The remarkable airplane that failed.

[Rich46yo]

Despite its rather brilliant design and purpose I suspect the A380 production line is going to fold up and new orders to stop being taken in the next few years. From the beginning the logic behind building it was flawed. As it is now there are about 150 delivered to only around a dozen airlines and they arent making much, if any, money for them. Airbus is just trying to find a face saving way out of this mess and go back to concentrating on its very profitable and excellent two engine designs.

There are several key conflicting issues with the 380 that were obvious from the start. Because of its size it can only operate at a limited amount of high volume INTL air ports. Also because of its size it takes a lot of time to taxi and move around which slows down the airport operations, most importantly landing and taking off. Even worse, because of its size, it creates a air vortex when landing/launching which creates both a time and distance penalty before the next plane in line can occupy the space. 3 mins and about 10 miles I believe.

So look at it this way. The operation of the airplane, the design of the airplane, creates a financial burden on the very airports it was designed to operate in. Airports make money by airplanes taking off, landing, and buying gate space. Anything that hinders that costs the airports money. Its amazing to watch in action, sorta like a technical ballet dance for cash. A "dance" that only makes money by the volume of airplanes its able to launch/receive.

Even worse, while the 380 is itself a brilliant technological achievement, and economical considering. the operating airline only makes money if it fills the dang things up. And filling up 550 seats aint very easy. Not on a regular basis. Even in the best of times the 380, due to its 4 engines, burns to much fuel per seat/passenger compared to the wide bodied 2 engined passenger jets. I forget the exact numbers but its at least a 20% difference. The truth is it only makes money in a very few small markets, and there are only so many rich Arabs available to pay for APT suites on a A380.

So its not a money maker for either the airlines or the airports which is why Airbus only has about 300 orders at a time they projected 1,200. And it only has those orders because its giving them away at a loss. Not a sound business plan. No doubt Airbus would rather focus on its potentially very profitable A350 just coming on line but they have a huge investment in the A380. To make all of this even worse the freight model isnt even going to happen cause it gives only a very small increase in freight capacity compared to the 747-8 and that project, A380 freight, is pretty much dead.

I have concern for our British cousins cause they have a very big investment in the construction infrastructure of the 380 and many thousands of high paying jobs at risk. Its just a bad situation for Airbus, most of all when considering everyone did everything right, and built a remarkable aircraft. The only ones who failed were the suits who bet the house on an airplane that never should have been built in the first place.

[Bodhi]

I believe Emirates has firm orders for 140 - 150 a/c.  I also believe that their CEO said they would order a like number if Airbus would re-engine the aircraft.  That's a large order and if it makes money, the A-380 will continue to be made.  Which makes sense as the more they sell, the more they recover.

FWIW, I am no Airbus fan.  The only reason they did it was to say they built an aircraft bigger than Boeing.  It was an ego driven project.  That said, it is was also a good design. 

[Zimme83]

Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.

[Serenity]

Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.

I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?

[DaveBB]

I was working at UPS when they cancelled the Airbus A380 orders.  There were too many delays.  UPS had quite a few ordered.  Instead, it switched its orders to 747s.

[PR3D4TOR]

Seems to be doing ok.



Filling 550 seats is very easy in the Asian market. They're flying A380s and 747s as regional commuter planes.

[Zimme83]

I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?

The lifelenght of an airframe ar primarily decided by how many cycles it has flown. Whats "kills" an airliners is structural fatigue because the pressurized cabin stretches the fuselage every time the plane is on cruise alt. So it doesnt really matter what model it is, they all have the same life length, short range planes with many cycles a day have a shorter life than intercontinental airliners. (and of cource u have the economic factors that decides if it profitable to use an old aircraft)

Thats why a DC-3 can live forever, it has no pressurized cabin. A lot of old airliners ends up as freighters and having their pressuried cabin removed.

Since 2007 Boening have got orders for 19 747:s including freighters. Since a 777-300 fly as long as a 747 and have almost the same capacity Boeing pretty much killed the 747 themselves, 2 engines are a lot cheaper than 4.
The 380 atleast have its own niche, aldough its a small one.

[jeep00]

Seems to be doing ok.

(Image removed from quote.)

Filling 550 seats is very easy in the Asian market. They're flying A380s and 747s as regional commuter planes.

 

[mbailey]

Good thing about the 747 is its a design cost, production line  that has paid for itself 10 times over and is profitable. I wonder where the 380 stands in comparison. Be curious to see

[Karnak]

My wife and son will be flying on one from Houston to Mumbai by way of Dubai on one next month.

[Rich46yo]

I believe Emirates has firm orders for 140 - 150 a/c.

That one airline has saved an entire jumbo passenger plane from immediate death indicates itself a big problem. Besides any further orders, if these are even filled, will be made only if Airbus makes the plane even longer. Since they will be basically giving the 380 away at a loss to one airline why would they want to do that? To invest even more?

Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.

More like 150 380s delivered compared to 1,503 747s delivered. Boeing at least saw the end of the super Jumbo era. The market just isnt there.

I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?

No, as good a design as it is the 747 has a life span of other jets. The simple brutal fact is that airlines make much more money jamming people in every seat of a 400 seat 2 engine airplane then it does putting 400 people in a 550 seat 4 engine airplane that costs far more to buy, upkeep, and operate for both the airlines and the airports. The real money makers for an airline are regional and continental operations.

I was working at UPS when they cancelled the Airbus A380 orders.  There were too many delays.  UPS had quite a few ordered.  Instead, it switched its orders to 747s.

Due to the lack of orders for the passenger version, and the lack of a market for the cargo version, Airbus had put all its available resources into the passenger version while restructuring and laying off 10,000 people. A sad story really.

Seems to be doing ok.

Its not. Its a disaster. They are putting a brave face on it but when you are selling far less of a product, at far less then you expected to charge, to far fewer customers, its called a "disaster".

Filling 550 seats is very easy in the Asian market. They're flying A380s and 747s as regional commuter planes.

Airbus has delivered 61 380s to the "Asian Market". That also is a disaster. As is when you are forced to fly a long range super jumbo on regional routes just to make any money off of them.

[Karnak]

Airbus has delivered 61 380s to the "Asian Market". That also is a disaster. As is when you are forced to fly a long range super jumbo on regional routes just to make any money off of them.

This is your misunderstanding of the market.  They need super jumbos for regional routes there.  You could not serve those markets with 737s and A320s like you can in the US and Europe.

[Rich46yo]

This is your misunderstanding of the market.  They need super jumbos for regional routes there.  You could not serve those markets with 737s and A320s like you can in the US and Europe.

Perhaps, Im no expert in such things. But it must not be such a large market for so few 380's to have been ordered for such regional routes. But yes, I suppose a 380 could be an airborne version of a ferry or train they always have filled to the gills over there. We hear of them when they turn over. You can pack 600 people in one so it might be profitable outside of major Hubs.

But I think the key difference between the 747 age and the time of the 380 is that the 747 was Lobbied for by the airlines while the 380 was not. Instead it was an Airbus idea for what they thought was the future of air travel. The future of air travel instead ended up being the 777, 787, and A350. Now were talking 55,000 Euro jobs at risk at 16 dedicated sights in Europe alone.

I admire Airbus products in case anyone thinks Im a gloating Yank over a perceived failure. The A340 might be my favorite civvie people mover and I salivated over a new A321 the other day. They are world class products and even tho the 380 had the usual troubles of a new design, and the expected inter-national bickering of the EU, they did deliver what was promised. A remarkable aircraft. I hope to tour one some day.

But it was a dream without a need. In a really, really cut throat business.

[PR3D4TOR]

Perhaps, Im no expert in such things.

Yet you made a seemingly authoritative six paragraph first post and continue to argue on the economics and market for the A380.

[Wolfala]

I have flown on the 380 a few times. Most recently from Australia to Singapore to Frankfurt. The Australia to Singapore leg, let me tell you, it was empty. I had an entire row to myself for 8 hours. Not so much on the Frankfurt leg but still, like you said, you gotta pack these to stay above board.

That said, what we are missing is the Asian airlines in particular have an infatuation for 4 engines because of the long over water legs they do. Can't figure it out myself, but just look at their patterns of purchasing for aircraft for say, JAL the last 40 years.