The remarkable airplane that failed.

[mbailey]

I've answered my own question, little research showed that given the orders delivered and the 380s on order,  the aircraft hasn't reached the "break even" point yet due to the delays in launching it.  It's a young platform, the market will figure out what it wants.  The interesting thing that I found is that Emirates has been 44% of total sales and orders for the 380. That said, Emirates is making a success of it for their business model. Maybe others will follow suit.

[Zimme83]

It has reached break even, so as an industrial project it cannot be concidered a failure.
As for the 747 the -100 and -8 has pretty much nothing in common, they are two completley different birds.
First 747:s were used because of their range, not their capacity. First 747 had 266 pax in 3 class configuration and a range of 5.300 mi. Compare that to a Airbus 330-300 that takes 295 pax for 6100 mi. So the 747 wasnt even big by todays standard. Not even the -400 and the -8 has any advantage over the largets twins so there is simply no need for a 4 engine bird like the 747.

What finally killed the 4 engine birds like A340 and B747 was the fact that the twins were certified to fly over oceans and other places w/o an emergerncy airfield within close distance. Most new twins are certified for flying atleast 180 min from a divert airfield so they can fly almost any routes in the world.

[mbailey]

Actually as of Dec 2014 it hasn't reached break even yet (figuring in delivered aircraft and pending orders) due to delays in launch.....give it a few years and even if demand continues in its current state it should hit break even. New orders from the Asian market is where the profit for this bird lies now. They have considered lengthening it and upgrading the engines for more fuel efficiency (even better than they are now) I have a feeling some time in the not so distant future they will make their money back, and turn a profit. That is if the market wants it. What may help is take Emirates example (who is turning a profit with them) and market something  in a similar fashion over in the East.

All that said, it's just such a young platform at the moment I think some years will need to pass to tell.

Fingers  crossed, as I'd like nothing more for it to Succeed, Airbus makes a hell of an airplane that I enjoy flying on immensely.

Just my .02 anyway, take it for what it is.

[Rich46yo]

It is not remotely close to breaking even. Nobody likes "numbers" more then corporations. They can dream them up and investors can believe or not believe them. In this case they dont cause Airbus has taken a big hit due to the A380. The finance director of the project "suggested" dropping the A380 offhand just to see how it would affect share prices and the airlines operating it. Emirates airline went ape, the only airline keeping it afloat, and the stock holders told their own story by the shares in the company dropping almost 11% in a single day in Dec.

Luckily Airbus's other products are so popular and has helped keep this boondoggle as minimized as possible. I dont think one can really believe "numbers" from either Boeing or Airbus due to various slick tricks by Govt.'s to keep lines open and jobs alive. Supposedly they are PVT companies but the truth is they are both heavily subsidized, most of all Airbus. That the 380 is in trouble despite the world demand for passenger aircraft is at a fevered pitch speaks volumes.

Is it worth keeping it alive when only one airline is screaming for it? Most of all when the 350 is poised to be such a huge seller?

[Bodhi]

Rich,
I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point.  If they have and I missed it, please point it out.  As for the continuation of production, it makes sense, especially if they can keep the numbers up.  If they can't it obviously does not make sense.  I always figured that the Freight market was going to be the end all be all for the A380.  Other than clearance on the ground, ramp capacity, and a higher reaching loader, they don't need all the same airport things a PAX plane does.

Who knows.  Again, I am not an Airbus fan, it just seems to me that EADS would do best to keep making the plane, especially if it brings them closer to the break even point or better yet, profit.

[mbailey]

Rich,
I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point. 

Fabrice Bregier, president and chief executive,@ Airbus stated it this year at an annual media event.

[Bodhi]

So he did.  The article indicates (very ambiguously) that he said it will break even in 2015... 

So, cancelling the program, especially if they can re-engine and receive another 150 plus aircraft order, would be foolish, as it is pure profit.

[mbailey]

Agreed......that's why I stated earlier that in the next few years I'm sure it would hit break even and then turn a profit.  I think the issue lies in finding the additional orders, but again if some of these airlines can model its usage after Emirates business model, i think it's a success, if the dont, I think it's a white whale.

Fingers crossed for them, I fly for work quite often, and very much enjoy flying on their aircraft, that and the thousands of pay checks it offers for people is great.

 

So, cancelling the program, especially if they can re-engine and receive another 150 plus aircraft order, would be foolish, as it is pure profit.

[jeep00]

Agreed......that's why I stated earlier that in the next few years I'm sure it would hit break even and then turn a profit.  I think the issue lies in finding the additional orders, but again if some of these airlines can model its usage after Emirates business model, i think it's a success, if the dont, I think it's a white whale.

Fingers crossed for them, I fly for work quite often, and very much enjoy flying on their aircraft, that and the thousands of pay checks it offers for people is great.

Thank you 
Though a small part, it is still a part. And the orders for what we do keep coming, so they seem in decent shape to me. Certainly have had some issues but no different than any big program really. Especially one like this.

[Puma44]

Here's one that doesn't appear to have failed.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/saudi-princes-500-million-airbus-a380-blow-mind/

[Rich46yo]

They have released several. You know how to use a search engine as well as I do.

The problem with the freight model, besides the fact they havnt built it yet, is they have had to restructure the manufacturing line for the passenger line because they have had so few orders, and so many design issues. In other words they have had to fire people cause they arent selling the thing well and the Freight model not at all.

Now they are in cahoots with Emirates, both having a lot to lose. So Emirate airlines keeps ordering, at prices less then it takes to build them, and Airbus can keep the line open and cook numbers so their stock holders dont go Ape crap.

Now there are far more airports that can handle the plane then do. Ive already said why they dont do so, even some major Hubs like O'hare. These airports operate at such a frenzied pace none of them want a super jumbo clogging up operations or air space, or slowing them down. Heck they dont even want more 747s because they are so near max capacity. And the real kicker is the 380 was produced just for that reason, that because these major Hubs are at near 100% capacity it makes more sense making bigger airplanes to fit more on and thus use less space and time.

But as it turns out the airlines themselves have found a way to make more $$ using 2 engined jets, which are also cheaper to buy and operate. Take a 777, a 737, an A330, and just cram it full with as many seats and smelly Humans as they can. Then keep the dang thing in the air until the absolute end of its service life. More cash Baby, thats what civvie flying is about. More cash "this year" and keep the stock owners happy. Which keeps those big time management jobs safe. Thing is you can pack a 777 full of 460 people and have a cost per seat advantage of 40% compared to a 380 with the same load.

Sure you can pack 750+ on a 380 and make it up but there are only so many routes where they can find that many customers to cram into the thing like that. Like pilgrimages to Mecca with dirt poor pilgrims. And by packing the thing you lose the luxurious status behind the name brand and turn it into just a bigger sardine can. Most people just want to get somewheres cheaply even if it means smelling some 300lbers feet for a few hours.

A good article that explains some of what Im talking about. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/01/why-boeing-747-and-airbus-a380-sales-are-few-and-f.aspx

Airbus will survive. They are doing slick things with the A330neo and the A350 will be a wonderful airplane. But I think the days of the 4 engined super Jumbos are numbered. Even if they give them away at a loss and are subsidized by Govt.'s to keep jobs alive I dont think either maker will design another.

Rich,
I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point.  If they have and I missed it, please point it out.  As for the continuation of production, it makes sense, especially if they can keep the numbers up.  If they can't it obviously does not make sense.  I always figured that the Freight market was going to be the end all be all for the A380.  Other than clearance on the ground, ramp capacity, and a higher reaching loader, they don't need all the same airport things a PAX plane does.

Who knows.  Again, I am not an Airbus fan, it just seems to me that EADS would do best to keep making the plane, especially if it brings them closer to the break even point or better yet, profit.

[craz07]

I'll admit it I was in awe when the first a380 rolled out... now due to current affairs i'm just a bit skeeved by them..

[Rich46yo]

I'll admit it I was in awe when the first a380 rolled out... now due to current affairs i'm just a bit skeeved by them..

Im still in awe of it. Im also in awe "arguably" the best passenger plane maker in the world made such a mistake. Airbus's are held in very high regard by Yank pilots and mechanics.

[earl1937]

Im still in awe of it. Im also in awe "arguably" the best passenger plane maker in the world made such a mistake. Airbus's are held in very high regard by Yank pilots and mechanics.

I know that I am older than "dirt", and my views are biased towards the good ole days, but a good friend of mine once told me, and he was a economists for a major airline, that the most profitable aircraft the airlines ever owned were the DC-3, DC-6B and the 1049 super "G" Constellation. Problem came about when people wanted to get there faster and the desire to fly above weather instead of around it.
Looking at the A-380 aircraft, I wonder when is bigger, big enough, there has to be a point where it is profitable to carry X number of passengers or cargo from point A to point B, based on 75% of load carrying capability.
I would love to see 20 DC-3's carrying 520 passengers on a route, as one 380 with 240 people on same route, bet the 3's would make more money. they just wouldn't get there as fast.
(Most 3's had a 26 seat confg)

[Karnak]

I know that I am older than "dirt", and my views are biased towards the good ole days, but a good friend of mine once told me, and he was a economists for a major airline, that the most profitable aircraft the airlines ever owned were the DC-3, DC-6B and the 1049 super "G" Constellation. Problem came about when people wanted to get there faster and the desire to fly above weather instead of around it.
Looking at the A-380 aircraft, I wonder when is bigger, big enough, there has to be a point where it is profitable to carry X number of passengers or cargo from point A to point B, based on 75% of load carrying capability.
I would love to see 20 DC-3's carrying 520 passengers on a route, as one 380 with 240 people on same route, bet the 3's would make more money. they just wouldn't get there as fast.
(Most 3's had a 26 seat confg)

Flying from Austin, TX to San Francisco, CA on a DC-3 or Connie is one thing, I wouldn't be all that opposed to it, but Houston, TX to Mumbai, India is something else entirely and it is bad enough on a 600mph plane.

The other thing to remember about the "good old days" of commercial aviation is that the tickets were far more expensive so you limit the number of people who can access air travel, make the aircraft more comfortable to accommodate your richer, but fewer clients.