Nobody would appreciate a 10 hour flight in a 737 or 320. That's why you never see this types flying long haul, for which they were never designed to do. Hence the need for 747s and A380s.
@@julosx well not necesarily, 747 and A380 are increasing being replaced with 787, 777, and A350. 747 and A380 are more expensive in terms of maintence and airport fees (they fall into the heaviest categories while the aforementioned ones barely don’t) and also are less fuel efficient.
@@julosx A321XLR: Allow me to introduce myself. Note: I'm not saying it's right to have people fly in such a way, but most airlines don't care how you feel, especially in America.
Yeah but a380 are for long flights and 737s and a320s are fi shorter flights a a380 isn’t going to go on a 2 hour flight and a 737 or a320 isn’t going to go on a 8 hour flight
I used to work for a billionaire (~25 billion net worth) and in his earlier days as a billionaire, he would fly to certain international hubs in his Challenger 350 to then switch to a commercial flight JUST to save time. He then bought a g650 and an absolutely ridiculously maxed out 777 so he wouldn't have to - But to the point, yes - billionaires are obsessed with saving time.
Don't forget, all air carriers also engage in light cargo transport if they are within weight limits. Cargo is almost pure profit and even mail carrying is lucrative as added income with passenger flights being so competitive.
Tickets are way more expensive in the USA than Europe. I flew Stansted to Biarritz return for £10 once, and Manchester to Oslo for £40 return. Luton to posnan was £35 etc.
Who makes the money there? I was surprised that pilots at the smaller airlines in the US earn even less than at Ryanair etc, where they are already criminally underpaid imo.
Generally not on domestic flights, the crew would be limited to a different shorter leg that day by law, though on more common domestic length routes 3-4 legs in a day is not unheard of. Though so much is left out on where those numbers are calculated from it is hard to guess how much that changes them.
think there have been very successful long haul low cost carriers already. Canada 3000 for example. It died because of SEP 11, but was making good money apparently before then. There's also Air Transat in Canada (still operating) & Cebu Pacific(Philippines)
4:20 That flight lands in Dallas at around 1:00PM CDT on Saturday. Sometimes me and my mother will drive to KDFW to see it land, and let me tell you, pre-pandemic, it drew quite a crowd.
No airline on Earth will do a 800 seat A380. 1) Difficulty in filling the plane, every empty seat loses money 2) Low cargo capacity for it size. When fully loaded hold 20% to 30% less cargo than comparable wide body jets. 3) Logistics of handling 800 passengers is not possible at smaller airports 4) A380 fuel efficiency / maintenance down times are bad due to its 4 engines
Don't planes make more than one trip a day and don't they have freight on passenger planes and what about your bag fees don't give me that they only make $20 off of a seat.
American did a study and said it costs $14,000.00 per pound annually. So 1 magazine with its protective binder cost 14 grand a year for our convenience....No more magazines. That is some perspective
The cost to replace the interior is $50+ million.... In competitive reality, the life of the interior is 5-10 years (5 in technology, 10 for condition)
bro, i want to ask questions but i guess im too dumb, but id like your questions if it means i can better understanding,., thanx to all u nice people for knowing what u knw, more than me, im just watch vidoe thanks for contents all
im from the uk and tend to do diy holidays. in the last few years my return flights have been ... crete £45. lanzarote £50. tenerife £60. turkey £110. but then other times they can be hundreds each... but in general they are loads cheaper than flights for americans to book.
Regarding your comment about flying from Buenos Aires to Perth via the South Pole, and not being able to do it using a twin jet aircraft. Quantas recently flew nonstop from Perth to London using an Airbus a350. Surely that's longer than the trans polar route?
So it seemed the 3 main culprits boosting costs in aviatian are Fuel prices, taxes, and aviation services. Concidering fuel costs: My question is why do the Airliners not establish a consortium creating a global fund that will enable them to establish their own crude oil mining and own crude oil refineries and produce jet fuel much cheaper as what they can buy it from the lucrative Arab oil companies. The other by products will help them to achieve this goal. I am sure only one sizable refinery will supply the whole aviation market with enough jet fuel.
I ask why not just establish your own full line. Buy storage tanks around the nation or global buy when low fill up the tanks and fuel your own jets with cheap fuel.
Probably because that would require them to buy up a bunch of oil refineries and even if they could afford to, they would be getting into a business they know nothing about and that is very risky and can easily backfire and make things worse instead of better.
@@FoundAndExplained I don't really feel like the main question has been answered in the video. Why doesn't an 800 passenger plane make a profit? That's why I clicked the video, I was actually curious about the title, but I find myself having finished the video still not knowing the answer! Very frustrating. I'm sorry I really don't like giving negative feedback.
Cargo would be a bonus like charging more for passenger bags or say choosing your seat. It’s not a fundamental part of a passenger carriers body (well 2020 is a different story). You need more fuel for cargo too
but if cargo gets added shudnt it b evn more better cheaper or giv discounted extra allowance for extra kg better priced for inflight customer on the flight ticket holder., imagine the biznizz can b made mans lugg his wood burning fire place and cast iron skillet to next port
Where did you get all these figures from? $88 crew and staff costs from JFK to LAX? Assuming there is 5 crew on board, for a 6 hour flight that would be less than $3 an hour, and that's not even including ground staff etc. Unless I have my numbers wrong? And what about revenue from cargo and sales from food and drink?
your analysis is oversimplistic and it unsuccesfully tries tries to merge two questions into one, namely the low cost airline model and why these companies will not operate A380's (or any other large craft, for that matter. Low cost airlines use a different business model altogether. Many costs are exactly the same: planes (leased or otherwise), both operating costs and maintenance, plus fuel. They will tend to operate on smaller, more distant from downtown airports which evidently cost less in fees. You will not see them in Heathrow or CDG. Crews and cabin attendants will typically earn a bit less, and will be required to perform ancilliary duties. But more importantly, their planes fly more hours each and every day. A lot more. Full service airlines will tend to operate on what is known as a hub and spoke model. Take the USA. One can either attempt to run services from each and every city to every other destination, or one concentrates incoming flights from one region, have them converge at one convenient location and then reroute passengers in similar fashion to other cities at the opposite end. Typical mid way cities are Houston, Dallas, Chicago and Denver. So early in the morning flights will depart from New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Washington and so forth. The snag is that the more distant cities require more flying time than those closer to the hub, so these planes have to depart later than the others if they are to arrive to the hub at the same time to deboard simultaneously. This is is known in the industry as banks. At the hub airport a lot more staff is needed to attend to 2 or 3 large flows of passengers, rather than if they were to come evenly spread throughout the day. And this costs more, evidently. It has on the other hand the eminent advantage of being able to better combine passengers from several cities to many destinations, simultaneously. Low cost airlines on the other hand will operate in the exact opposite way. Besides going to smaller and less expensive airports wherever available (Love vs DFW or Midway vs O'Hare), their flights will be arriving and departing all the time, with less turnaround time than full service airlines. So their planes will be flying on average for say 12 hours or more, vs 8 hours for full service airlines. Big savings on an important cost item. Then of course they will cramp more seats into their planes. Essentially this is how low cost airlines have materially lower expenses which they pass on to passengers. Needless to say, this works well for short flights of say less than 6 hours, typically single aisle craft. On long haul flights this does not work. Smaller airports may be attempted, yet many will not have long runways to operate large planes, and flights cannot be scheduled one immediately after the other since when flying big distances and crossing many time zones planes will have to sit in the tarmacs waiting for appropiate departure times, as passengers will be reluctant to board or deplane at 3 am, regardless of how inexpensive fares may be. So here corner cutting possibilities with twin aisle airplane are substantially reduced. This explains why long range low cost carriers have inherently harder scenarios when flying twin aisle long range than when they do short range single aisles. Crossing the north Atlantic is the upper limit. When A321XLR enters into service in 2023 distances will be somewhat extended, but the equation will remain unchanged. And what planes do long range low cost carriers select for 10-12 hour missions? Europeans such as Norwegian or Level, or Asians such as Lion, Cebu, Scoot or Air Asia X, they all invariably go for the smaller twin aisles, typically A330's or 787's. Not A350's, not 777's, and positively NOT 747's or A380's. There is good ground for this. Air travel is invariably seasonal, and some routes very much so. For this simple reason low cost airlines will not touch the largest craft with a ten foot pole. They will cater to the smallest planes that will cover the required distance and are easier to fill year round. Winters are long and hard. Load factors and fleet utilization is the name of the game in the airline industry.
Could a 747 be converted to a tri jet? Off topic, why couldn't the USAF fit B-52s with four giant modern civilian engines instead of the old 8 engines?
why tri-jet? and whats the significance, pros cons if it a direct route over antarica pert-S.A shortest 2points straight, what is wrong with route, if root good or needs additions, what r they? and whats stopping why not more compition but combined techology and services flexi co-op? is that unlikely a dream of better air well priced travel just look out window still on runway no flight? sorry apologies, fr abrupt bot rude error404 peace, ty fr vids btw
I never paid so cheap for that Qantas SYD to DFW flight. This would have been shortly after they switched the route from the 747 to A380, though, and not 2018.
Let's have Loickheed Martin jump in to the trijet business. LM-1011J Super Tristar, anyone? If they used the original Tri-star models, they could be the oues filling the "middle of the market" 220-270-seat space.
The A380 came out at the wrong time anyway. If it appeared right around the same time as the 747 it would have worked out but the market for 4-jets just isn’t there when you can get similar performance from a 777
but why? bring em outa retirement lets get amazon on it lol, bezoursszs cud c the profit in delivering pepols with 40kg luggage if we bring packed lunch and own mask n saniters plus wipes lov wipes 21st century book of Eli man smashesd it with fresh wipe
$88 for crew.. lol no wonder us mechanics at these airlines are getting screwed. We're treated as so expendable until it's time for the plane to return to service.
So basically I am living in Malta and I love to go to Rome. On a typical flight it only takes 1.10 minutes to arrive. Now these low cost carriers provide food and drink at a cost. This is actually adding extra weight and let’s be honest, if the flight is only 1 hour, why waste money on rubbish coffee and food., oh and it ain’t cheap also.
You never talked about the real reasons airliners don’t fly over Antarctica. Besides the navigational problem caused by flying too close to the magnetic South Pole, the other issue is the lack of alternate airports on such a route. Until commercial airliners are certified to operate off of ice pack runways, there aren’t any “suitable airports” on the whole of the continent! The biggest problem is that if any airplane suffered a cabin pressure problem that required to descend to 10,000 feet, the airplane simply can’t carry enough fuel to cruise at such a low altitude. The point of no return point, required for ETOPS flight operations makes this impossible with today’s airplanes.
Revenue and Profit are totally different things. Which one is it? 4:26... Don't worry, the candidates on The Apprentice don't know the difference either!
Airlines aren't telling the truth. Planes carry cargo for mail services and private cargo at a cost. Also government do support airlines in some countries. They also collect the taxes if they claim a loss.
why always a380 long haul flight.. why not a380 domestic flight around and hour, it would mean more strain on the aircraft but it could be done and might be more profitibale
lol yup im confued always, its taking long time to unblock my brainfreeze icecold glass of water,,, my teeth is got pins n needles bwain thowwing but im still dumb,,, ooops i ment numb as well as ma dumbness
$32.5/pax/hour? Make it $40 and put that 800 economy seat a380 for hajj or umrah flight such as jakarta-jedda, kuala lumpur-jedda, delhi-jedda, etc. that flight in all economy will always be full.
Please check your scripts 4:22 "A *profit* of $428M in *revenue* per year. I'm pretty sure profit and revenue are different Edit: I now realise this now sounds really condescending/Karen. I don't want it to sound like that. Great Work
Maybe.. but it's a pretty damm important business concept. Suspect the Sydney-Dallas route didn't make a profit - was pushing the range maximum of the A380 and on the westbound route they couldn't sell all the seats in some winds. If the route comes back suspect Qantas will use a 787 instead.
What Airbus and lessors didn't consider is that the cost of replacing the interior of an A380 is in the $50-80 million dollar range... Not only will a low cost carrier never be able to afford to buy/lease a used one, the original airline is going to return the A380 at the end of the lease instead of putting in a refreshed interior, because the life of a first class interior is only about 10 years, and that was the term of the first leases. So Singapore just turned theirs back, because customers paying the type of fairs which subsidize the A380 operating costs have expectations on the bedroom they just paid for. The leasing company is stuck with a giant white whale that needs $50+ million in investment to attract an airline who will want it in their configuration. There is no cargo configuration, so you part them out So a low cost carrier will never fly one, neither will anyone else in a few years
Its business suicide for both the airline and their insurance carrier if one crashes or goes out of service. Then factor in when you take a flight these days once you pass TSA security your pretty much an airport hostage for sells. Most people have no Ideal how much an airport vendor franchise costs annually. Loading an airplane that size will consume even more time as an airport hostage that passengers will not want to be. Sure the plan may hold up short term but as a long term business venture its pure suicide. Business wise one of the newer blimps being designed with jet engines would be far more practical for 800 passengers weight and fuel load and far safer than something that doesn't really fly, but is rather pushed through the air with force..
Your calculation for the cost of a NYC to LA flight is incorrect. Your cost for the airplane itself assumes it would only fly one flight per day. The airplane in reality would probably do 3 such flights per day. Your calculation also left out freight revenue which is higher per pound than passenger revenue. An airline will leave passengers at the gate in favor of freight.
Funny enough an EasyJet A380 wouldn’t concern me. A Ryanair A380 however .... *shudders*
Same with me
lol
Now they are fitting that 737 max with 200 seats........200!!!
28 inch legroom....imagine that on a 13 hour flight
@@AdvaitVaze *Painful*
Wouldn't ryanair use a 747-8
800 passenger on an A380
Ryanair: only 800? let´s say 1000. on a premium configuration
RIP fuel efficiency
Rip combustível Ryanair e muito má já fiz um voo até Londres tive 4horas a mais a espera do voo e depois eles foram tao mal educados .
@@wg_dudu Welcome to los pollos hermanos
@@akunlama89 wrong language lol
P r e m i u m
Simple answer : "It's cheaper to operate 4 Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 than operate single A380 for the same route"
Nobody would appreciate a 10 hour flight in a 737 or 320. That's why you never see this types flying long haul, for which they were never designed to do. Hence the need for 747s and A380s.
@@julosx well not necesarily, 747 and A380 are increasing being replaced with 787, 777, and A350. 747 and A380 are more expensive in terms of maintence and airport fees (they fall into the heaviest categories while the aforementioned ones barely don’t) and also are less fuel efficient.
@@julosx A321XLR: Allow me to introduce myself.
Note: I'm not saying it's right to have people fly in such a way, but most airlines don't care how you feel, especially in America.
Cheaper potentially but definitely far less financially risky
Yeah but a380 are for long flights and 737s and a320s are fi shorter flights a a380 isn’t going to go on a 2 hour flight and a 737 or a320 isn’t going to go on a 8 hour flight
I used to work for a billionaire (~25 billion net worth) and in his earlier days as a billionaire, he would fly to certain international hubs in his Challenger 350 to then switch to a commercial flight JUST to save time. He then bought a g650 and an absolutely ridiculously maxed out 777 so he wouldn't have to - But to the point, yes - billionaires are obsessed with saving time.
you forgot to calculate the cargo each airplane carries on its way to its destination, I mean half the airplane is cargo.
It also seems like he only accounted for passenger flights from NYC - LA making a single trip per day which would be highly unusual
It's just an example of your price for your seat........ open your eyes and ears fella, FFS!!
Oh boy my friend, you lost me when you said 4:21 "a profit of $428M in revenue per year"...
exactly, some many errors...I was like whaaa??? some of these numbers make so sence and they never clarify.
First he talks about how most airlines lease planes for “thousands a month” but, in his profit calculation he uses ownership of the plane.
Exactly
so many glaring errors and unanswered questions.
Maybe the Price they are being leased at is unknown?
Even because they are being retired . Would be an "serious emotional event" a 800 people low cost flight.
Yep
I would be very very depressed and nothing will get rid of it
@@zeferinoresendiz1698 tbh the a380 still has a chance with Singapore & Emerates
Let see the routes. DC London. Miami Paris London. Madrid Berlin to NY route
Heeeeey! We flight attendants do more than just asking PAX to put their tray tables up! 😡😡😡
Don't forget, all air carriers also engage in light cargo transport if they are within weight limits. Cargo is almost pure profit and even mail carrying is lucrative as added income with passenger flights being so competitive.
I'm impressed on how quick you produce videos!
I’m impressed how fast you watch them jovi! See you on the next stream
I will be there on time!
is this brother on this channel a top og? i came across this vid already liking it
@@abutmamun4322 I had been here when F&E had 10K subs
Edit: yeah I know right! the videos are stunning!
@@redballthing same
Fantastic video ✈️
3:33 "charge for fuel onboard"
to bee seen soon TBH
Reading in the UK news on Saturday, I think, Easy Jet reported their first financial loss this year. Food for thought.
"...Nick here, from the channel you are watching." Brilliant!
You forgot to mention Pratt & Whitney, who make airplane engines. They are a pretty large engine company.
1:40 it is sad that we invest in green fuels only for savings
Tickets are way more expensive in the USA than Europe. I flew Stansted to Biarritz return for £10 once, and Manchester to Oslo for £40 return. Luton to posnan was £35 etc.
Who makes the money there? I was surprised that pilots at the smaller airlines in the US earn even less than at Ryanair etc, where they are already criminally underpaid imo.
What they should be launching is the £1 flight to New York (With £449.99 booking fee)
Therapyst : Easy Jet A380 is not real,it can't hurt you
The thumbnail : *Easy Jet A380
So... the plane only makes one flight per day?
Generally not on domestic flights, the crew would be limited to a different shorter leg that day by law, though on more common domestic length routes 3-4 legs in a day is not unheard of. Though so much is left out on where those numbers are calculated from it is hard to guess how much that changes them.
Thank you for creating and publishing such an interseting and professional content! I am looking forward to another video.
I love this channel 🤩
think there have been very successful long haul low cost carriers already. Canada 3000 for example. It died because of SEP 11, but was making good money apparently before then. There's also Air Transat in Canada (still operating) & Cebu Pacific(Philippines)
what about the cost of maintenance? also what about the revenue for cargo?
4:20
That flight lands in Dallas at around 1:00PM CDT on Saturday. Sometimes me and my mother will drive to KDFW to see it land, and let me tell you, pre-pandemic, it drew quite a crowd.
Ah yesss... The islands of Bali, Thailand, Vietnam, and China
I know what you mean. The only "island" in that line-up was Bali. Oh well, I doubt I could make videos like this person does.
No airline on Earth will do a 800 seat A380.
1) Difficulty in filling the plane, every empty seat loses money
2) Low cargo capacity for it size. When fully loaded hold 20% to 30% less cargo than comparable wide body jets.
3) Logistics of handling 800 passengers is not possible at smaller airports
4) A380 fuel efficiency / maintenance down times are bad due to its 4 engines
Revenue is not the same.e as profit. Profit is what is left after you subtract your costs from your revenue.
Don't planes make more than one trip a day and don't they have freight on passenger planes and what about your bag fees don't give me that they only make $20 off of a seat.
American did a study and said it costs $14,000.00 per pound annually. So 1 magazine with its protective binder cost 14 grand a year for our convenience....No more magazines. That is some perspective
Why can’t the 777 or 787 fly from Australia to a South America. They both have the range especially the 77x and the long range 787
Can you talk about airport fees and examples.. like the parking fee and landing fee etc
costs, you forgot the maintanance costs
The cost to replace the interior is $50+ million.... In competitive reality, the life of the interior is 5-10 years (5 in technology, 10 for condition)
When you say twin engine jets "can't go over the south pole" do you mean their range is inadequate or ETOPS rules prevent them?
bro, i want to ask questions but i guess im too dumb, but id like your questions if it means i can better understanding,., thanx to all u nice people for knowing what u knw, more than me, im just watch vidoe thanks for contents all
Flat earth, the poles don't exist
@@personalfunfest that's what I wanted to say😔
One of LCC(Running B738 only) in South Korea has announced to run A330 next year. Do you think it can be a game changer or poor decision?
Nice job!
im from the uk and tend to do diy holidays. in the last few years my return flights have been ... crete £45. lanzarote £50. tenerife £60. turkey £110. but then other times they can be hundreds each... but in general they are loads cheaper than flights for americans to book.
Regarding your comment about flying from Buenos Aires to Perth via the South Pole, and not being able to do it using a twin jet aircraft. Quantas recently flew nonstop from Perth to London using an Airbus a350. Surely that's longer than the trans polar route?
So it seemed the 3 main culprits boosting costs in aviatian are Fuel prices, taxes, and aviation services. Concidering fuel costs: My question is why do the Airliners not establish a consortium creating a global fund that will enable them to establish their own crude oil mining and own crude oil refineries and produce jet fuel much cheaper as what they can buy it from the lucrative Arab oil companies. The other by products will help them to achieve this goal. I am sure only one sizable refinery will supply the whole aviation market with enough jet fuel.
I ask why not just establish your own full line. Buy storage tanks around the nation or global buy when low fill up the tanks and fuel your own jets with cheap fuel.
Probably because that would require them to buy up a bunch of oil refineries and even if they could afford to, they would be getting into a business they know nothing about and that is very risky and can easily backfire and make things worse instead of better.
Delta actually tried this. It didn't go as well as they hoped.
@@KyurekiHana really?
@@joeyknight8272 yep, see Simple Flying's video on it: ruclips.net/video/kPdbVlCj6XI/видео.html
What is a leasing firm?
I like your video
a Ryanair a380 is the stuff of nightmares
Easy jet+Airbus A380 =interesting bank crack
lol
2:36 Flying Cuteness !!
I normally really like these videos, but this one left me with a lot of unanswered questions, and I'm feeling quite unsatisfied by it.
How can I satisfy you?
@@FoundAndExplained I don't really feel like the main question has been answered in the video. Why doesn't an 800 passenger plane make a profit?
That's why I clicked the video, I was actually curious about the title, but I find myself having finished the video still not knowing the answer!
Very frustrating.
I'm sorry I really don't like giving negative feedback.
Masterpiece.
The thumbnail Lmaooo 🤣🤣🤣
You forgot the CEO compensation.
I fly on Qantas and I’ve been on one there a380’s but Qantas dose not fly them anymore :(
I know not until passenger numbers pick up again after the pandemic is over
Oh thanks
People are getting fed up with Qantas getting worse and worse. Mandatory vaccination to fly will lose them many more customers.
I heard they were refurbishing the interior of their 380 fleet these days.
Guess I won't be flying those 747s soon :(
747 passenger snipes57 brothharrr Wesley,., brother is og. peace pepolz
Lufthansa flies (some of) its 747-830 fleet these days.
One major problem with your calcualtions....no allowance for cargo carried?????
Cargo would be a bonus like charging more for passenger bags or say choosing your seat. It’s not a fundamental part of a passenger carriers body (well 2020 is a different story). You need more fuel for cargo too
Also assumed for the plane costs, plane flies once a day from NY to LA. Is this correct? They can fly to LA and return in a day halving plane costs
but if cargo gets added shudnt it b evn more better cheaper or giv discounted extra allowance for extra kg better priced for inflight customer on the flight ticket holder., imagine the biznizz can b made mans lugg his wood burning fire place and cast iron skillet to next port
What about aircraft maintenance? That wasn't accounted for.
Where did you get all these figures from? $88 crew and staff costs from JFK to LAX? Assuming there is 5 crew on board, for a 6 hour flight that would be less than $3 an hour, and that's not even including ground staff etc. Unless I have my numbers wrong? And what about revenue from cargo and sales from food and drink?
your analysis is oversimplistic and it unsuccesfully tries tries to merge two questions into one, namely the low cost airline model and why these companies will not operate A380's (or any other large craft, for that matter. Low cost airlines use a different business model altogether. Many costs are exactly the same: planes (leased or otherwise), both operating costs and maintenance, plus fuel. They will tend to operate on smaller, more distant from downtown airports which evidently cost less in fees. You will not see them in Heathrow or CDG. Crews and cabin attendants will typically earn a bit less, and will be required to perform ancilliary duties. But more importantly, their planes fly more hours each and every day. A lot more. Full service airlines will tend to operate on what is known as a hub and spoke model. Take the USA. One can either attempt to run services from each and every city to every other destination, or one concentrates incoming flights from one region, have them converge at one convenient location and then reroute passengers in similar fashion to other cities at the opposite end. Typical mid way cities are Houston, Dallas, Chicago and Denver. So early in the morning flights will depart from New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Washington and so forth. The snag is that the more distant cities require more flying time than those closer to the hub, so these planes have to depart later than the others if they are to arrive to the hub at the same time to deboard simultaneously. This is is known in the industry as banks. At the hub airport a lot more staff is needed to attend to 2 or 3 large flows of passengers, rather than if they were to come evenly spread throughout the day. And this costs more, evidently. It has on the other hand the eminent advantage of being able to better combine passengers from several cities to many destinations, simultaneously. Low cost airlines on the other hand will operate in the exact opposite way. Besides going to smaller and less expensive airports wherever available (Love vs DFW or Midway vs O'Hare), their flights will be arriving and departing all the time, with less turnaround time than full service airlines. So their planes will be flying on average for say 12 hours or more, vs 8 hours for full service airlines. Big savings on an important cost item. Then of course they will cramp more seats into their planes. Essentially this is how low cost airlines have materially lower expenses which they pass on to passengers. Needless to say, this works well for short flights of say less than 6 hours, typically single aisle craft. On long haul flights this does not work. Smaller airports may be attempted, yet many will not have long runways to operate large planes, and flights cannot be scheduled one immediately after the other since when flying big distances and crossing many time zones planes will have to sit in the tarmacs waiting for appropiate departure times, as passengers will be reluctant to board or deplane at 3 am, regardless of how inexpensive fares may be. So here corner cutting possibilities with twin aisle airplane are substantially reduced. This explains why long range low cost carriers have inherently harder scenarios when flying twin aisle long range than when they do short range single aisles. Crossing the north Atlantic is the upper limit. When A321XLR enters into service in 2023 distances will be somewhat extended, but the equation will remain unchanged. And what planes do long range low cost carriers select for 10-12 hour missions? Europeans such as Norwegian or Level, or Asians such as Lion, Cebu, Scoot or Air Asia X, they all invariably go for the smaller twin aisles, typically A330's or 787's. Not A350's, not 777's, and positively NOT 747's or A380's. There is good ground for this. Air travel is invariably seasonal, and some routes very much so. For this simple reason low cost airlines will not touch the largest craft with a ten foot pole. They will cater to the smallest planes that will cover the required distance and are easier to fill year round. Winters are long and hard. Load factors and fleet utilization is the name of the game in the airline industry.
Huh
Could a 747 be converted to a tri jet? Off topic, why couldn't the USAF fit B-52s with four giant modern civilian engines instead of the old 8 engines?
Sound levels fluctuate a lot on this video, suddenely mid sentence the narration track goes loud and back again!
anyone else like when he says 'airline'.. the way he says it. lol
2:36 holy sht those two looking good
Not lease buy-back. Lease-back.
Lease buy-back is when you buy back the car that you had been leasing. Totally different to this situation.
Never see an A380 carrying 213, 220, 235, 242, 259, 266, 275, 289, and 297 passengers even the seat configuration is 516
$20 profit on $323 is really not bad a rate of return.
why tri-jet? and whats the significance, pros cons if it a direct route over antarica pert-S.A shortest 2points straight, what is wrong with route, if root good or needs additions, what r they? and whats stopping why not more compition but combined techology and services flexi co-op? is that unlikely a dream of better air well priced travel just look out window still on runway no flight? sorry apologies, fr abrupt bot rude error404 peace, ty fr vids btw
I never paid so cheap for that Qantas SYD to DFW flight. This would have been shortly after they switched the route from the 747 to A380, though, and not 2018.
It's amazing how uneasy the idea of flying over Antarctica makes me, even though I know it's irrational.
It’s so empty. I’ve done it and when you look at flight radar there is only one plane down thete
It is not irrational. Look up Air New Zealand Flight 901.
The suffering would be short.
I’m just as uneasy flying over Africa or the open ocean. Anywhere one is confronted with a black void is disarming.
Let's have Loickheed Martin jump in to the trijet business. LM-1011J Super Tristar, anyone?
If they used the original Tri-star models, they could be the oues filling the "middle of the market" 220-270-seat space.
It would be cool to see a LLC operate an a380 though..
I mean how about tokio-hongkong? Or something like that
I don't need to worry as I always fly wizzair and Ryanair :)
But... One of them might not be a budget around anymore
Wizz air is really good!
Do I hear Ryanair?!
or do you mean crash landing airways
@@redballthing Well the landings are hard but I never died
@@casparfriedrich3119 I know but their landing are still harsh XD
what is the richest airline
It’s called “sell and lease back”, not “buy and lease back”
In ryanair literally might just make people stand up if the plane is full
The A380 came out at the wrong time anyway. If it appeared right around the same time as the 747 it would have worked out but the market for 4-jets just isn’t there when you can get similar performance from a 777
Run my own airline? Sounds like the movie Soul Plane.
When does your new video on why the use of the A380 is dropping, and apparently not just because of Covid?
Michael O'Leary: I have an idea...
I saw a video were they where planning a A-380 plus version that could fit 900 economy class seats but now all are being retired...
Yes that was my video last week :) thanks for watching :)
but why? bring em outa retirement lets get amazon on it lol, bezoursszs cud c the profit in delivering pepols with 40kg luggage if we bring packed lunch and own mask n saniters plus wipes lov wipes 21st century book of Eli man smashesd it with fresh wipe
Retired ? Ask that to Emirates ! They even managed to buy two brand new ones in 2020 !
Don't airlines use futures to hedge against rising fuel prices?
Three storey plane with 6 engines is the future plane. It would be the most profitable for all & safest because of the 6 engine installment.
Airports can't currently handle such aircraft
$88 for crew.. lol no wonder us mechanics at these airlines are getting screwed. We're treated as so expendable until it's time for the plane to return to service.
So basically I am living in Malta and I love to go to Rome. On a typical flight it only takes 1.10 minutes to arrive. Now these low cost carriers provide food and drink at a cost. This is actually adding extra weight and let’s be honest, if the flight is only 1 hour, why waste money on rubbish coffee and food., oh and it ain’t cheap also.
Why is "NIGHTMARE" capitalized or even used at all?
He thought he was making 737 MAX video.
You never talked about the real reasons airliners don’t fly over Antarctica. Besides the navigational problem caused by flying too close to the magnetic South Pole, the other issue is the lack of alternate airports on such a route. Until commercial airliners are certified to operate off of ice pack runways, there aren’t any “suitable airports” on the whole of the continent! The biggest problem is that if any airplane suffered a cabin pressure problem that required to descend to 10,000 feet, the airplane simply can’t carry enough fuel to cruise at such a low altitude. The point of no return point, required for ETOPS flight operations makes this impossible with today’s airplanes.
What about the money made from mail and freight?
Revenue and Profit are totally different things. Which one is it? 4:26... Don't worry, the candidates on The Apprentice don't know the difference either!
I fear no man but that thing
Ryan air A380
It scares me
thing is, if 187$ would be the break even, why not charge say 250 or 300? That's still cheaper than anything else, no?
Why not use blender for video editing?
what about a A380 2000 passenger "Cattle Cart" Loadout? 100$ Transatlantic XD
Airlines aren't telling the truth.
Planes carry cargo for mail services and private cargo at a cost. Also government do support airlines in some countries. They also collect the taxes if they claim a loss.
why always a380 long haul flight.. why not a380 domestic flight around and hour, it would mean more strain on the aircraft but it could be done and might be more profitibale
Indigo can purchase second hand upgraded full economy confriguration A380 with 850 passengers by breaking the railway passengers capacity.
Confused screaming*
Don’t worry it can’t hurt you
lol yup im confued always, its taking long time to unblock my brainfreeze icecold glass of water,,, my teeth is got pins n needles bwain thowwing but im still dumb,,, ooops i ment numb as well as ma dumbness
You could probably fit 950 passengers on a a380 in 3-5-3 and terrible legroom like low-cost carriers normally have.
$32.5/pax/hour? Make it $40 and put that 800 economy seat a380 for hajj or umrah flight such as jakarta-jedda, kuala lumpur-jedda, delhi-jedda, etc. that flight in all economy will always be full.
I want to start an airline
Please check your scripts 4:22 "A *profit* of $428M in *revenue* per year. I'm pretty sure profit and revenue are different
Edit: I now realise this now sounds really condescending/Karen. I don't want it to sound like that. Great Work
Maybe.. but it's a pretty damm important business concept.
Suspect the Sydney-Dallas route didn't make a profit - was pushing the range maximum of the A380 and on the westbound route they couldn't sell all the seats in some winds.
If the route comes back suspect Qantas will use a 787 instead.
What Airbus and lessors didn't consider is that the cost of replacing the interior of an A380 is in the $50-80 million dollar range...
Not only will a low cost carrier never be able to afford to buy/lease a used one, the original airline is going to return the A380 at the end of the lease instead of putting in a refreshed interior, because the life of a first class interior is only about 10 years, and that was the term of the first leases.
So Singapore just turned theirs back, because customers paying the type of fairs which subsidize the A380 operating costs have expectations on the bedroom they just paid for. The leasing company is stuck with a giant white whale that needs $50+ million in investment to attract an airline who will want it in their configuration. There is no cargo configuration, so you part them out
So a low cost carrier will never fly one, neither will anyone else in a few years
And with 800 passenger setup A380 is pretty much the most fuel efficient per passenger
And how many airlines have done it? Zero.
@@shrimpflea besides the point.
@@TheJube97 No, it is the point.
@@shrimpflea not actually.
Its business suicide for both the airline and their insurance carrier if one crashes or goes out of service. Then factor in when you take a flight these days once you pass TSA security your pretty much an airport hostage for sells. Most people have no Ideal how much an airport vendor franchise costs annually. Loading an airplane that size will consume even more time as an airport hostage that passengers will not want to be. Sure the plan may hold up short term but as a long term business venture its pure suicide. Business wise one of the newer blimps being designed with jet engines would be far more practical for 800 passengers weight and fuel load and far safer than something that doesn't really fly, but is rather pushed through the air with force..
Your calculation for the cost of a NYC to LA flight is incorrect. Your cost for the airplane itself assumes it would only fly one flight per day. The airplane in reality would probably do 3 such flights per day. Your calculation also left out freight revenue which is higher per pound than passenger revenue. An airline will leave passengers at the gate in favor of freight.