Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times:  Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

To get a sense of the Airbus A380's size and ambition, walk up the grand staircase of an Emirates version of the aircraft, past the showers and the first-class suites and then through endless rows in business class to the bar at the back of the upper deck. This sleek semicircle, alluringly underlit and fully stocked with pricey spirits like Grey Goose vodka, is undoubtedly one of the defining features of this aircraft, which can hold more than 500 passengers. The plane dwarfs every commercial jet in the skies.

Since it started flying commercially seven years ago, the A380 has caught the imagination of travelers. Its two full-length decks total 6,000 square feet, 50 percent more than the original jumbo jet, the Boeing 747. Its wingspan barely fits inside a football field. Its four engines take this 560-ton airplane to a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet in less than 15 minutes, a surprisingly smooth ascent for such a bulky plane. Passengers love it because it's quiet and more reminiscent of a cruise ship than an airplane.

[Brandon]

Yet...

Airbus has struggled to sell the planes. Orders have been slow, and not a single buyer has been found in the United States, South America, Africa or India. Only one airline in China has ordered it, and its only customer in Japan has canceled. Even existing customers are paring down orders.

And the 747 still sells better, but even it is running into the same issues.

But critics like Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax, Va., say the main problem is more fundamental: Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes – no matter their feats of engineering – that make connections through huge hubs.

"It's a commercial disaster,"  Mr. Aboulafia says. "Every conceivably bad idea that anyone's ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane."

The Euros made the wrong choice about airplanes again, the last one being the Concorde instead of a jumbo.

A little more than a decade ago, the two dominant airplane makers, Boeing and Airbus, looked at where their businesses were headed and saw similar facts: air traffic doubling every 15 years, estimates that the number of travelers would hit four billion by 2030 – and came to radically different conclusions about what those numbers meant for their future.

Boeing figured that traffic would move away from big hubs and toward secondary airports. So it started to build a smaller, more fuel-efficient long-range aircraft, which became known as the 787 Dreamliner.

I don't expect the A380 to last long in production.

And most telling...

And Virgin Atlantic, which has options for six A380s, remains undecided about whether to proceed. The airline was partly acquired by Delta Air Lines in 2012; Richard H. Anderson, Delta's chief executive, has said the A380 is "by definition an uneconomic airplane unless you're a state-owned enterprise with subsidies."

[formulanone]

I'm going to guess that the 747 is more of a known quantity in both the cargo and passenger jet industry. It's been around for over 40 years. Less need for specialized equipment if you require tugs, repair, maintenance, jet bridges by sticking with the old standard.

Some foreign carriers like Emarites do a lot of long-haul travel, and for the amenities and distances involved, they charge good money for it. Many of their clientele are quite wealthy, and to hear it from others, their in-flight service is unparalleled (although I'm sure that varies quite a bit from coach to business class).

Most US-based airlines specialize in domestic travel, and while there used to be perhaps two cross-continent flights a day from say...New York to LA, there's now 5 or more. A lot of it is also due to the spoke and hub method, which is usually far more efficient. There's almost no need for a 300-seater to a medium-sized airport (a non-hub) except for peak times or for re-positioning.

In the case of longer distances with less passengers, many smaller and even medium-sized aircraft like 767s, A330s, and even A321s or 757s can handle it, if they're fitted with larger fuel cells and rated to do so. I'm guessing this is why Airbus also has the future A350 to match up against the 787 for the long-haul market.

Most US airlines fly some average two-hour flight, and they couldn't find 400 people who need to go to the same destination and the same times, with the competition that exists. From an economic sense, they're not going to use a larger, half-empty aircraft with anything more than a bit more fuel than necessary.

The days of jumbo jets or widebodies coming to smaller airports is long gone, save for cargo purposes. I could see the A380 going towards a useful cargo career, with its  ostensibly larger capacity.

[Sanctimoniously]

The days of jumbo jets or widebodies coming to smaller airports is long gone, save for cargo purposes. I could see the A380 going towards a useful cargo career, with its  ostensibly larger capacity.

One thing that could hinder this is the fact that the 747 was designed from the beginning to be easily converted to a freighter (many cargo 747s are converted passenger aircraft, even the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and SOFIA telescope aircraft are), whereas the A380 was not. Developing a freighter version of the A380 would require considerable additional engineering and expense, and probably won't happen.

[SteveG1988]

The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.

[1995hoo]

I can see some useful niche routes for the A380 on particularly busy routes. London to New York would be one fine example; I don't know if BA are using theirs on that route yet, but I know they use an A380 on one daily flight from Heathrow to Dulles, as does Air France on the Paris CDG—to-Dulles route. I'd imagine there are probably some very busy routes somewhere in Asia that might be appropriate for that aircraft as well. Thing about a lot of the aircraft now is they're trying to spiff up the interior in various ways in order to hide the fact that they're cramming more and more people into aircraft for longer and longer flights. Ugh. Obviously I'm biased (look at my avatar), but give me a faster trip even if it costs more.

[SteveG1988]

I wonder if the a380 is that much slower on the same route compared to a 747 or 777. The 767 or 757 are probably faster.

[PHLBOS]

A few things to consider:

1.  When the 747 first rolled out, the airline industry in the US was regulated; airlines couldn't just add routes or frequencies at will, such had to be approved by the now long-defunct Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB).  Note: prior to Deregulation that took place in 1978, Southwest Airlines was an Intra-state carrier that only served Texas and was subject to the Texas Aeronautics Board.

2.  Several domestic airlines like Eastern, Delta (their recent 747s came as a result of the 2008-2009 merger w/Northwest), Continental and even American initially tried the 747 but realized that it was simply too-much plane for their markets and opted for slightly smaller 3-engined wide-bodied aircraft like the DC-10 and L-1011 that became available later.  For a very brief period, Delta had all 3 widebodies (747, DC-10, L-1011) in their fleet simultaneoulsy.  Delta & Eastern unloaded their 747s years before Deregulation; American and Continental would unload theirs later.  Heck, even TWA (one of the 747's launch customers) retired their 747s a few years prior to its merger w/American (which took place in 2001 months before 9/11).  I'm not sure whether the original National Airlines dumped their 747s years prior to their merger w/PanAm in 1980 or not.

3.  Once Deregulation became reality, many airlines opted for smaller aircraft (like the DC-9-based MD-80) as a means of boosting frequency but not capacity.  Such has been happening even moreso w/smaller aircraft (regional jets flown by regional/commuter airline affiliates vs. mainline jets) over the last two decades.

4.  Smaller aircraft like the newer-generation 737s (-600s through -900s) and the Airbus 318/319/320/321 could, in most instances, fly non-stop transcontinental routes.  In 2005, I flew EWR-SEA non-stop on a Continental Airlines 737-800.

5.  The majority of airports' airfields in the US aren't designed to handle regularly-scheduled A380 operations. 

For airport/airfield design, The FAA has six different aircraft design groups (called Groups I through VI) based on wingspan ranges.  These design groups set parameters/criteria not only for runway, taxiway & taxilane widths but also for spacing between said-runways/taxiways/taxilanes.  The latter is what makes A380 operations an issue at most airports in the US.  Whereas the 747-100, -200, -300, -400 are classified as Group V aircraft; the A380 (as well as the new 747-800) are classified as Group VI aircraft.  The majority of the largest airports in the US were designed for Group V aircraft operations.  Upgrading airfields (i.e. reconfiguring/respacing taxiways) to Group VI standards, like highway expansions, can be a long grueling process not so much from a construction standpoint; but from a permitting and operations (i.e. maintenance of traffic) standpoint as well as cost.  At PHL, it took nearly a decade to get a one-way commuter runway (8-26) built and at BOS, it took nearly 30 years to get a similar one-way commuter runway (14-32) built.

IIRC, only five airports in the US are allowed by the FAA to handle regular (vs. isolated landings or diversions) Group VI aircraft operations (LAX, SFO, IAD, JFK, *I'm not sure which airport is the 5th*) and not all of those 5 airports have upgraded their airfields to Group VI standards.  JFK, I know, got a waiver for such; but that's doesn't mean there aren't any issues.  Several years ago while taxiing at JFK, an Air France A380's wing touched and spun a parked Comair (Delta Connection) regional jet (CRJ-700).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbY5olO1M7k

To be clear, this does not necessarily mean that other airports can't allow Group VI aircraft like the A380 to occasionally land and taxi; it simply means that if one comes in, the ATC (air traffic controllers) have to keep other aircraft away from any adjacent and parallel taxiways (to avoid any wing incursions) and direct the Group VI aricraft only along certain taxiways.  Such has been done whenever and Antonov-124 (also a Group VI aircraft based on its wingspan) carrying aircraft parts (for Boeing's Helicopter facility in Ridley Park) lands at PHL.

6.  A proposed cargo variant of the A380 never made it into production because no cargo carrier wanted it.  Either FedEx and/or UPS originally ordered the type but withdrew.

Long story, short; Group VI aircraft like the A380 have a very limited appeal in the actual US airline market.  If carriers were already dumping their 747s (Delta (Northwest prior to the merger a few years ago) & United have been the only US airlines flying the type since the late-1990s); why would they opt for even a bigger aircraft like the A380 or even the 747-800 (whose wider wingspan places it in the Group VI category). 

Nonetheless, I could see them being used in the Trans-Pacific market in the US; but that's about it.

[formulanone]

IIRC, only five airports in the US are allowed by the FAA to handle regular (vs. isolated landings or diversions) Group VI aircraft operations (LAX, SFO, IAD, JFK, *I'm not sure which airport is the 5th*) and not all of those 5 airports have upgraded their airfields to Group VI standards.  JFK, I know, got a waiver for such; but that's doesn't mean there aren't any issues.  Several years ago while taxiing at JFK, an Air France A380's wing touched and spun a parked Comair (Delta Connection) regional jet (CRJ-700).

I've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.

It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA).

When Comair was active, their flight attendants would chide 1st and 2nd-row passengers if we'd unbuckled just shy of the gate, and tell us that story. Their planes were tiny enough if you're over 5'8", so a jolt like that while standing or while getting up, could leave a mark...

[PHLBOS]

I've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.

ATL had a new runway (their 5th) and related taxiways built about 9 years ago; knowing that the Group VI aircraft like the A380 was coming, at least that portion of the airfield was likely designed to handle such aircraft. 

To clarify, airports serving alliance partners (like Sky Team, One World and/or Star Alliance) does not automatically mean that said-airport is automatically approved by the FAA for Group VI aircraft operations.  The airport either has to have its airfield designed for such (or at least in progress) or submit a waiver to the FAA for approval.

It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA).

Actually, according to the FAA Advisory Circular for Airport Design (AC 150/5300-13A) the required runway width for Group VI aircraft (regardless of approach category) is 200 feet, whereas the required runway width for Group V aircraft is 150 feet.  I believe that's a recent change; previous versions (prior to 2012) of that AC had the required design width for Group VI aircraft equal to that of Group V aircraft (150 feet).

[DeaconG]

I've seen an A380 in two airports: JFK (three times, three different airlines) and ATL (last week). With Air France and Korean Air both using them, I would be surprised if ATL wasn't approved, since they're Sky Team partners.

ATL had a new runway (their 5th) and related taxiways built about 9 years ago; knowing that the Group VI aircraft like the A380 was coming, at least that portion of the airfield was likely designed to handle such aircraft. 

To clarify, airports serving alliance partners (like Sky Team, One World and/or Star Alliance) does not automatically mean that said-airport is automatically approved by the FAA for Group VI aircraft operations.  The airport either has to have its airfield designed for such (or at least in progress) or submit a waiver to the FAA for approval.

It looks like Miami International is the sixth one (no wait, Runway 9/27 is a stitch too narrow, but okay'ed by the FAA).

Actually, according to the FAA Advisory Circular for Airport Design (AC 150/5300-13A) the required runway width for Group VI aircraft (regardless of approach category) is 200 feet, whereas the required runway width for Group V aircraft is 150 feet.  I believe that's a recent change; previous versions (prior to 2012) of that AC had the required design width for Group VI aircraft equal to that of Group V aircraft (150 feet).

Looks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.

HTH

[PHLBOS]

Looks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.

HTH

Again, having a runway designed for Group VI aircraft is one thing; one also needs to have the taxiways & taxilanes sized and spaced for Group VI aircraft as well.

[cpzilliacus]

The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.

I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).

I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.

[cpzilliacus]

Looks like Orlando's Runway 18/36 may be the fifth, I pulled up an Excel file from the FAA's Airport Data and Contact Information page, it's 200 feet wide and 12,000 feet long.
Unfortunately, I can't bookmark the specific page; you'll have to go to the FAA website under Airports>Airport Safety>Airport Data and Contact Information.

HTH

Again, having a runway designed for Group VI aircraft is one thing; one also needs to have the taxiways & taxilanes sized and spaced for Group VI aircraft as well.

I think MWAA had to do some work with its gates to handle the A380 at IAD.

[PHLBOS]

I think MWAA had to do some work with its gates to handle the A380 at IAD.

For the existing terminals, for sure but I believe (it's been a while since I've looked at the plans) that the future terminals will have a handful of gates spaced for A380 aircraft.

I'm assuming that where any A380 aircraft parks today; the adjacent gates can't be used.  Similar is probably true for other airports in the US that have A380 operations at existing terminals.

[formulanone]

The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.

I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).

I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.

None, that I've seen. Lately, I try to note what aircraft is available, and adjust accordingly.

United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific  flights.

Quite frankly, I barely understand how the airlines turn a profit flying $10-50 million machinery for some 500 dollar fare.

[TheStranger]

United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific  flights.

As recently as two-three years ago, there were a few United 747 flights from SFO-O'Hare.  Not many though.

[PHLBOS]

United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.

If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it.  At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not.  United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.

IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL.  On other routes and with most other carriers; one's lucky if they get a 757 scheduled on a trans-continental route.

[formulanone]

United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.

If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it.  At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not.  United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.

IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL.

Gimme a break, I type on a phone. I wasn't going to break down each Delta flight, USAir, et al.

[PHLBOS]

United has a few 787s doing hub-to-hub work, 767s for some cross-country flights, a few 777s...but all four-engined passenger aircraft like A340s and 747s are for international trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights.

If the latter part of your sentence (regarding 4-engined aircraft) was intended for other carriers besides United; I would've reworded it.  At a glance, it gives the impression that you're saying that United flies the A340 which it does not.  United has never flown any widebody Airbusses.

IIRC, I believe Delta still flies 767s on some trans-continental routes to/from ATL.

Gimme a break, I type on a phone.

With all due respect, that's not my problem.   

Had you posted similar on Airliners.net; you would've gotten a stiffer rebuke (I'm not kidding on that).

I wasn't going to break down each Delta flight, USAir, et al.

You didn't need to; I already covered such just when you posted your reply to my reply, reposted below.

On other routes and with most other carriers; one's lucky if they get a 757 scheduled on a trans-continental route.

[formulanone]

Yes, the pedantic sort that will rip others for a slightly ungainly photo of a plane. Omg! A flap obscures the minuscule difference between subtypes, rejected.

I don't have time to medal in Olympic pissing contests.

(And the hell if an Apple phone doesn't try to warp posts into even less sense!)

[1995hoo]

Yes, the pedantic sort that will rip others for a slightly ungainly photo of a plane. Omg! A flap obscures the minuscule difference between subtypes, rejected.

I don't have time to medal in Olympic pissing contests.

....

You just have to ignore the know-it-all attitude when you encounter it, though it's not always easy to do so.

[realjd]

The main issue here is cost per unit. A380 has uses,but there are no ways to make a profit. Same thing killed most domestic wide body service. Until the 80s and 90s a dc10 or 767 would do cross country.Fuel prices went up causing them to fly with smaller aircraft like the 757 or 737.

I can remember when United and American would fly 747's cross country (like JFK to LAX).

I don't think any airline does that today in the U.S.

Airlines still do, but it's usually to reposition an international configured aircraft. Delta uses 777s LAX-SYD and ATL-JNB. The usual route was SYD-LAX-ATL-JNB and back. I'll often also fly international configured A330s LAX-ATL.

Delta used to throw in an ATL-MCO-ATL run with the 777 but I haven't seen that in a number of years. And they do sometimes run a DTW-ATL route with a 747.

[DAL764]

Delta used to throw in an ATL-MCO-ATL run with the 777 but I haven't seen that in a number of years. And they do sometimes run a DTW-ATL route with a 747.

777s were usually used to MCO as training flights to get pilots used to the aircraft before sending them on longhaul flights. For a while Delta even operated an ATL-FLL-JFK routing with their 777s, though that didn't really last too long.

On the topic of the A380 at Atlanta, since early 2012 ATL has made adjustments to the taxiways and the 09/27 runways to handle the A380. They didn't widen the runways or taxiways themselves, but rather widened the paved blast areas on each side by about 15 feet. They didn't really add an actual A380 gate either, they rather added a single jetway and ramp markings at gate E3 where the A380 has to park at an angle, which forces the closure of E1 while the Whale is using E3. Using only 2 jetways to unload an A380 isn't standard either, but then, considering only Korean uses the A380 to ATL for one single flight, and no one else is likely to bring the A380 into ATL in the foreseeable future, this was about as much capital expenditure as ATL was willing to invest to handle the A380.

[SteveG1988]

The A380 is a "Halo" Model for airbus, basically, it is there to sell the smaller aircraft. it is like the Dodge Viper, Ford GT40, Chevrolet Corvette, it sells the lower end models. "look at what they can do with a huge aircraft... i bet their smaller stuff is just as good" The money has always been in the small to mid sized aircraft, the 747 was never expected to turn a profit as a passenger jet, yet it did, and then some as a freighter. Boeing makes their money on the 737/767/777. The 747 is not that widely ordered any more, since everyone has one.