Like I said, it doesn´t even matter. With such important airports on the list like SFO, LAX, ATL, JFK, ORD, MIA and DFW the A380 could fly enough national high-volume long-range routes to be very profitable for some US airlines.

I guess that is why we see so many US airlines jumping at the A380.

Look at a few of the middle eastern customers.The whole gulf area relies on cheap asian workers and they all like to go home every so often.Piling the maximum amount of bodies into one airframe and flying them around asia often over large distances is what this aeroplane has been designed for,Not the North American domestic market.You will probably never see it in some of the Us airports you mentioned.You will see a lot in Asia.

Well, not yet. The A380 will be here for the next 30+ years, we will see what the future brings.

You mean international. Domestic flights would never justify an A380, just like the don't justify a 747 or even a 777. The only times I have even been on a 777 for a US destination coming from a US destination) was when the plane was continuing on to Hawaii from Chicago, and even that flight is not even full. I just don't see a market outside of Asia is all. I expect Asia to buy quite a few, but not enough to sustain it. Boeing can't sell enough 747's anymore and haven't been able to since before the A380 was annouced, so that should tell you something already.

By the way, 420 aircraft is way above the original 150 they claimed originally as needed to turn a profit. I hope it doesn't dig Airbus a grave since they are needed as competition to Boeing, but I don't think it will do good things for them either!

-S

PS. This plane will make a good cargo plane though. This FedEx cancellation has got to hurt because I bet that is what Airbus is relying on.

Boeing have had two recent commercial failures:B757-300 and the B767-400 If you spent a day at the right airport you would probably see all of them!

You should hope its longer than 30+ years. The B727 first flew in 1963, and as I'm sure you know continues to fly today.

I've flown on both of those, even recently. I think the 787 is probably why they have been a failure. Anyway, this is comparing apples to oranges - The money involved is a tiny little fraction of what Airbus is involved with. The 757 and 767 were already designed and this is just a design mod.

-S

No, I meant national.

Who knows. Maybe someday there´ll use the 640+ seats version of the A380 to fly JFK-LAX or something.

No, that´s certainly not good, but the A380 is a long-term project, just like the 747.

Five times a week we'd fly the 777 from KORD to KDEN.

Many Japanese airlines have used SR(short range) versions of the B747 for many years!
http://toshihiroe231w223faito.blog.o...47_2_thumb.JPG

Which model, how many seats?

Exactly why I said Asia. I don't know how much you guys know about the US, but people in the US are not as concentrated as you would find in Europe or Asia. We are all spread out. The last people that came over from the UK that I met couldn't beleive that there is all this open land that 'no one' really owns. In Europe - that simply doesn't exist for the most part. Miles and miles of absolutely nothing. That is what a lot of the US is which is why you not only have so many airports, but is why large aircraft do not typically operate in the US. The largest domestic aircraft that I have seen used on a regular basis for domestic travel is the 767. You get the occasional 777, but it is very rare.

-S

B777-200, 370 seats. The equipment had come in from EDDF three hours earlier.
From KDEN we went to KSFO. Then back to KORD.