Originally Posted by
Robomo
If someone does fly A380's AKL to USA and beyond then their seat/mile cost would be slightly better than the current 777. However the only profitable route would be AKL-LAX. The A380 is designed as a hub to hub carrier and works well in that scenario - look at Dubai. The 777 and 787, being smaller and only marginally more costly on a seat/mile cost are better on point to point routes.
Airbus bet on airlines going hub to hub, Boeing on point to point. A380 sales have stalled whilst Boeing 777 and 787 sales have soared, as have Airbus's A330 and A350 2 engine planes. With 2 engine planes now able to fly just as far as the 4 engine planes there is no need to invest in the 4 engine A380 for long-distance trans-ocean flights.
Air NZ's philosophy is point to point. Thus to USA we have AKL to LAX, SFO and Vancouver. When more 787's arrive there is the possibility of direct flights to Dallas and Seattle and CHC-LAX, routes that would never support an A380 (AirNZ tried 747's on CHC-LAX a few years ago but could not fill the planes profitably).
Passengers prefer point to point rather than spending time in an enormous hub just to fly another hour or two to a smaller destination (as well as the greater possibility of delays and lost baggage).
Emirates and Singapore are the only realistic possibilities to fly A380 AKL-LAX (Qantas are in real trouble according to today's paper) but it would be risky, being away from their hubs. There would be considerable added costs in flight crews spending time away from their home town and to make it profitable they would have to offer just about daily flights. A huge investment and given the current popularity of AIRNZ with the travelling public I can't see it happening.
AirNZ have the right philosophy IMO. From a passenger's point of view I'm just as comfortable in a 777 as a 380 and they fly at the same speed anyway.