achace wrote:Its all a matter of semantics Smokejumper.
I'm sure you wouldnt expect any airline to use two 737 instead of one 787 either.
Its the same argument.
The 380 and 748 will be high density movers, certainly not purchased for low load factor routes.
Cheers
Achace
I have to disagree. Alaska Airlines uses 737s almost exclusively, and they are getting rid of the MD80s.
At times they have 2-3 of them leaving Anchorage for Seattle, all within a few minutes of each other.
Its the flexibility that works, as some go on beyond Seattle, some turn around and back to Anchorage.
Some run routes not through Seattle. I would have thought they would have picked up a 767 or A330 to do the heavy use Seattle- Anchorage-Seattle run, but the ability to mix, match and split has trumped that thought, and they do not plan on anything other than 737s (and its a 1500 mile flight, and the are not a LCC) .
American downsized and gave up their 747s.
Obviously some airlines think the A380 works, and maybe it does, but smaller jets work as well. Its an interesting contrast of models.
Be that what it may, the slowdown in A380 sales has as much to do with the fact that the discounts were off, and they quit selling. There was no movement in sales just before all the delays became public, and it was flying. That’s a bad sign.
Now its in trouble, discounts are back on, and they have gained some sales from existing carriers. No new carriers, and it seems a good guess that MAS will back out. With the freighter sales dropped, on the surface they are about even (though a loss of 40 aircraft in this market is a huge hit, let alone probably no freighter sales ever.
The damming statistic is that its sold more or less 160, in 7 years. Break even is 420 ( per Airbus), and as high as 520 according to the worst figure I have seen. And how is that calculated? Is it 420 sales in 10 years? Airbus has always claimed a lot more sales in 20 years. What does that mean if it doesn’t do that for another 20? The ROI just gets worse and will suck the life out of Airbus, and at some point you have to let it go (if I am right and it does not sell enough fast enough). 3 steps back, for 2 steps forward is going backwards, even if slowly.
Compare that to the 747-8 with 80 combined sales, and solid prospects on the options, pushing it upwards of 100+ in 2 years. Boeing just would not do a new 747 until the interest was there, and they obviously judged it well.
787 is even more stunning, as it keeps selling well even just before its first flight, when airlines are normally the most nervous about buying an aircraft (let alone a huge leap like this one is). And while options and purchase rights are normally nebulous, its obvious that those will be picked up with this aircraft if it proves its merit.
If Airbus does not get the A350 right? (and Emirates is publicly vocal that they are not happy with it).
) over the weekend published conclusions about the EU-US 'open sky' agreement, some concluded that the agreement will push small(er) airports out of that market. A conclusion I can adhere too.
Only AQ's 73Gs are capable of that flight and 