The whole point that I was trying to make is that the A380 makes economic sense on those routes that can support it.
I don't think that the acquiring carriers are ordering this type to enable them to lose more money.
A route having significant demand along with significant demand for premium seats will suit the A380.
A route without enough demand to fill the available seats at some reasonable fare will not suit it.
The aircraft is also not very flexible, in that I don't see it doing a quick turn to some Caribbean island while awating its evening TATL departure, for example, while a twin can be and is used that way.
If a route suffers slack seasonal demand, an airline would be better off turing away customers in peak season rather than flying a half empty behemoth during the low season.
I also understand that while fuel represents the largest single cost for a carrier, it is not the only cost, so even an aircraft with unbeatable fuel use per seat may not yield the most revenue after factoring in other costs.
Acquision costs, financing cost, maintenance expense as well as crew training training and insurance expenses all play a role.
Minor matters like clipping a CRJ at JFK or uncontained engine failures are also costs that must be considered.
There may not be all that many carriers who think that the A380 suits enough routes on their networks to make it a wise acquisition, since orders remain stuck at less that 300.
OTOH, Emirates has ordered ninety of these beasts, along with job lots of 777s and A350s and unless something goes badly awry, EK may end up as the largest international carrier in the world.
Who would have thought that DXB would emerge as a major connecting point for the entire world?
This also means, of course, that Airbus has an awful lot of eggs in one basket as far as the A380 program goes.
I don't think that the acquiring carriers are ordering this type to enable them to lose more money.
A route having significant demand along with significant demand for premium seats will suit the A380.
A route without enough demand to fill the available seats at some reasonable fare will not suit it.
The aircraft is also not very flexible, in that I don't see it doing a quick turn to some Caribbean island while awating its evening TATL departure, for example, while a twin can be and is used that way.
If a route suffers slack seasonal demand, an airline would be better off turing away customers in peak season rather than flying a half empty behemoth during the low season.
I also understand that while fuel represents the largest single cost for a carrier, it is not the only cost, so even an aircraft with unbeatable fuel use per seat may not yield the most revenue after factoring in other costs.
Acquision costs, financing cost, maintenance expense as well as crew training training and insurance expenses all play a role.
Minor matters like clipping a CRJ at JFK or uncontained engine failures are also costs that must be considered.
There may not be all that many carriers who think that the A380 suits enough routes on their networks to make it a wise acquisition, since orders remain stuck at less that 300.
OTOH, Emirates has ordered ninety of these beasts, along with job lots of 777s and A350s and unless something goes badly awry, EK may end up as the largest international carrier in the world.
Who would have thought that DXB would emerge as a major connecting point for the entire world?
This also means, of course, that Airbus has an awful lot of eggs in one basket as far as the A380 program goes.
