Does Size Matter?
- Thread starter AAquila
- Start date
The article reminds me of early articles regarding the 747 and other widebodies. No piano bars today, though, are there?
Its an awesome plane but AA doesn't have any routes that could handle that many seats. Many Airline Ex's have ripped Airbus for misleading passengers into thinking this plane will have amenities like stores and resturants. Every available space will be filled with SEATS!
It's been many years since AA thought 747s made sense; I suspect it will be many more before anyone at AA thinks A380s are necessary.
lpbrian
Veteran
- Mar 7, 2004
- 687
- 105
Actually, there are a few routes in the AA system where this airplane may make sense. Routes that have back-to-back 777 flights; JFK-LHR, ORD-LHR, LAX-LHR, MIA-GRU, DFW-NRT, etc. Substitute an A380 for 2 777 flights and you free up 2 777's and a valuble landing slot. May not be cost effective, but not out of the question either.
If you ignore the costs of having another type in the fleet, the 380 makes sense for those routes. But there aren't enough of those routes to justify the additional type...especially since AA has no 'buses in the fleet.
mweiss said:
What about the 34 A300s?
Granted, they aren't in the long-term fleet plan, but they remain nonetheless.
TWAnr
Veteran
I did forget those.
But I was more thinking about the cockpit commonality issue, which the 300 doesn't have.
But I was more thinking about the cockpit commonality issue, which the 300 doesn't have.
flyhigh said:
The announcement said that both FedEx and UPS are buying the A380; so, my guess is that we will not have a need for a cargo only a/c.
I think the A380 makes a lot more sense for Asian carriers than it does for American carriers. In Asia, frequency of service is a lot less important than it is in America. Plus, in Asia, you have enough population density in some areas that you can much more easily fill one of those monsters up. In America, at least domestically, it's better to have three frequencies with 150 seats each than one frequency with 450 seats. There might be some international routes (mainly to Asia) where the A380 could work, but as others pointed out, the cost associated with adding a fleet type (maintenance lines, parts, pilot training, simulators, etc) is very considerable, especially with no commonalities to any existing AA fleet. I'm sure that cost more than outweighs any incremental benefit.
I don't think they meant "cargo only" A/C. We don't have any cargo only A/C as it is now. I assume they were saying for the routes out of MIA that rely on cargo to make it a viable route.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
lpbrian said:
Definitely out of the question.
The slot argument is somewhat valid, but as you said, there are only a few routes where this makes sense. And that's the problem that a lot of airlines have with the A380 -- outside those few markets, it will wind up having 40%+ of its seats going empty.
Unlike other airlines, I think we've finally learned that it doesn't make sense to base buying decisions on what only fits a few markets.
Back in 1983, we traded 14 of our 747-100's to Pan Am for 15 of their DC10's (including 4 -30's) that they ended up with in the National merger. A lot of people said we were crazy, but it made perfect sense.
Not only did we end up with more aircraft that could fly the same mission (i.e. JFK-LAX), they could also fly other missions and improve our utilization, i.e. aircraft could be routed JFK-LAX-ORD-LAX-JFK instead of just JFK-LAX-JFK).
When we got approval for DFW-NRT in 1986, we picked up two 747SP's for the route, knowing it was the only aircraft that could do the job, but also knowing we'd be replacing them with something (ended up being the MD11) a few years down the line.
This is the same reason we dumped the 737-200/300's, 717s, MD90s and the MD87's. Each type made sense for a few markets, but we could serve the same markets with other types and have higher utilization without incurring all the fleet specific costs.
So, I don't expect to see the Airpig in our fleet anytime soon.
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 912
If AA wants an aircraft with more seats it makes more sesne to order the 777-300 than it does the A380. Having the -300 would mean minimal investemnt in regards to crew training and maintenance. The A380 on the other hand would mean huge investemtns in training, maintenance and infrastructure. Besides it's already been proven that AA can do just fine without 747/A380 size aircraft.
Similar threads
