It seems pretty safe to say that none will never land in the U.S..

____

From your keyboard to God's ears.

They'll have to get gates at least in New York to have any chance of viability, the same way Air France and BOAC did with the Concorde 30 years ago. But if the Port Authority is smart, they'll make the Euros foot the full bill for any terminal redesigns or runway widenings.

But other than Kennedy Airport, it's hard to see where this plane makes economic sense under the current conditions in the United States. Perhaps on the New York-Los Angeles route, but you've got to have at least 500 people at a time wanting to go to the same destination, and the only other way that's done is to fly a whole bunch of people from a big city to a transfer hub, or from one hub to another. Nobody runs 747s on short-route flights now, and no ones going to buy an A380 to serve as the airborne version of the Times Square-Grand Central shuttle.

JFK and LAX already have construction projects underway to support A-380.

My bet is the 380 will be like the Concorde. It will be marginally operationally profitable, and not repay a dime of R&D costs.

Bin laden must be drooling. Damned if I'd want to fly in one.

Long before 9/11 I decided I preferred Manchester NH to Boston; Bologna to Rome or Milan etc.

Picture this: debarking with 800 passengers and getting your luggage, then schlepping to ground transportation. Oy!

However if they were to offer sleepers to Singapore, Australia or China I'd consider it. That would make feasible one or two lifetime trips ... total.

Much as I'd like to see a Euro boondoggle, I think it will be rescued by growth in travel. Passenger-miles will quadruple over the next thirty years.

The problem for Airbus is that the hub system is failing. Boeing is right to concentrate on smaller jets to support non-hub based travel. Moreover, even if the A380 gets the hub to hub market, airlines will still need spoke to hub jets.

A buddy in the worldwide freight forwarding biz tells me FedEx apparetnly wants more than a few of them -- stripped down for cargo of course.

Agree with the above that this thing seems to big and appears to be going against the tide of smaller, more direct flights. It will probably take govt subsidiaries or other actions by the EU to make this thing even operate.

PJ - you may be right about the increase in passenger miles. However, with the growth of the internet/videoconferencing/webcams there is growing pressure on restricting business travel. And while personal travel will increase how many people will want to deal with 550 other passengers on their vacation flight?

I travel monthly, and pay a premium to travel point to point whenever possible. The fewer connections, the fewer opportunities for cancellations, delays, lost luggage, lost time in aiports, airport meals, etc.

I believe this is the future, and a big reason that Southwest is propering. Every time SW puts on a flight between two "secondary" cities (e.g., Norfolk to Jacksonville) the major hubs (Charlotte, Atlanta, D.C & Phila in this example)take another hit. The A380 does not fit into this picture.

And yes the thought of 550-800 fellow passengers, with their carry-ons, luggage, infants, and germs is the stuff of nightmares.

I travel monthly, and pay a premium to travel point to point whenever possible. The fewer connections, the fewer opportunities for cancellations, delays, lost luggage, lost time in aiports, airport meals, etc.

I believe this is the future, and a big reason that Southwest is propering. Every time SW puts on a flight between two "secondary" cities (e.g., Norfolk to Jacksonville) the major hubs (Charlotte, Atlanta, D.C & Phila in this example)take another hit. The A380 does not fit into this picture.

And yes the thought of 550-800 fellow passengers, with their carry-ons, luggage, infants, and germs is the stuff of nightmares.

550? 800? surely you jest. When they get these bad boys going in full cattle car layout (and that is the only way you will see them unless you are a top exec in full expense account mode) there will be close to a 1000.

Imagine this: the Hadj run (where the A380 will get the most use). More than a thousand hadjis screaming, cursing, praying, trying to milk the goats they are carrying with them. The stench will be unimaginable. No stewardesses in miniskirts, security guards with AK-47s wearing wraparound shades and chewing toothpicks. Something Dante never described.

How long to load the plane for international flight? "Show up at the terminal at least 4 hours before scheduled depatrure." Get off the beast? an hour? Your bags and customs with the 1000 others?

This is why All-Nippon turned them down for domestic Jappanese use.

As for Robert Schwartz's description— Or think the train trip east in the movie "Dr. Zhivago". This is something only a dedicated Euro could come up with. "Airbus" needs to change its name to "Aircattlecar".

AOG:

Try traveling between medium size cities like Rochester, NY, and Milwaukee, WI.

A point-point system will leave at least 2/3 of the US without air travel.

Jeff --

The airlines did not put together their hub/spoke systems as a way to serve "at least 2/3 of the U.S." -- they did it to try to monopolize the individual markets.

The day either Milwaukee or Rochester NY finds itself without any air service is the day I lease a couple of 737s and start a new airline.

How many northern Illinoians prefer to fly out of Milwaukee than make the trek to O'Hare?

I would if I lived up there.

But I have ORD and Midway to choose from.

There are many paths to success, some more odious than others. See the folowing from National Review's "The Corner":

AIRBUS MARKETING [Andrew Stuttaford]

From the Scotsman:

"TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry. While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft."

Uplifting, no?

Boeing's strategy here may have something to do with this :
Long Tail Economics

Or maybe they're just losing their nerve. The 707 and 747 were both bet-the-company undertakings, the 777 less so.

curt, check out the cities that already (and for the past 20 years) haven't had service.

Maybe none as big as Milwaukee, but real places that people live in and do business in.

Deregulation was Carter's worst mistake.

It turns out a free market in airline tickets is worse than a regulated one.

AWW - The Internet will increase travel, for the same reasons computers increased the use of paper. They're complements, not substitutes.

Harry --

I'm pleased that I haven't been subsidizing air service for the past 20 years to any airport that has lacked service over that period.

Hundreds of cities have lost passenger train service as well; I'm OK with that too.

Having lived in northern IL (5 minutes drive to Wisconsin), I would routinely fly ex O'Hare, Midway, or Milwaukee depending on price.

Curt:

Very few people in Rochester NY on any given day, or even in a week, want to fly to Milwaukee, but enough want to go to the rest of the world to warrant several DC-9s a day to DTW.

And enough people from the rest of the world want to go to Milwaukee that it justifies several DC-9s/day from DTW.

Hence the hub and spoke system.

BTW--the internet works the same way, for the same reasons.

Glad to see the Scotsman article made it here.
The Corner, over at NRO, has coinded the greatest parody of this bunch; Weaselbus and the W380.
My American Airlines Captain friends and relatives surely do agree, and AA flies other Weaselbus aircraft.
Mike

Glad to see the Scotsman article made it here.
The Corner, over at NRO, has coined the greatest parody of this bunch; Weaselbus and the W380.
My American Airlines Captain friends and relatives surely do agree, and AA flies other Weaselbus aircraft.
Mike

curt, it sounds as if you think your flight tickets have been paying their own way.

The subsidies have come from nitwits who bought airline common stock.

I suppose the free traders are going to explain how an economic segment that has generated net losses over 75 years is working, but I haven't seen them try.