http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... order.html
I was wrong on the B744 Domestics though, if any A380, they say it will be on high-load long-haul.
ANA flirting with the A380
Moderator: Latest news team
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
ANA flirting with the A380
My recent suspicions are covered in the next article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... order.html
I was wrong on the B744 Domestics though, if any A380, they say it will be on high-load long-haul.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... order.html
I was wrong on the B744 Domestics though, if any A380, they say it will be on high-load long-haul.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all
-
Gliderpilot
- Posts: 157
- Joined: 14 Jun 2007, 11:56
- Contact:
-
cageyjames
- Posts: 514
- Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 00:00
- Location: On Lease to PHL
I think perhaps the better way to say that is the Japanese carriers and Boeing have had a long term relationship, that has worked well for both parties. Some run to the coolest price and good deal, and some understand that long term relationships have their reward.
Some interesting items on the A380 from Av Week.
It is still 6 tons overweight (maybe that’s why Singapore is only carrying 471 passengers!)
Even at 6 tons it suits those who have bought it, though that does bring credence to what Boeing has said and calculated that the 747-8I is as economical.
Associated comment was the fuel burn was suffering as a result of the weight.
None of the buyers want them to mess with a new model until they have their deliveries caught up ( worrying that they might never get them before the program shuts down?). Nothing until at least 2015 according to JL (maybe listening finally) despite JL being a model happy sales guy who likes to have lots of things to sell (even if it doesn’t make any money). They are still talking about the freighter.
Interesting thought (or so I think) that the Euro to dollar imbalance actually is what’s keeping Boeing competitive with the launch aid (offsetting penalties as it were).
They also say that the break even is on the other side of 500 aircraft, and that keeps moving further out with the delays (and I will add in the discounts). Goal posts keep moving further down the field.
Some interesting items on the A380 from Av Week.
It is still 6 tons overweight (maybe that’s why Singapore is only carrying 471 passengers!)
Even at 6 tons it suits those who have bought it, though that does bring credence to what Boeing has said and calculated that the 747-8I is as economical.
Associated comment was the fuel burn was suffering as a result of the weight.
None of the buyers want them to mess with a new model until they have their deliveries caught up ( worrying that they might never get them before the program shuts down?). Nothing until at least 2015 according to JL (maybe listening finally) despite JL being a model happy sales guy who likes to have lots of things to sell (even if it doesn’t make any money). They are still talking about the freighter.
Interesting thought (or so I think) that the Euro to dollar imbalance actually is what’s keeping Boeing competitive with the launch aid (offsetting penalties as it were).
They also say that the break even is on the other side of 500 aircraft, and that keeps moving further out with the delays (and I will add in the discounts). Goal posts keep moving further down the field.
RC20, I like it when you put down some of your carefully thought out assertions, but when you are wearing your Boeing hat, I am sorry you go over the top.
Six tons overweight could be pretty serious, but it is less than 1% of gross weight.
Interestingly, the weight issue has been more pronounced on the EA version. They have just given Volvo a nacelle contract, which if memory serves me correctly reduces each engines installed weight by 600kg.
As for SIA and their reduced passenger load, I truly hope your comment was tongue in cheek!
Fifty passengers over 15,000km is about 25 tonnes of fuel.
For the record, the Trent and EA engines have come in with lower fuel burn, and at mach 0.85, the guaranteed speed, they needed less power, as the design thrust produced a cruise speed of mach 0.86.
This has adequately offset the weight issue, vis order additions and new orders.
Cheers
Achace
Six tons overweight could be pretty serious, but it is less than 1% of gross weight.
Interestingly, the weight issue has been more pronounced on the EA version. They have just given Volvo a nacelle contract, which if memory serves me correctly reduces each engines installed weight by 600kg.
As for SIA and their reduced passenger load, I truly hope your comment was tongue in cheek!
Fifty passengers over 15,000km is about 25 tonnes of fuel.
For the record, the Trent and EA engines have come in with lower fuel burn, and at mach 0.85, the guaranteed speed, they needed less power, as the design thrust produced a cruise speed of mach 0.86.
This has adequately offset the weight issue, vis order additions and new orders.
Cheers
Achace
RC20, I like it when you put down some of your carefully thought out assertions, but when you are wearing your Boeing hat, I am sorry you go over the top.
Six tons overweight could be pretty serious, but it is less than 1% of gross weight.
Interestingly, the weight issue has been more pronounced on the EA version. They have just given Volvo a nacelle contract, which if memory serves me correctly reduces each engines installed weight by 600kg.
As for SIA and their reduced passenger load, I truly hope your comment was tongue in cheek!
Fifty passengers over 15,000km is about 25 tonnes of fuel.
For the record, the Trent and EA engines have come in with lower fuel burn, and at mach 0.85, the guaranteed speed, they needed less power, as the design thrust produced a cruise speed of mach 0.86.
This has adequately offset the weight issue, vis order additions and new orders.
Cheers
Achace
Six tons overweight could be pretty serious, but it is less than 1% of gross weight.
Interestingly, the weight issue has been more pronounced on the EA version. They have just given Volvo a nacelle contract, which if memory serves me correctly reduces each engines installed weight by 600kg.
As for SIA and their reduced passenger load, I truly hope your comment was tongue in cheek!
Fifty passengers over 15,000km is about 25 tonnes of fuel.
For the record, the Trent and EA engines have come in with lower fuel burn, and at mach 0.85, the guaranteed speed, they needed less power, as the design thrust produced a cruise speed of mach 0.86.
This has adequately offset the weight issue, vis order additions and new orders.
Cheers
Achace
RC20 wrote:I think perhaps the better way to say that is the Japanese carriers and Boeing have had a long term relationship, that has worked well for both parties. Some run to the coolest price and good deal, and some understand that long term relationships have their reward.
Some interesting items on the A380 from Av Week.
It is still 6 tons overweight (maybe that’s why Singapore is only carrying 471 passengers!)Even at 6 tons it suits those who have bought it, though that does bring credence to what Boeing has said and calculated that the 747-8I is as economical.
Associated comment was the fuel burn was suffering as a result of the weight.
None of the buyers want them to mess with a new model until they have their deliveries caught up ( worrying that they might never get them before the program shuts down?). Nothing until at least 2015 according to JL (maybe listening finally) despite JL being a model happy sales guy who likes to have lots of things to sell (even if it doesn’t make any money). They are still talking about the freighter.
Interesting thought (or so I think) that the Euro to dollar imbalance actually is what’s keeping Boeing competitive with the launch aid (offsetting penalties as it were).
They also say that the break even is on the other side of 500 aircraft, and that keeps moving further out with the delays (and I will add in the discounts). Goal posts keep moving further down the field.
no problème for A380 8) ....777-300ER 360 pax ....sia 77W...278 pax
The Singapore remark was somewhat tongue in cheek, but also an interesting thought.
Fuel burn is one aspect, the overall aircraft performance (drag) has not been published. Boeing has for their aircraft, both what they said it would do and what it did.
If it all adds up to a wash (engines performing better, but the aircraft not as good), then yes, the 6 tons is a seriously big deal. The A380 is designed to fly long distances with large numbers of people. If you have to leave people behind to get to your destination, then the numbers Airbus has published are misleading.
If they can make the trip and carry the people because the range is short enough (if you even want to use that term for the distances they are flying), then its ok, but what about freight?
I know I am stating the obvious, but the A380 is supposed to be a revenue generating machine. That’s both pax and freight combined. If you have to sacrifice what you expected to carry in freight for pax, then the return is not as good, and possibly a wash. It has to make money to justify itself (bargain aircraft prices help, but if there is no return for the resources spent, then its a drag on the books).
I still have not seen definitive figures, just those lawyerly sort of statements that you initially take to mean one thing, and when you break it down it means something else (i.e. we are satisfied with the performance).
To me that just means they can live with it, not that its met it specs (and they may have worked out the penalties behind the scenes).
Emirates did say they would take the 900 if they built it right now.
And, everyone does have to be nervous. Airlines are getting a great deal, but at some point if it breaks the Airbus bank, then something has to give. So, yes I would want to get all my 800s now, and then see if the 900 will ever come about.
I also think they owe it to the public to publish the figures they gave the European government for launch aid. Being the suspicious type, I think that number is so high, they will never have to repay it.
Keep in mind that the 900 requires additional engineering, as would the freighter. All that cost would push the goal posts further out.
I do think its a fair question, that if EADS looks at the whole thing and realizes (accepts) they will not make money (loose money) on it no matter what, how do you deal with that as an entity?
So far, no one not connected to Airbus thinks it will ever make money.
Fuel burn is one aspect, the overall aircraft performance (drag) has not been published. Boeing has for their aircraft, both what they said it would do and what it did.
If it all adds up to a wash (engines performing better, but the aircraft not as good), then yes, the 6 tons is a seriously big deal. The A380 is designed to fly long distances with large numbers of people. If you have to leave people behind to get to your destination, then the numbers Airbus has published are misleading.
If they can make the trip and carry the people because the range is short enough (if you even want to use that term for the distances they are flying), then its ok, but what about freight?
I know I am stating the obvious, but the A380 is supposed to be a revenue generating machine. That’s both pax and freight combined. If you have to sacrifice what you expected to carry in freight for pax, then the return is not as good, and possibly a wash. It has to make money to justify itself (bargain aircraft prices help, but if there is no return for the resources spent, then its a drag on the books).
I still have not seen definitive figures, just those lawyerly sort of statements that you initially take to mean one thing, and when you break it down it means something else (i.e. we are satisfied with the performance).
To me that just means they can live with it, not that its met it specs (and they may have worked out the penalties behind the scenes).
Emirates did say they would take the 900 if they built it right now.
And, everyone does have to be nervous. Airlines are getting a great deal, but at some point if it breaks the Airbus bank, then something has to give. So, yes I would want to get all my 800s now, and then see if the 900 will ever come about.
I also think they owe it to the public to publish the figures they gave the European government for launch aid. Being the suspicious type, I think that number is so high, they will never have to repay it.
Keep in mind that the 900 requires additional engineering, as would the freighter. All that cost would push the goal posts further out.
I do think its a fair question, that if EADS looks at the whole thing and realizes (accepts) they will not make money (loose money) on it no matter what, how do you deal with that as an entity?
So far, no one not connected to Airbus thinks it will ever make money.
Maybe not a preference from the heart !
A350XWB wrote:The Japaneses prefer Boeing ... Not easy for airbus ..Rather i think ANA order the 747-8I ..
David747 wrote:Historically, the Japanese have preferred Boeing, but so has British Airways(now an A380 Customer)
Maybe not a preference from the heart !A350XWB wrote:My friend Japanese don't believe that ANA will order the A380..they eat in the hand of boeing... the day where jal and ana order a new airbus aircraft ...the hens will have the tooth
I would rather call it a ‘historical duty’ towards the USA. Don’t forget the international political situation of Japan since WWII, the military umbrella provided by the Americans and the huge trade imbalance between both countries. However things seem to be changing in Japan allowing the E.C. to play a bigger role in its foreign policy.
Choosing for Airbus would indeed be a revolutionary step. But who can stop an airline in love with the A380 ?
Re: Maybe not a preference from the heart !
itami wrote:A350XWB wrote:The Japaneses prefer Boeing ... Not easy for airbus ..Rather i think ANA order the 747-8I ..David747 wrote:Historically, the Japanese have preferred Boeing, but so has British Airways(now an A380 Customer)Maybe not a preference from the heart !A350XWB wrote:My friend Japanese don't believe that ANA will order the A380..they eat in the hand of boeing... the day where jal and ana order a new airbus aircraft ...the hens will have the tooth
I would rather call it a ‘historical duty’ towards the USA. Don’t forget the international political situation of Japan since WWII, the military umbrella provided by the Americans and the huge trade imbalance between both countries. However things seem to be changing in Japan allowing the E.C. to play a bigger role in its foreign policy.
Choosing for Airbus would indeed be a revolutionary step. But who can stop an airline in love with the A380 ?
The heart wants the A380 .. but they order boeing ..
I am very pessimistic for Airbus in Japan ..
with China ..airbus have a better chance (A380 , A350 , A320 ...etc )
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
I agree with member Itami,
The US have controlled the Japanese economy for decades following the war.
Boeing used this position to produce Japan-oriented aircraft while conducting large campaigns with the "JUMBO" and "Toripuru sebun" denominations.
A good example is the B777, B783, tailored to Japan's needs.
In Japan, if you say "Boeing", they know you are talking about airplanes.
If you say Airbus, they think you are talking about an airline, they just don't know what it is.
I'm sure the Singapore campaign and the unavoidable image of the A380 all-doubledeck is going to change alot.
The US have controlled the Japanese economy for decades following the war.
Boeing used this position to produce Japan-oriented aircraft while conducting large campaigns with the "JUMBO" and "Toripuru sebun" denominations.
A good example is the B777, B783, tailored to Japan's needs.
In Japan, if you say "Boeing", they know you are talking about airplanes.
If you say Airbus, they think you are talking about an airline, they just don't know what it is.
I'm sure the Singapore campaign and the unavoidable image of the A380 all-doubledeck is going to change alot.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all
Re: ANA flirting with the A380
.FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:My recent suspicions are covered in the next article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... order.html
It looks ANA hasn't given up flirting with the A380 yet...
ANA executive: Airline rethinking A380
Last edited by sn26567 on 04 May 2010, 09:57, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected BBCode
Reason: Corrected BBCode