Airbus says UA is going to (have to) order the A380

Yes, but the bottom is all Y. The point I was getting at was having F in the front lower cabin/nose with an all C upstairs is about the most premium configuration and closest to the visions ~1994/95 when the double decker airliner concepts started manifesting.

Having done one F leg on 3 different carrier's 388's with one up top and two lower level F cabins, I'll say LH is the least spacious. LH doesn't need a lot of seats for a nice F cabin downstairs, AF does it with 9 F seats and they seem to do fine; their F cabin is also much more spacious.

My question is: are they making any money flying these configurations? The problem I see with the VLA's is that for almost all routes, there generally is not enough demand to fill the planes, and the cost of flying the plane does not change significantly if you remove seats and add frills, unless you have a lot of premium passengers paying for them. Maybe the latter is true for Asia and the Middle East but I don't think N. America.

The only advantage I see for the 744-800 is that it is a smaller VLA than the A380, so you need fewer passengers to fill it, but if it is a less efficient airplane, then that is not a saving grace. In the end, it may be the perfect freighter!

How much more efficient is it to operate a 748 over a 747? Would cargo carriers be better off buying brand-new 748s over re-treat 744s, i..e, would the undoubtedly greater upfront investment be earned back quickly enough? (similar to VX vs. G4, I guess) LH Cargo is still operating a sizable fleet of MD-11 freighters. I think they were converted, based on the covered windows I saw on some at FRA recently.

My understanding is that LH will be rolling out a fully lie-flat C product with the delivery of their 748's and will be implementing this product on their 744 & A380 fleets as well. So the 170 degree seats on the A380s will be relatively short-lived. At least they are flat and not barco loungers!

Boeing claims that the 747-8 Intercontinental is 10% lighter per seat, and 11% more fuel efficient per seat than the A380, which translates as a 6% lower CASM.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_background.html

Also, the freighter version is supposedly 80 tonnes lighter than the A380 freighter. I'm guessing most of this weight savings is in technology borrowed from the 787 and the new wing design.

So, take the Boeing claims with a grain of salt, but supposedly the 748 is supposed to be more efficient than the A380, plus not as difficult to fill it up.

The A380 has better operating economics than does the B748 according to both EK and LH. Airbus skews their reports by lowering Boeings loads and raising the A380, while Boeing does precisely the opposite, so both can claim the other is lying. So what? They'll be objective? not a chance. Somehow I trust EK and LH more than either manufacturer because both airlines have ordered both aircraft. It is worthwhile to note that the only carriers to order the 748 passenger version have been LH (20), KE (5) and Arik(Nigerian) (2). Both LH and KE also have A380's LH with 8 delivered 17 on order and KE with 5 delivered, 10 on order.
In the ever-present back-and-forth between Boeing and Airbus about the costs of the 747-8 vs. A380, each company claims its airplane has lower costs.
Boeing claims the 747-8 has double-digit lower costs, to which Airbus indignantly says Boeing–not to put too fine a point on it–is lying. Airbus is unusally blunt on this topic.
Well, two airlines weighed in within days of each other.
Emirates Airlines says the A380 has 16% lower costs than the 747-8, as reported in this articlefrom Business Week. Emirates has ordered the A380 and the 747-8F.
Lufthansa, which has ordered both the A380 and 747-8, concludes the A380 burns less fuel per 100 passenger kilometers, though the figure is 3% lower on a litre-per-passenger kilometer basis.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/747-8-vs-a380-costs-airlines-weigh-in/

The other thing to consider with the configuration of seats on some of these big intercontinental birds is the ratio of how much luggage an airline expects (usually correlated to the number of passengers) vs the amount of profitable cargo they can carry. My understanding was that even though the B748 has less seats than the A388 it may be able to carry significantly more cargo on each flight as less room on a fuselage roughly the same length is being filled up with passengers bags. However I am hardly an expert enough on this subject matter to make such statements.

KE is throwing them on it's largest yielding routes, right now it's JFK/LAX to ICN. It must be working out on JFK-ICN as the route has gone from a planned 388 and 77W daily to 2 388's daily. Not sure how loads ex-LAX are doing.

Don't forget CA has also ordered 5. CA has a tendency to order both A and B see: A350 and 787, A330/340 and 777, and A319/320/321 and 737. Once CZ demonstrates their use, CA tends to follow their lead once an aircraft's use is demonstrated (see their previous orders of 777's, 319/320/321's, 73G/738's, and A330's) .

And use it for LAX-SFO ala the PSA L10-11. (How long did that last?)

We should not forget the Japan domestic 744D's either. I'd certainly like to, as would nearly everyone who's survived being packed in with more than 600 other sufferers.

Surely some aerogeek somewhere has photoshopped an image of an A380 in the new United livery. Any serious armchair quarterbacking about fleet decisions that could determine the financial viability of the airline for years to come should definitely be based on how the paint job will look.

Ask and ye shall receive:

I usually am not a fan of the flying forehead, but I gotta say... that looks pretty good.

The paint job makes it look Chode-ly. Not a fan.

It looks better than some others, but I still dislike the aesthetics. The 747-8 just looks cooler.

Definitely!



vs.



Livery aside, A380 has a rather blah shape to it; 748 with the curled wings looks much more refined.

Hopefully airlines evaluating their aircraft needs aren't using the "curb appeal" (gate appeal?) as a criteria. As a passenger I ultimately care about (and pay for) what's inside as I don't see the outside from my row 65B seat. And as we hear all the time, most passengers care about the price only when selecting a flight.

Personally, I find the UA old-C barcaloungers more comfortable than the LH 170 degree C seats.

We'll have to disagree about that, at least for sleeping. I'm generally a side sleeper, and I find the flat, even if angled, better than the cradle of the barco, where I can't find as many comfortable positions. Plus the flap at the end of the footrest is a few inches too short for my feet. I much much prefer UA's fully lie-flat product on the 763 and 744, even if it is narrow and has no storage, over the barco for sleeping. For daytime travel, reading, working, eating, watching a movie, the barco is fine. It's just not good for me for sleeping.

I'll definitely agree with you on that!

Yes, indeed. I am not that tall at 6" and it just is a bit too short for to be comfortable.

Then again, looking at the alternatives of a coach seat that I was used to before discovering the world of FT and now MP...

I was at FRA earlier today and noticed Peking (LH's A380) one of them pass me by.

Press release headline "The world's largest airline needs the world's largest plane"

Have either of you tried the new UA business class on the 777. OMG. Talk about "slave ship"

When I am sleeping, my eyes are shut and I don't see the other slaves Sure, I prefer the upper deck of the 747 when it comes to UA business class. But that's not always an option. And frankly, whether it's 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 doesn't make a big difference to me. I am either climbing over someone or someone climbs over me. With 2-3-2 the middle guy may have two choices, but I'll trade that for a flat seat that lets me sleep better.

Yikes. That should create a mini-LHR at anyplace with immigration.