EK A380's...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here or am I oversimplifying?
I am pointing at the claimed economical and environemental performance of the A380. If you look at the values it delivers, kg fuel vs. kg payload, both are behind the 777. Maybe NOx is better, but the burn is way too high. Explanation is simple: The bird weighs too much, not only due to the pathetic EK implants, but just as much coming out of Toulouse. It should be sent back Toulouse some weight!
A brand new aircraft design should basically not rely on yield to beat its rivals, as yield shows too many outside influences, not well controlable by the operator. It should outperform on burn vs. load and distance in the first place.
Second thing that is noteworthy: The 777 was the first all new aircraft designed from schratch, entirely by CAD, as almost all new designs after it. That was a huge risk, I remember all the predictions about entry in service. Now looking back, it made this very smoothly, good dispatch reliablity right from the start and kept it up to today. I just say that because this argument is now streched to excuse the not so shiny reliability of the A380, also a new plane designed by CAD (oh, yeah ...) and with basically the same technology.
I would have loved the bird to succeed, but it is quite a flop up to today and needs some serious revamping. EADS and EK might succeed in doing just that, but they will not, if they continue to cover-up the deficiencies, just for PR and face saving issues. Admit the flaw, like Ferrari at the F1 today, and stick your ears between your legs and start working on improvement.
Well pool - the 777 might have had a smooth entry in to EK service, but I do remember it being called the 'Cripple 7' by the Nigels..... Lots of 180 activity back then with it
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Middle East
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recession? What recession?
Has the A380 started on the daily morning service to BKK yet and - if so - what are the loads like on this popular route?
I am planning a trip in Summer and thought I would take advantage of the Whale's presence on the route to break my 380 duck. However, can't get a seat on it in F or J for love nor money in the combination of inbound and outbound dates that I am compelled to take. Y is widely available though.
Has the A380 started on the daily morning service to BKK yet and - if so - what are the loads like on this popular route?
I am planning a trip in Summer and thought I would take advantage of the Whale's presence on the route to break my 380 duck. However, can't get a seat on it in F or J for love nor money in the combination of inbound and outbound dates that I am compelled to take. Y is widely available though.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK were the second operator of the A380 and , especially with the very slow delivery rate, will pay a price for that in terms of reliability. The 777 was well proven and bugs removed before arriving in the fleet. The early 380s bugs will be sorted even if it is a slow process because of the relatively small and slow growing fleets.
The A 380 has its niche- and one which will grow. It is heavy for its size primarily because it is actually too small, the heavy wing and central structure being capable of supporting a much bigger/longer aircraft. The initial version is much as a 747SP to a 747. The recession will be tailing off in a year or two,- three at the most,- and the need for the bigger aircraft (which both Emirates and Cathay have said they want) will re-emerge and with the stretch its seat/mile costs will improve enormously. Even now it is the cheapest way in terms of aircraft mile cost to carry the difference between its capacity and that of a 777-300LR.
Many of the previous posts under this heading seem to be based on the long running Boeing good, Airbus bad battle and vice versa of course. The 777 is good and it will remain the very useful and versatile aircraft it is for a long time. The 787 on the other hand in its present form, apart from its production difficulties ,may well turn out to be too small at its midlife point as it offers much the same capacity as the 767-300 which was already suffering this problem with many carriers. The midlife point, not the date of introduction, is the oneto keep your eye on in figuring out the revenue/profit contribution of any aircraft over its life with a company. Emirates and others have for some time been urging a stretch , but Boeing, flush with orders and suffering 24/27 month delivery delays want to maximise return on the existing models and also delay a stretched 787 eating into 777 orders as naturally they want to maximise the return on that project. In doing so they risk losing the early market to the A 350 but at the moment they seem willing to take that risk in the interests of shorter term profitability. Presumably their financial people will have worked out exactly when they have to bite the bullet or do something else for the 350 seat market.
The A 380 has its niche- and one which will grow. It is heavy for its size primarily because it is actually too small, the heavy wing and central structure being capable of supporting a much bigger/longer aircraft. The initial version is much as a 747SP to a 747. The recession will be tailing off in a year or two,- three at the most,- and the need for the bigger aircraft (which both Emirates and Cathay have said they want) will re-emerge and with the stretch its seat/mile costs will improve enormously. Even now it is the cheapest way in terms of aircraft mile cost to carry the difference between its capacity and that of a 777-300LR.
Many of the previous posts under this heading seem to be based on the long running Boeing good, Airbus bad battle and vice versa of course. The 777 is good and it will remain the very useful and versatile aircraft it is for a long time. The 787 on the other hand in its present form, apart from its production difficulties ,may well turn out to be too small at its midlife point as it offers much the same capacity as the 767-300 which was already suffering this problem with many carriers. The midlife point, not the date of introduction, is the oneto keep your eye on in figuring out the revenue/profit contribution of any aircraft over its life with a company. Emirates and others have for some time been urging a stretch , but Boeing, flush with orders and suffering 24/27 month delivery delays want to maximise return on the existing models and also delay a stretched 787 eating into 777 orders as naturally they want to maximise the return on that project. In doing so they risk losing the early market to the A 350 but at the moment they seem willing to take that risk in the interests of shorter term profitability. Presumably their financial people will have worked out exactly when they have to bite the bullet or do something else for the 350 seat market.
