Airbus A380 rolls out!

[Omag 2.0]

I saw it on the news this morning, they said it seats over 500, has a bar, lounge, and the first class seats fold out to complete beds! I still cant get over how friggin huge it is.

That's the luxury edition, the charter edition can house over 800 (!) passengers.

[Hagar]

That's the luxury edition, the charter edition can house over 800 (!) passengers.

Strangely enough I haven't seen that mentioned in the latest publicity. They seem to be promoting the luxury edition for some reason. Richard Branson was on the radio yesterday going on about a fully equipped gymnasium, double beds & a bigger bar on all Virgin 380s. I thought that alcohol was the main cause of these "air rage" incidents. I suppose they must know what they're doing.

PS. I forgot the casino.
Here's what he said.

Virgin Atlantic is taking no chances -- it will offer a beauty therapist area, a gym, a casino and double beds.

"Since you have gaming and you have private double beds maybe there are two ways of getting lucky on a Virgin plane," Virgin Chairman Richard Branson told reporters.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=656052§ion=news&src=rss/uk/topNews

[Saitek]

Myself, I'm extremely concerned. 800 people - what if there is a crash? Talk of a Titanic disaster.
The crashes on 9/11 were only a third of that in numbers, imagine what a terrorits could do with that plane.

[Chris_F]

With more air travelers wanting to fly direct to their destination instead of through hubs the smart money (IMO) is on Boeing's new 7E7.  The 380 will probably be popular among cargo carriers as hubbing strategies are likely to remain popular in those industries, but for passenger traffic I predict a move to smaller flights to and from smaller airports.

Short term though I'm sure Airbus will sell lots of 380's.  I've heard Boeing's original desire with the 747 was to have two full passenger decks as well, however legally they weren't allowed to because of emergency egress concerns.  IIRC Airbus didn't solve this technical hurdle and instead found a political way around the requirement.

[Woodlouse2002]

I personally see the A380 taking over from the 747. It's already sold well in Asia, and I don't doubt that it will dominate the atlantic route as well as any other popular longhaul destination.

[`Josh]

what airport will that be Josh?

That would be MEM!  

(sorry about takin' long to respond......)

[Craig.]

Its cool, thanks, same place i plan on going to see some A380's:)

[Jared]

Funny you should mention this, we had a two hour discussion on this very topic in Air Transprotation Systems class this morning..:-)

We decided that it is a tremendous advancement in aerospace technolgy and speaks wonders for what computers can do to helping build a superstructure this big. While there are already companies with orders for the aircraft, they can still back out, albeit under a penalty fee, but that would be miniscule compared to buying an aicraft that they won't use as much as others.

Our profesor who just came from Florida was one of the big shot people at Miami Dade County airport, and he said that they had accomodated some russian antonovs (sp?) and had done many studies to test if the A380 landing would be a practical solution to air travel.  In the end their airport decided that they would lose too much gate space and gain way too many people in too short a time. Ie, if just say 5-6 of these 380's landed within an hour they would have over 5,000 passengers to deplane and get through customs..etc...

Dont' get me wrong, we see this aircaft as a successful aircraft, but perhaps not here in America...

Just my two cents...

*don't shoot me..*

[Chris_F]

Dont' get me wrong, we see this aircaft as a successful aircraft, but perhaps not here in America...

I think Europe and inter-asia will eventually move away from hubbing as well.

[Craig.]

The one route companies should be aimimng for is Londay sydney direct. The new 777 can do it one way but if a company can build an aircraft that can do it both, they would hit it huge.

[Woodlouse2002]

If the cost of getting a connecting flight is considerably cheaper than getting one direct then people will choose the cheaper option. With the Airbus A380 a huge number of people can be moved in one flight which will make ticket prices cheap incomparison to all twin engined planes and even the 747. And when it comes to flying across oceans, you rarely have the chance to choose your precise destination. The A380 will do very well.

[Chris_F]

If the cost of getting a connecting flight is considerably cheaper than getting one direct then people will choose the cheaper option. With the Airbus A380 a huge number of people can be moved in one flight which will make ticket prices cheap incomparison to all twin engined planes and even the 747. And when it comes to flying across oceans, you rarely have the chance to choose your precise destination. The A380 will do very well.

The cost per passenger-mile on the big planes is indeed cheaper than for the small planes making hubbing apear to be the cheapest option.  But there are business considerations that makes this obvious choice (hubbing versus direct flights) not necessarily the best choice.  Hint: it's the reason SoutWest is successful whereas the longtime airlines (USAir, United, etc) are struggling.

Flying passengers to local hubs, then splitting them off on big airplanes over long distances to other local hubs can be enormously efficient.  It works very well for cargo and, when demand is high and consumers don't have options of direct flights, it works well with people.

But it's only cheap to do when the long haul routes are full of passengers.  I flew from Boston to Denver (I may have the destination wrong) on a half full 747.  That flight wasn't exactly the lowest cost way to get me and my fellow passengers where we were going.  By the same token every SouthWest flight I've ever taken has been at least 80% full.  It's cheaper to fly two full small planes than it is to fly two half full big planes.

There are other considerations.  The first is pricing pressures: the cost to fly a plane is disconnected from what you charge your passengers.  You charge your passengers as much as they're willing to pay for your flight.  This is determined by who your passenger is (business vs. pleasure travel), where they're flying from and to and at what time, and how you get them there.  You can charge a bit more for getting them there direct and fast than you can by forcing them to wait in Atlanta for an hour between flights.  So direct to destination flights can be priced higher than hub flights.

So, partially full hub flights puts hubbing closer in real costs to direct flights, and you can charge more for direct flights because people like them more.   The SouthWest business model looks better and better.  Enter some competition in to the mix...

...if the direct to destination carrier wants to go after market share they only need to match the hub carrier's prices to steal that share, vs undercut the price.  I know when I look at flights I always choose the direct if it's the same price.  That fills seats on the direct to destination flight and empties seats on the jumbo flying between hubs.  And the whole hub scheem starts to crack at the seams when the cost (not price, remember price is determined by the customer, cost by the supplier, and price-cost=profit or loss) inches up over the cost to fly direct.  (Oh, and by the way, overcrowded central hub airports are more expensive to fly in and out of.)  Which is exactly where we are today.  Major airlines are invested in hubbing in the name of economy but can't compete in price or service with direct to destination airlines like SouthWest.  So they squeeze the cost out of there people to try and make up the difference.

It's hard to see the forrest through the trees when you're an exec in one of those companies.  But Boeing knows full well who's doing well and what platforms they'll need in the future.  IMO Airbus is too tied up in the European market to feel the winds of change going on on this side of the 'pond.  But eventually Europe will have it's own SouthWest revolution when some upstart airline starts offering low cost direct to destination service through smaller airports.  

Then who'll buy the A380?  There'll still be a market for those routes where flying direct will never make sense: trans oceanic, Europe or America to Asia, etc.  And cargo hubbing will work well for a long time to come (cargo doesn't care about connecting flights and there's enough of it around so filling a A380 with stuff isn't a problem).  But the market is shrinking and destined to shring further yet.

Cost per passenger seat mile is only a real number when all the seats are full and passengers want to fly to those destinations...

[C]

The one route companies should be aimimng for is Londay sydney direct. The new 777 can do it one way but if a company can build an aircraft that can do it both, they would hit it huge.

I'm not sure I'd want to be on a flight that length though. I'd rather fly that distance in a single seat jet (if it had a loo of course... )

Charlie

[Hagar]

The one route companies should be aimimng for is Londay sydney direct. The new 777 can do it one way but if a company can build an aircraft that can do it both, they would hit it huge.

I have to agree with Charlie. London - Sydney is a long way & would be a long enough flight non-stop. I don't see the advantage of your suggestion. I believe that BALPA members are already refusing to fly the A380 until their duty hours for individual flights are sorted out. This would probably involve relief crews as I think the suggested range of the A380 is something like 20 hours.

As for this hub vs direct destination argument, this seems based on internal flights in the US. I think the A380 will come into its own on long-range international flights, much as the 747 has done for so many years. In theory anyway, using efficient high-capacity aircraft would relieve the already overcrowded skies over Europe & also help satisfy the environment lobby. If seat prices are cheap enough an airline might get away with one flight per day instead of 2 or 3.

[Craig.]

I'm not saying its a nice route. However it is a route a number of airlines are looking into with the new 777 meaning it will one day happen. I know after 11 hours 45 mins on an md11 that anything longer would be hell. But avoiding singapore or hong kong will mean cutting down costs like landing fees gate fees stationing fees for crew and so on. If it saves money the airlines will do it. The A380 would be ideal for the route if it could do it, as the seat config could be adjusted for more leg room, and with the added space passengers can get out and walk around alot easier.