Does anyone know on which routes are Air France likely to use the A380?
Captain
On which routes will Air France use the Airbus A380
Moderator: Latest news team
From that perspective, Los Angeles wouldn't qualify, but from passenger numbers (on AF) I'd say LA is definitely a candidate.Bowlie wrote:a short transatlantic crossing allows them to bring their flight crews up to speed (pun intended) quicker - more takeoffs and landings, more bang for the buck (or euro)
Tokyo Narita is another one. Maybe one of the destinations in South East Asia also (Bangkok or Singapore?)
Hans.
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
JFK, YUL, PEK and NRT should be the first 4 destinations, with quite a lot of other destinations being studied.
Frederic
For sure, because NRT is extremely slot restricted. AF currently flies 3 times daily to NRT, and the A380 is most probably the only solution for further expansion on the route.Sn26567 wrote:I would think that Tokyo Narita would also be a sensible candidate for AF A380 flights.
Frederic
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
-
Vinnie-Winnie
- Posts: 955
- Joined: 01 Jul 2004, 00:00
- Location: London
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
BKK is unlikely in my opinion. AF currently flies 1x daily between CDG and BKK using A343 equipment. SIN is being studied by AF.Ovostar wrote:how about Bancock and Singapore
AF has recently upgraded IAD to 3 daily flights if I'm not mistaken. However, I don't think that IAD is a priority for A380 operations.Vinnie-Winnie wrote:What about Washington?
Frederic
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
No use to fly between Fortaleza and Novosibirks with A380...
History is a perpetual repetition.
I think we will go again for 'change of gauge' as it is called in aviation slang or gibberish.
It happened a lot in the early 70ties, when the B747 was introduced.
In the years before, B707 Intercontinental and DC8s were the workhorses.
Both with a capacity of <200 seats. When the B747s were put in line the capacity in some cases doubled. So destinations got pooled: two or three destinations in a same area were flown on one B747 with the exception that the 747 did go only to one of the two or three D.
Let say the A380 destination was B. From that point B passengers and cargo would travel to the destinations Y & Z on an other (smaller) aircraft, a smaller gauge. The change of gauge.
I think this will happen again with the A380.
This superjumbo will fly to a selection of airports that can accommodate the giant, to and from these airports, the airline or in coop with partner(s) will have other aircraft flying to the other final destinations. Alliances and codesharing was not invented for the fun of it, but come in handy in this kind of operations.
So A380 airports will in the beginning be the 'happy' few, as were the airports to accommodate the first 747s in the 70ties.
An other issue to consider is that the A380 is made for flying, so the airlines will like to elaborate rotations that fit in a 24h scheme, fitting the A380 for 7/7 or daily flights.
Flying to New York (BOS, YUL - East Coast iow) will bring with it lots of idle time, and the fare levels are not that high nowadays that they might compensate for the time on ground. Ideal would be flights of about avg 10h (avg because eg outbound and inbound PAR-BKK do not have the same flying time)
And finally the giants will fly on high density relations. No use to fly between Fortaleza and Novosibirks with such equipment next year, isn't it?
Now for Air France, that is the question. You would make a list of the airports that accomodate the giant, compare that to AF's route map, select the avg 10h flights and add some 'prestige' destinations, and you would be pretty close to their final draft.
I think we will go again for 'change of gauge' as it is called in aviation slang or gibberish.
It happened a lot in the early 70ties, when the B747 was introduced.
In the years before, B707 Intercontinental and DC8s were the workhorses.
Both with a capacity of <200 seats. When the B747s were put in line the capacity in some cases doubled. So destinations got pooled: two or three destinations in a same area were flown on one B747 with the exception that the 747 did go only to one of the two or three D.
Let say the A380 destination was B. From that point B passengers and cargo would travel to the destinations Y & Z on an other (smaller) aircraft, a smaller gauge. The change of gauge.
I think this will happen again with the A380.
This superjumbo will fly to a selection of airports that can accommodate the giant, to and from these airports, the airline or in coop with partner(s) will have other aircraft flying to the other final destinations. Alliances and codesharing was not invented for the fun of it, but come in handy in this kind of operations.
So A380 airports will in the beginning be the 'happy' few, as were the airports to accommodate the first 747s in the 70ties.
An other issue to consider is that the A380 is made for flying, so the airlines will like to elaborate rotations that fit in a 24h scheme, fitting the A380 for 7/7 or daily flights.
Flying to New York (BOS, YUL - East Coast iow) will bring with it lots of idle time, and the fare levels are not that high nowadays that they might compensate for the time on ground. Ideal would be flights of about avg 10h (avg because eg outbound and inbound PAR-BKK do not have the same flying time)
And finally the giants will fly on high density relations. No use to fly between Fortaleza and Novosibirks with such equipment next year, isn't it?
Now for Air France, that is the question. You would make a list of the airports that accomodate the giant, compare that to AF's route map, select the avg 10h flights and add some 'prestige' destinations, and you would be pretty close to their final draft.