Could An All Airbus A380 Low Cost Carrier Work?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2023
- In 2018, low-cost carrier Air Austral rented an Airbus A380 for its Paris to Reunion island route. The purpose of this temporary acquisition was to ferry holidaymakers down to the tropical paradise. The A380 was provided by Portuguese wet lease company HiFly, which was the first leasing company to have an A380 available for rent.
In the end, however, the aircraft was unfortunately struck - or struck by a boarding ramp and subsequently had to be grounded while it awaited repairs to become airworthy again.
But Air Austral’s attempt to use the A380 in 2018 has us wondering: Could the jet be used for low-cost operations? Let’s examine this question for today’s video!
Article: simpleflying.com/a380-low-cos...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Not many routes are going to support that . The 380 ain't a cheap aircraft to operate.
Daymn. It's as if you watched the video!
Pilgrimage routes like Jeddah to Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Dhaka, Cairo, Istanbul, Karachi, Lahore, Dubai, etc.
These are cities with large middle class muslim populations.
Not to forget the tight turnarounds budget airlines need to achieve. Unfortunately, you cannot turnaround an A380 in 30mins.
Just imagine the landings if Ryan air had the A380s
Bane from the dark knight rises: finally my moment has come.
They'd have 1,000 seats in those!
Landing gear pov: 💥
nah mate imagine the airport managers having to triple repair budgets for damage to runways as a result
If Ryanair was to purchase such an A380 it would have over a 1000 seats & one toilet!
*toilet comes at an additional cost*
But flights would be like $10
The A380 was never a cheap plane, it was meant to be dense for slot constrained airports. Otherwise it is a gas guzzler that requires special gates with the two floors boarding bridges.
I agree. Remember that currently two air bridges are use to load 400 people. With 800 seats this starts becoming a problem.
@@Trevor_Austin The main issue here is that the A380 requires two floor air bridges that are only compatible with the A380. In fact the whole gate needs to be designed to fit an A380. Even the Boeing 747 cannot use those air bridges, despite having two decks. This limits where an A380 can fly and adds expenses to where it can fly.
0:46 "Ryanair's A380 doesn't exist, It can't hurt you!"
*RYANAIR'S A380*
I would rather swim to the destination than sit on an 950 seat Ryanair a380...
That’s a big underestimation, if O’Leary has his way 2500 seats can be fitted
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747*cargo class*
Low cost and A30 are contradictory. The 380 only works on highly premium routes with high fares.
Emirates is compelled to continue operating the A380, setting them apart significantly from other A380 operators such as Qatar and LH. When it comes to Global Air, I have serious doubts about their prospects for success, and I wouldn't place any bets on them for various reasons.
EK doesn't really have a choice but to continue given how many they have. Will take a decade to replace their oversized fleet of 125 of them. They are starting to use some of them for parts to support the 90 they have flying.
the government keeps them afloat with government oil. they can afford to fly a380s empty and still be fine
@@letsgotoe2toe Dubai doesn't have much oil and not a major producer. That's Abu Dhabi.
I could see large aircraft (maybe not the A380) operating some of the seasonal tourist routes. Especially those at constrained airports, some Spanish destinations for example in the summer - my local airport has like 9 flights a day to Palma and it’s not even that big of an airport - there’s obviously demand. However the seasonality would be a problem, maybe the ski market would pick up the winter break period.
Doesn't make financial sense to introduce such a high cost aircraft for seasonal shot lived swings in demand. Not worth all the cost and complexity.
This would require a development of air-stairs that could be attached to both levels and both ends to facilitate loading and unloading of so many passengers in a timely manner also to allow for use of airports that don’t support airway passages setup for A380s airlines in Japan have used 747s in this manner at least in the past
I don't see the A380 being viable for low-cost carriers. Its size just makes it a huge roll of the dice financially and a scheduling nightmare.
That being said, some low-cost carriers **do** fly a widebody type in addition to their narrowbodies. A case in point is Cebu Pacific, which operates the world's densest A330neo's with 459 seats, which is also the world's "greenest" airliner in terms of CO2 emissions. I think we will see more of that going forward, especially in the Valeriepieris circle with its high population and developing economies.
A380 "might" have worked for laker skytrain. An all-economy layout with 800 seats perhaps? Who's to say?
And the answer is “yes” coupled with a “but.”
Two things have to happen;
(i) this mythical airline has to buy the aircraft at a cheap price (now doable);
(ii) passengers have to treated as self-loading cargo: FedEx for people.
Configure the aircraft for the greatest number of passengers (800?); charge for all amenities; pair high density, holiday/vacation routes Gatwick/Orlando; Frankfurt/where-Germans-like-to-go; Sydney/Bali.
Aside from safety, not one iota of the thinking of a legacy carrier can enter the business culture. You don’t carry passengers, you carry self-loading cargo with a credit card.
I was hoping you'd do the numbers. Could an airline make money flying an 800-seater all-economy flight from London or Frankfurt to a large, high-demand tourism destination with lots of cheap fare demand like Mallorca?
exactly! Or from Frankfurt to San Francisco!! Long haul destinations where middle class families would like to go on holidays but are still a bit too expensive
That’s what I’m thinking. Would 1 800 seater plane be able to replace 4 200seater planes economically? Is it economics of infrastructure?
Bizarre idea imo. You'd also need a couple dozen flight attendants for that many people :D
Legally you need 1 trained (security and evacuation procedures) cabin crew member per 50 seats. So 800/50 = 16 cabin crew as a minimum.
If Ryanair, for example, were to introduce one of the type, on a very popular route, ie, JFK, even with less desirable departure and arrival times, a low fare would, I suspect, make it very viable for them.
Yes and no, Only high demand routes could be made profitable, but as they are very few and far between being usually already well serviced by other carriers this makes a success of this model unlikely.
Only ways I could see a budget airline use A380s is on the top 10 or 15 flight corridors in all honesty such as Sydney to Brisbane or Melbourne for Jetstar for example.
Cebu Pacific operates the A330NEO which has close to 500 seating cap. I won't be surprised that someday they would get possession of a few A380's with close to 900 seating cap, even if second hand ones. But with that in mind, expect more and more delays and reschedules.
I wouldnt gamble on an A380 to start with. Maybe a used A333 with a high density config. Not all airports could support the A380
In my opinion, inter-India or inter-China are the only two markets low-cost 380 service could possibly work. Wouldn’t be that different from all coach 747 service.
That idea has already been rejected in the both markets.
To me giving an A380 to Ryanair is like someone buying a famous actor's Bentley to use it as a yellow cab. It wont work because of the A380's maintenance and airport requirements. It is not an aircraft you can just land at any airport.
I miss the Jumbos. They're all so pleasant to fly in.
Having an exclusive a380 fleet for a ULCC/LCC would also mean that the airline would basically be forced to serve major airports in a city or metro compared to the cheaper ones further away. Those airports likely wouldn’t have a justification for extending runways and upgrading facilities for a service that would likely only run once or twice a day, so the airline would have to move to airports with more expensive landing fees.
It needs to be an Emirates-level carrier.
Norwegian tried with a fleet of B787 and they miserably failed.
They also chose the Trent 1000 which turned out to be such a problem child until the P&W 1000G took that title in the last few months ago
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 It was never working for them a long time BEFORE the engine issues popped up. That just finished them off.
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 PW which is causing to have to inspect over 600 A320s right for the next 2 years.
If the infrastructure was in place where most low-cost regional operations take place. That's the only way the 380 could potentially be a viable low-cost carrier.
I'm afraid the answer is a resounding yes, in fact not only is it possible, it's unavoidable. on a long enough timelime, everything becomes a greyhound bus.
Can someone please tell me which is the background score that is used at the start? Sounds soo beautiful 🥺
An A380 landing at Knock airport is unusual looking. It's a small regional airport and I'm surprised they have the runway for it.
A380 and "low cost" can't be in in the same story
Not even a 747 can be used by low cost carriers
Ryanair could get over 2500 seats if they acquired one if O’Leary had his way for how to configure it
*cargo class*
@@heidirabenau511And pax strapped to the wings with oxygen breathing wasps and tanks. If they need the toilet they can partially stand but they lean quite far backwards whilst they are busy
My question is what's stopping Airbus from giving the A380 more efficient engines? That seems to be the only gripe with these but airlines have shown that even flying them at 70% capacity is viable with current scenario but now nobody will want it with it being discontinued.
Simple. Only EK was requesting in and it would very costly to to develop. Probably 5 to 10 billion all said and done between airframe changes, new engine development and all the certification testing that would be required. Years long project. Not enough market to justify all that. And no, rarely is the 380 profitable at only 70% LF. You need a min of 85% every day on most routes given how expensive it is to operate.
I don’t wanna imagine Ryanair flying this
Can you make a video like this but with the 747-8 & -400? More places can take it.
Ryanair’s 737 are currently filled with a high proportion of feral pigs. Now imagine an A380 filled with the same percentage of foul, drunk, violent, anti-social misfits. What a joy such a flight would be. Will it work? Unlikely.
I think the only low-cost airlines that can do it is cebu pacific. With routes to syd,dxb,lhr, and lax. The costumer based as mostly overseas works so price over comfort
I would think that Zipair could try it. Simple destination map to high traffic medium-haul & trans-pacific destinations, also offers a premium product that could benefit from the extra space.
To me, it's the only one that makes any kind of sense.
The bilge would have to be pumped after every flight.
I prefer to fly airlines that have multiple daily flights on smaller planes, as well as strong alliances. This gives me more options for timing, and more protection in case of flight disruption. If my United flight from FCO to EWR is cancelled, there is a good chance that they can re-book me on a later flight, or they will re-route me through their many Star Alliance partners. If an airline flies one A380 per day with 800 seats to a remote island destination, what happens when that flight is cancelled due to weather, mechanical, etc.? The answer is that 800+ passengers are simply f**ked, and their vacations ruined. These upstart airlines do not have a spare A380 sitting around, and they have no partners to help with the disruption. A few years back, Frontier was making weekly flights from DEN to resort destinations in Mexico, basically arriving and departing only on Saturday. There were several instances when a flight was cancelled. Frontier does not have any partners, and even if the plane was repaired in a few hours, it was already scheduled for another route tomorrow, so the canceled flight was never recovered. Frontier would simply refund the $150 fare and tell the passengers they were on their own, forced to buy a last minute ticket home on a big-boy airline for $900. People are naturally attracted by low fares, which is why ULCCs exist. I certainly understand the temptation, but a seasoned traveler understands that there is so much more to consider.
Maybe if it flies non stop worl round routes like Paris-Berlin-Rome-Athens-Dubai-Delhi-Shanghai-Nagoya-Tokyo-Manila-Sydney-Los Angeles-New York-London. Like a bus with many stops.
Eh, a non-stop route with many stops? That doesn't compute.
🔥🔥
Ryanair or easyjet need to take full economy configuration a380 with 800 passanger for route London-NY.
I think that it would mostly work well within Scoot, and Air Asia and Air Asia X
I can see JFK to LHR route working with low cost all economy A380
I think it could work only if the model had multiple classes like a economy and business at least and if they found smaller airports willing/ able to accommodate an expansion. There are a lot of airports in the U.S. especially after Covid that sit empty most of the time compared to pre Covid that would probably be very open to a new airline but that’s a lot of investment needed so it would be extremely unlikely. If they could use any gate I think it would thrive honestly people want to travel but can’t afford to.
Smaller airports would have no interest in the US given all the required upgrades and simply not enough demand anyway for 380.
@@johniii8147 i disagree there are plenty of “medium” sized airports that could warrant the demand for high capacity planes including the a380 Look at SFB they had almost exclusively wide body flights before Allegiant really took over the whole airport. Almost any of the airports surrounding LAX if they physically could expand would do fine. The real issue is a380s are exclusively operated by the big airlines who are part of alliances which utilize hubs to allow for connections. If they were not part of alliances they could easily make money focusing on medium range markets like Tui is doing.
@@damnimloomin Almost comical comment that shows a real lack of understanding of the how the industry works. Only very large airports can support super jumbo service from a really big hub. Simply too costly for both the airline and airport to operate otherwise.
I don’t see this ever working. Maybe they could wet lease a larger aircraft (A330 size) for the winter flights into Spain but in order to maintain their cheap fares it would be difficult even with that size aircraft. Airport runways would have to be able to handle it. Extra flight attendants. Air stair usage. Higher waged pilots etc.
No. With such long turnaround times it could never work on short haul routes, and for the most part long haul low cost airlines operate lower frequency to a wider range of destinations - not an A380 daily...
Why did looking at the thumbnail make me wanna die😭😭
Doubt it
I think for a pilgrimage to Mecca for the Haj, from Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt and perhaps serveral other countries, it would be a success, but not a year round operation.
Just think if Southwest airlines had a A380! They would have less times on their website as they do now!
I can only imagine what MOL would do to an A380…😖
I'm afraid Air Austral is not a low-cost carrier..
I haven't even watched this yet but no. Not enough airports around the world can accommodate the A380 and like someone else said, they're incredibly expensive to operate and maintain.
Let see if Global Airlines can make it to the start of the operation next year
I'll place a bet no
Nice joke, that scam will never happen.
The Low Cost airlines that make money are the ones that stimulate demand on underserved routes. Thr A380 won'r work for this as more often than not, it involves flying to smaller airports that won't have the demand or infrastructure to handle an A380. You'd only be able to fly it on high capacity routes which, as proved by Air Asia X, wouldn't work with the Low Cost business model at all
If scoot got the a380:
Long haul in narrow seats, what a nightmarish prospect
Nope. 380s require infrastructure that low cost airports not have so it’s a non starter.
As aircraft extensions are built into design, and aircraft engines are now very efficient, premium economy should be the minimum space offering.
And are you going to be willing to pay premium economy fares for this brilliant idea? No didn't think so.
If it weren't for the gambling crackdown, Shanghai-Macau might have worked... or at least mostly coach with a small cabin of regional first/business
Hell Any big Chinese cities to Bangkok would have worked.
This is how you would make it work:
1. Partner up with a major domestic airline to do your domestic flights. Ex: United Airlines would operate all domestic flights and the low cost would only operate international flights.
2. Allow the major airline to focus on the premium classes for international flights Ex: United Airlines would operate more Business and Polaris class seats and maybe Economy Plus. And the low cost carrier would operate the economy class.
This would open up more time slots and gates for the low cost carrier to operate the A380 and allow United to focus on improving the premium experience
2. Trans Pacific (LA/SF to Asia Pacific). The low cost carrier could use United’s hubs at SFO and LAX, which would save them money.
3. Trans Atlantic (NYC to LHR, Paris and maybe Frankfurt). The low cost carrier could use United’s hubs at EWR (and United has a crew base at LHR)
JAL were operating the 747 SR in Japan against the most advanced road and rail network in the world for many years. Just a thought. It'll come one day widebody short routes.
Japan is a highly unique market and even they moved away from that years ago now.
Imagine Cebu Pacific A380 in all Economy Config
Exactly what I was thinking! Especially on their HKG flights. Most of the time fully booked ang flights for that.
at least better than Ryan i guess
no because not all airports can handle an A380
Technically Chinese did it’s they use A380s to transport people from Shanghai to Hong Kong for example 😅
Air Austral isn’t low cost…
Full eco A380 is a good seasonal option for holidays, entertainment and religious events.
Imagine Indigo A380 for Hajj!
@@heidirabenau511 Would be something I'd care to think about the mess.
short answer: no
Icl with recent events at Ryanair they should try one from ip north as Newcastle fans crashed their website and have booked every flight from Newcastle Edinburgh manchester leeds and teaside to Milan
If Newcastle could accommodate such a plane they would have at least 5 full flights at specific times
Summary: No
easyJet A380 could be possible.
LOL
What a bad video to be honest. Of course Ryanair would not replace all of its fleet. But it would have been nice to see some estimates with numbers on how much revenue could they make from a flight from london to new york, for exemple, on a full economy airbus A380. And how much cost. If they only had one plane they could start making long distance travelling. It really annoyed me the lack of precise measures and just the random thoughts of the video creator
Ryanair would make it 1000 seats because they are a trash airline.
Agree about 1000 seats, disagree about them being a trash airline, you get what you pay for, if you want some luxury, fly with someone else.
@@heidirabenau511 If Ryanair could charge you breathing the recycle fart fueled air within their planes, they would.
It’s not fortune It’s Gods Grace In Jesus Mighty Almighty Name I Pray Amen
im firsttt
Actually I'm the first
No ok, in dumb ur first
This video is not accurate and it says a lor of vage things and is clearly a clickbait. Lost 10 minutes watching.