized activity to maintain engineering capability, manufacturing base and R&D base. You could say ours is the same but that would be incorrect. Boeing, in the end, has to turn a profit at some point. Airbus not so much. Airbus provides a way for the Europeans to maintain a facade of fair competition to keep Boeing's, and others, prices down. If I, as Airbus, can more or less always price whatever I want, and lose money without regret even if I win, then that's my job. Keep the game going. Years ago Tom Anders, president of Airbus, said publicly that the 380 would never make a bit of profit. On the A400 they have been back to the well for more government funding so often it would embarrass Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Electric Boat, etc combined and that's going some! Ridiculous socialist enterprise.

It is same. We are doing same, just other way around. It is like ethanol. We will go after EU for agriculture subsidies, but we will make it mandatory to have 10% ethanol in gas, which wastes energy, makes worse mpg, but keeps farmers happy.
Though since then we are openly giving farmers money. Ridiculous socialist enterprise.

 

[DeepFriar]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you do not want to believe straight up lies about saving the environment. Thinking for yourself is falling out of favor especially if it results in actual logic. LOL
You'll get no disagreement from me edy.

The difference on the aerospace front is that most often we're throwing money at developing better technology than we now have and end up with expensive everything from F22, F35, Seawolf, Ford carriers, etc etc. The Europeans, on the other hand, could buy more and better than they develop/build for less money and actually have a credible defense capability. Even the Chinese were smart enough to literally steal the C17 design. But our allies spend more on the A400 because, well because they can. Heck they could even save the jobs if they built the US whatever asset under license but no.

And I've dragged us off topic. Apologies. There's got to be a use for all those excess engines. My guess is everybody from Iran to Russia to Turkey will be looking for ways to repurpose blisks and fan blades and the other *hard* parts. Now, back on topic sort of, I feel better. Cheers guys.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by DeepFriar
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you do not want to believe straight up lies about saving the environment. Thinking for yourself is falling out of favor especially if it results in actual logic. LOL
You'll get no disagreement from me edy.

The difference on the aerospace front is that most often we're throwing money at developing better technology than we now have and end up with expensive everything from F22, F35, Seawolf, Ford carriers, etc etc. The Europeans, on the other hand, could buy more and better than they develop/build for less money and actually have a credible defense capability. Even the Chinese were smart enough to literally steal the C17 design. But our allies spend more on the A400 because, well because they can. Heck they could even save the jobs if they built the US whatever asset under license but no.

And I've dragged us off topic. Apologies. There's got to be a use for all those excess engines. My guess is everybody from Iran to Russia to Turkey will be looking for ways to repurpose blisks and fan blades and the other *hard* parts. Now, back on topic sort of, I feel better. Cheers guys.

They could buy, but there is also retaining know-how for national security purposes. Military technology is not efficient or financially does not make any sense if you are looking from bang for a buck. Most stuff are absolute waste of money, but national security enterprise is set up that way and no other. We could also buy that tanker based on A330 but we decided to go for B767 version. Domestic airplane, domestic jobs, and until government exhausted every possible option to give "legally" that deal to Boeing, it did not end.
Whoever think these kind of industries are possible to run without huge intervention of government, especially in crisis like it is now, is absolute fool.

 

[Mr Nice]

767 tanker has lots of problems. You really can't blame American politicians for wanting the Air Force to buy a Boeing.

I bought Boeing stock after the global illnesses and approve all of Uncle Sam's hand holding and support for the next 50 years.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
767 tanker has lots of problems. You really can't blame American politicians for wanting the Air Force to buy a Boeing.

I bought Boeing stock after the global illnesses and approve all of Uncle Sam's hand holding and support for the next 50 years.


Of course you cannot.

 

[fdcg27]

Well, the early 747 was also bought as a matter of vanity by a number of airlines with many quickly disposing of them, American and Delta being good examples of this,
Airport upgrades were only really needed for airports that expected multiple A380 arrivals every day. For those seeing maybe three or four a week, any airport which could handle limited numbers of 747s could also handle limited numbers of A380s. Closing a runway or taxiway for five or ten minutes a few times each week just wouldn't be that big of a deal and the upper deck passengers would deplane by walking down the internal stairs and then out the lower deck.
Anyway, I've reviewed my post and decided I was wrong.
Yes, cheap crews and A shame, but a number of very useful aircraft will be retired while still having years or reliable operation as well as thousands of hours and cycles left in them.
And no, as others have pointed out, the A380 is in no way a suitable candidate for frieghter conversion.
First off, you can't just cut out the upper deck floor since it's a part of the aircraft's structure and nobody is seriously going to invest in equipment to load and unload the upper deck, plus OEW weight for the only version that will ever be built now is simply too high.
Nice Euro dream while it lasted, though.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Well, the early 747 was also bought as a matter of vanity by a number of airlines with many quickly disposing of them, American and Delta being good examples of this,
Airport upgrades were only really needed for airports that expected multiple A380 arrivals every day. For those seeing maybe three or four a week, any airport which could handle limited numbers of 747s could also handle limited numbers of A380s. Closing a runway or taxiway for five or ten minutes a few times each week just wouldn't be that big of a deal and the upper deck passengers would deplane by walking down the internal stairs and then out the lower deck.
Anyway, I've reviewed my post and decided I was wrong.
Yes, cheap crews and A shame, but a number of very useful aircraft will be retired while still having years or reliable operation as well as thousands of hours and cycles left in them.
And no, as others have pointed out, the A380 is in no way a suitable candidate for frieghter conversion.
First off, you can't just cut out the upper deck floor since it's a part of the aircraft's structure and nobody is seriously going to invest in equipment to load and unload the upper deck, plus OEW weight for the only version that will ever be built now is simply too high.
Nice Euro dream while it lasted, though.

Modify them into firefighting planes

I wanna see that thing maneuvering around Durango.

 

[Mr Nice]

Airbus was foolish to think an aircraft much bigger than a 747-400 would be very successful.

I wonder what was the demand for new 747s when the A380 was still on the 'drawing board' ?

Airports were foolish to spend big $$$ money to remodel for the A380. I knew when UPS and FedEx had no interest in this aircraft..... the A380 would have a short career with passenger airlines.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Well, the early 747 was also bought as a matter of vanity by a number of airlines with many quickly disposing of them, American and Delta being good examples of this,
Airport upgrades were only really needed for airports that expected multiple A380 arrivals every day. For those seeing maybe three or four a week, any airport which could handle limited numbers of 747s could also handle limited numbers of A380s. Closing a runway or taxiway for five or ten minutes a few times each week just wouldn't be that big of a deal and the upper deck passengers would deplane by walking down the internal stairs and then out the lower deck.
Anyway, I've reviewed my post and decided I was wrong.
Yes, cheap crews and A shame, but a number of very useful aircraft will be retired while still having years or reliable operation as well as thousands of hours and cycles left in them.
And no, as others have pointed out, the A380 is in no way a suitable candidate for frieghter conversion.
First off, you can't just cut out the upper deck floor since it's a part of the aircraft's structure and nobody is seriously going to invest in equipment to load and unload the upper deck, plus OEW weight for the only version that will ever be built now is simply too high.
Nice Euro dream while it lasted, though.

Modify them into firefighting planes

I wanna see that thing maneuvering around Durango.
I like firefighting tankers. I saw lots of them when I lived in Palo Cedro Calif.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by CT8
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Well, the early 747 was also bought as a matter of vanity by a number of airlines with many quickly disposing of them, American and Delta being good examples of this,
Airport upgrades were only really needed for airports that expected multiple A380 arrivals every day. For those seeing maybe three or four a week, any airport which could handle limited numbers of 747s could also handle limited numbers of A380s. Closing a runway or taxiway for five or ten minutes a few times each week just wouldn't be that big of a deal and the upper deck passengers would deplane by walking down the internal stairs and then out the lower deck.
Anyway, I've reviewed my post and decided I was wrong.
Yes, cheap crews and A shame, but a number of very useful aircraft will be retired while still having years or reliable operation as well as thousands of hours and cycles left in them.
And no, as others have pointed out, the A380 is in no way a suitable candidate for frieghter conversion.
First off, you can't just cut out the upper deck floor since it's a part of the aircraft's structure and nobody is seriously going to invest in equipment to load and unload the upper deck, plus OEW weight for the only version that will ever be built now is simply too high.
Nice Euro dream while it lasted, though.

Modify them into firefighting planes

I wanna see that thing maneuvering around Durango.
I like firefighting tankers. I saw lots of them when I lived in Palo Cedro Calif.

The 747 that is modified for firefighting operations is stationed at Colorado Springs airport. My house is on glide slope so now in summer they are always flying. Few days ago two DC-10's were in action few days bcs. of fire in Durango.

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted by JustN89
American recently announced a 30% reduction of Management and Support staff. Impacted employees will be informed in July and paid through September.

Well, it's been quite a week between last week through today, but today was the day of reckoning for my organization. I'm a part of the lucky few from my group that will be retained, thankfully. A team of 12 of us has been reduced to 3 through voluntary early-outs and involuntary separations. I certainly have much to be grateful for today.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Airbus was foolish to think an aircraft much bigger than a 747-400 would be very successful.

I wonder what was the demand for new 747s when the A380 was still on the 'drawing board' ?

Airports were foolish to spend big $$$ money to remodel for the A380. I knew when UPS and FedEx had no interest in this aircraft..... the A380 would have a short career with passenger airlines.



By the time AIrbus committed to the A380 Boeing had already replaced the 747 with its own 777.
The Airbus answer to the 747 was the A340 which the 777 killed in the market.
Both Airbus and Boeing forecast thousand frame markets in the VLA space and Airbus did gain ten orders each from Fedex and UPS for the proposed freighter.
Airbus saw a market of hub to hub or focus city to hub flying where a VLA would work well.
One airline built its operations around the A380 and trampled all of its competitors until the current crisis,
That the extant -800 version was built with greater structural weight and more wing than it needed to accomodate the anticipated freighter and -900 developments along with older generation engines did not help the program.
WRT airport mods, they would have made no sense at a place like MCO but were needed at airports like JFK, LAX and even LAS that saw multiple A380s each day,
We saw them in Ohio about as much as you would have in Florida, like never, but when connecting through or terminating in a large international airport, I can recall telling wife "wow, there's an A380 !" but then another couple of them would come.
Too bad the whole project didn't quite work out.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Airbus was foolish to think an aircraft much bigger than a 747-400 would be very successful.

I wonder what was the demand for new 747s when the A380 was still on the 'drawing board' ?

Airports were foolish to spend big $$$ money to remodel for the A380. I knew when UPS and FedEx had no interest in this aircraft..... the A380 would have a short career with passenger airlines.



By the time AIrbus committed to the A380 Boeing had already replaced the 747 with its own 777.
The Airbus answer to the 747 was the A340 which the 777 killed in the market.
Both Airbus and Boeing forecast thousand frame markets in the VLA space and Airbus did gain ten orders each from Fedex and UPS for the proposed freighter.
Airbus saw a market of hub to hub or focus city to hub flying where a VLA would work well.
One airline built its operations around the A380 and trampled all of its competitors until the current crisis,
That the extant -800 version was built with greater structural weight and more wing than it needed to accomodate the anticipated freighter and -900 developments along with older generation engines did not help the program.
WRT airport mods, they would have made no sense at a place like MCO but were needed at airports like JFK, LAX and even LAS that saw multiple A380s each day,
We saw them in Ohio about as much as you would have in Florida, like never, but when connecting through or terminating in a large international airport, I can recall telling wife "wow, there's an A380 !" but then another couple of them would come.
Too bad the whole project didn't quite work out.

Not sure was it 777 or competition within the house in A330.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Airbus was foolish to think an aircraft much bigger than a 747-400 would be very successful.

I wonder what was the demand for new 747s when the A380 was still on the 'drawing board' ?

Airports were foolish to spend big $$$ money to remodel for the A380. I knew when UPS and FedEx had no interest in this aircraft..... the A380 would have a short career with passenger airlines.



By the time AIrbus committed to the A380 Boeing had already replaced the 747 with its own 777.
The Airbus answer to the 747 was the A340 which the 777 killed in the market.
Both Airbus and Boeing forecast thousand frame markets in the VLA space and Airbus did gain ten orders each from Fedex and UPS for the proposed freighter.
Airbus saw a market of hub to hub or focus city to hub flying where a VLA would work well.
One airline built its operations around the A380 and trampled all of its competitors until the current crisis,
That the extant -800 version was built with greater structural weight and more wing than it needed to accomodate the anticipated freighter and -900 developments along with older generation engines did not help the program.
WRT airport mods, they would have made no sense at a place like MCO but were needed at airports like JFK, LAX and even LAS that saw multiple A380s each day,
We saw them in Ohio about as much as you would have in Florida, like never, but when connecting through or terminating in a large international airport, I can recall telling wife "wow, there's an A380 !" but then another couple of them would come.
Too bad the whole project didn't quite work out.

Not sure was it 777 or competition within the house in A330.


I don't think that the mid-nineties A330 had enough useful load or was capacious enough to obsolete the A340.
The 777 had more of both and the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.