← Back to Squawk list
  • 35

Predictable: Malaysia Airlines Has Not Been Able To Sell Any Of Its Airbus A380s

Submitted
In this week's least surprising news, Malaysia Airlines hasn't managed to offload any of their six A380s after advertising them for sale online. The Kuala Lumpur-based airline has had the planes for sale since July last year and has periodically plugged them ever since to potential buyers on mainstream and social media platforms. But there aren't many people in the market for a used A380 these days. (www.msn.com) More...

James Steiner
TrendsetterPaparazziNews junkieTrusted friendAmateur PhotographerPromoterAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


RDLoven
Richard Loven 7
There’s always a buyer for the right price.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ThomasFrisch
Thomas Frisch 14
Great pity. For the passenger, the A380 is one of the most comfortable airliners ever built: spacious, quiet and fast. For the pilot, a joy to fly.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
stovepipe707
James Kelly 1
No joy for the company paying the pilot. The 380 is a nightmare. Novelty at best
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

flybd5juan
Juan Jimenez 6
And UK, and Germany and Spain, among many, many others.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rjjones4314
Rpger Jones 4
What I dont get…. If US airlines cant find enough pilots, why not reduce the number of flights on popular routes and fly bigger planes? Sure, customers wont have as many choices, but at least they will have a higher level of confidence that the flight wont get cancelled.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
srobak
srobak 6
This is something I've been wondering for a couple of decades and it is related to what you're stating.

Having lived around Chicago for 15 years and flown in and out of O'Hare and Midway more times a month than is possible to count - to this day I do not understand why a lot of the airlines will fly multiple small commuter or 737 or a320 all to the same destination within an hour or two instead of tasking an ultrawide with double to quadruple the capacity at less frequency save with wider gaps in between.

The amount of congestion both at the gate and in the air not to mention taxiing that is caused by four to six planes all from the same airline all going to the same destination within 30 minutes to an hour is ridiculous. Gates have been overcrowded for decades because of this and too many mishaps on the ramps or the taxiways as well.

Plus aircraft on approach and a departing schedules. I think O'Hare alone could eliminate 30% of its congestion and tightly packed schedule by the airline simply switching to larger aircraft and less frequency to same destinations. just doesn't make any sense.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Pilots have to be trained for different aircraft, being trained in a B737 doesn't mean you can fly an A380. Also maintenance, & crew considerations.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MichaelDendo
Michael Dendo 4
Why not lease them to Emirates who needs capacity.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
srobak
srobak 3
Emirates has been decommissioning their 380s as well.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
srobak
srobak 7
Well - in all honesty, they need to just put them back in service and start doing routes from all over the Asian-Pacific to the US and Europe again. There's no reason not to. With China Eastern out of the mix, ANA, JAL, KA and PAL flights are literally bursting at the seams and haven't been bothering to overbook in quite some time.

It's either that - or drop the price of the aircraft to something more reasonable and maybe one of those airlines will pick up a few.

It is a fantastic aircraft all around - both for passengers and crew.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 9
White elephant. Figuratively and literally.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Artie7998
Artie7998 3
Literally?
I don't think that word means what you think it means
--Inigo Montoya
;)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 2
John Kerry may be in the market for one at least fractionally. His current ride is in need of majors on the engines.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jfranco715
JOSE FRANCO 1
I'm more interested what's happening to the Boeing 737
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
BillOverdue
Bill Overdue 1
Dunno, buy new ones for the same price?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
srobak
srobak 3
They haven't been made in over a year, and those units were already spoken for.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
dalej2
Dale Johnson 1
why can't they use it as a cargo plane?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
srobak
srobak 1
Requires reengineering the structural design. Some are being converted but very few because of the expense involved in redoing the structure
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bentwing60
bentwing60 2
Please show a current link that any are being converted to cargo, not box (fedex, upsco) haulers. It ain't so.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 1
White tail wet leasing to other airlines has limited potential. Keeps crews active.

Won't work for any airline that still has A380's still parked.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
normcraw51
Norman Crawford -2
Outsmarted by Boeing.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

usrepeaters
Rob Palmer -4
How about putting them all on the North Atlantic as a shuttle by some consortium? Flying slower or with smaller engines would save a lot of fuel, which is the consideration today.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
LoveGR
Duncan Waldrop 4
You make that sound so trivially easy. Think about what you suggest. And you overlook the extreme infrastructure required on both ends of every flight.

Ugghh.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbsimms
James Simms 3
That’s like suggesting placing homeless Vets in abandoned military bases & ships. Sounds great, but once you look @ why military bases are left to rot in place because of remediation of asbestos, lead paint, any other hazardous wastes costs more than is remotely profitable. THEN bringing everything up to current codes including ADA & electrical AND providing Fire, EMT, & Law Enforcement. Same goes for retired ships, there’s a reason they’re sold to the scrappers for a penny or dollar.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
srobak
srobak 0
Having been a victim of BRAC and watching the devastation it cost first hand - I can tell you that it would have been a lot easier and affordable to convert them over time and at the time of closure rather than to simply leave them abandoned outright. It actually costs more to demo them now than it would have to convert them 20-30 years ago when brac started swinging it's axe around and shuttered 400 bases.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
srobak
srobak 1
Devastation it caused - not cost (although that too)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Don't think smaller engines would get you anywhere or even off the ground.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss