The remarkable airplane that failed.

[Rich46yo]

Emirates is the world's largest international airline. They didn't do that by losing money.

“The A380 is a passenger magnet. We operate five a day from Dubai to London’s Heathrow and they are 95 per cent full,”

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/airlines-need-the-a380-says-emirates-boss/

OK so we have confirmation 5 out of 140 are 95% full. They have a 800 seat version that fly's into Saudi for the Pilgrimage that is often 100% full. Big deal!

Airbus has struggled to sell the planes. Orders have been slow, and not a single buyer has been found in the United States, South America, Africa or India. Only one airline in China has ordered it, and its only customer in Japan has canceled. Even existing customers are paring down orders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html

The A380 has a list price of $400 million, but the pressure has forced Airbus to cut prices as much as 50 percent, according to industry analysts. So far, Airbus has received 318 orders and delivered 138 planes to just 11 airlines — a disappointing tally given forecasts that the plane would be a flagship aircraft for carriers worldwide.

But critics like Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax, Va., say the main problem is more fundamental: Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes — no matter their feats of engineering — that make connections through huge hubs.

“It’s a commercial disaster,” Mr. Aboulafia says. “Every conceivably bad idea that anyone’s ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane.”

I can only cut and paste from so many sources. I can only post so many facts. If you dont comprehend what happened to this airplane by now you never will.

[Zimme83]

One can still say that most critics are from the US and looking at the 380 soley from a "US" view. It might be true that the US travelers prefer city jumping with CRJ:s rather than hub-to-hub with a 380 but the market is not the same everywere. China and India markets have huge potential, thats over 2 billion people alone. The 380 market is not huge but it still have some potential to grow in primarly Asia.

[PR3D4TOR]

I can only cut and paste from so many sources. I can only post so many facts. If you dont comprehend what happened to this airplane by now you never will.

I'd be careful of calling any of these articles "facts". You're a cop and I'm sure you're a good one. Perhaps even great. However, when it comes to the airline business I'll take Tim Clark's word over yours. No offense.

[Karnak]

OK so we have confirmation 5 out of 140 are 95% full.

Per my wife's experience today it seems the Dubai to Mumbai flight is full as well.

[Rich46yo]

I'd be careful of calling any of these articles "facts". You're a cop and I'm sure you're a good one. Perhaps even great. However, when it comes to the airline business I'll take Tim Clark's word over yours. No offense.

You dont need to be a "cop" to realize very few, if any, are ordering 747s or 380s. Thats just fact. The Emirates is the only reason this production line is even still open and ONE airline saving a 25 B investment does not portend good things. The information Ive posted has come from airline industry sources not Police ones.

The Industry has turned sour on Jumbo's, both Boeing and AB's. The 747 changed aviation forever and made a ton of money but that doesnt translate into the 380 doing the same 40+ years later. The 2 engined wide bodys are just to good, to efficient, have to much range, dont interrupt airport operations, and most of all, make to much money.

[CavPuke]

Yes that WAS the essential point of the A380. The entire idea behind the design. Heres the problem however.

The entire dilema the A380 was supposed to ease it ended up making worse because of its size. 1, the thing is so big it taxi's like a beached whale and slows down ALL of the airports operations due to its stumbling around while taxi'ing. 2, Its so big it creates a very large air vortex that needs many minutes for the air in the runway path to calm down before the next airplane in the slot can take its place and land and/or take off. Maybe you havnt seen exactly what it takes to get a 747 in the air, or down to the gate, but I have. The A380 multiplys that by a factor of "X". All of which costs both the air ports and the air lines money because the extra seats it actually is able to fill isnt much more then the standard wide bodys.



Heres a big Hub. Ive seen planes lined up like on a highway. Both on the ground and in the air coming in, every minute or two. Every runway either launching or receiving. And they dont like 4 engined gas hogs creating air vortex's that takes 10 mins to clear no matter what the bling and certainly not for 50 extra passengers.

I don't know where you're getting your info about wake turbulence separation behind an A380 or B748 (so called Super Heavies) but correct if I'm wrong this is the FAA current standards for radar separation for arrivals are:



The max requirement is 8NM for a small following a Super. (small biz jet etc following).

Here is the ICAO standards (which are less restrictive):



I can't imagine a Super operating in a non radar environment but I could be wrong. Here are the non radar standards:

Arriving Aircraft

The following non-radar separation minima should be applied to aircraft landing behind an A380-800 aircraft:

    MEDIUM aircraft behind an A380-800 aircraft — 3 minutes;
    LIGHT aircraft behind an A380-800 aircraft — 4 minutes.

Departing Aircraft

A minimum separation of 3 minutes should be applied for a LIGHT or MEDIUM aircraft and 2 minutes for a non-A380-800 HEAVY aircraft taking off behind an A380-800 aircraft when the aircraft are using:

    the same runway;
    parallel runways separated by less than 760 m (2 500 ft);
    crossing runways if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 300 m (1000 ft) below;
    parallel runways separated by 760 m (2 500 ft) or more, if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 300 m (1 000 ft) below.

A separation minimum of 4 minutes should be applied for a LIGHT or MEDIUM aircraft when taking off behind an A380-800 aircraft from:

    an intermediate part of the same runway; or
    an intermediate part of a parallel runway separated by less than 760 m (2 500 ft).

For more details on displaced landing threshold and opposite direction take-offs consult the complete Guidance on A380-800 Wake Vortex Aspects (30 June 2008)

The maximum time is 4 minutes not 10 as you posted. As to taxi ops you may very well be right.

I think the day of commercial 4 engine a/c are limited just due to higher maintenance costs vs twins.

[Rich46yo]

You are looking at "recommended minimums". The actual separation times are far different and based upon other factors as well. Like traffic density and weather. The "where Im getting the info from" is from the mouths of the guys in the tower charged with maintaining separation. They say 8 to 10 mins is the actual norm and they also say they dont even want the A380 here. Now Im placing a picture of a Major INTL airport with the red spots marking the ends of a major runway where we recover and launch many INTL and large air plane flights. I want you to imagine in your mind how that wake vortex disrupts the flight paths of all the other runway operations in use, both landing and taking off.

You see when they say wake turbulence they just dont mean for the aircraft in back of the Jumbo. Even tho its there where it will probably be worse. But it even affects parallel or crossing runways or flight paths. So Im sure you can picture how one A380 can affect over all air port operations even if it only operates on one runway.

[PR3D4TOR]

I think the day of commercial 4 engine a/c are limited just due to higher maintenance costs vs twins.

The problem with that is that you'd need two twins to carry the same number of PAX, so your maintenance costs will likely be higher. You'd also need two runway slots and two gates and two boarding/disembarking operations. The A380 does not make sense unless you can fill it close to capacity. Just like most other airliners.

[Rich46yo]

The problem with that is that you'd need two twins to carry the same number of PAX, so your maintenance costs will likely be higher. You'd also need two runway slots and two gates and two boarding/disembarking operations. The A380 does not make sense unless you can fill it close to capacity. Just like most other airliners.

Yeah but which one is easier to fill? The 300 seat one or the 600 seat one? The 380 is currently flying out of 20 Hub airports. Heres a list of "Hubs" in the world if you'd like to take an hour and count them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hub_airports The "Hubs" dont want the damn thing.

[PR3D4TOR]

The "Hubs" dont want the damn thing.

Again you sound like it's something personal. Wherever the A380 flies it has been welcomed with great fanfare.

























And many, many more.

[PR3D4TOR]

There are many hubs, but that doesn't mean you'd want to fly an A380 into Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Ethiopia. The big hubs is where the A380 makes sense. In the last 20 years the world economy has tripled. Tim Clark reckons demand for air passage will double over the next 7-10 years. The big hubs are already operating at capacity. A lot of smaller hubs will have to take the shortfall in capacity and grow.

The only way many of them can do that is by increasing the size of aircraft. Flights to London or Tokyo or the other big city hubs will be almost a premium business-class only deal. The people who has more money than time. The rest of us flying on proles/scum-class will have to be content with landing in smaller, outlying hubs and taking the train or other alternative transport into the Big cities. On most of Emirates' A380 fleet the entire upper deck, effectively half the plane is business and premium class only. Those are the seats (and suites and showers and beds) that make a lot of money for Emirates. The low cost carriers like Ryanair have already been squeezed out of the big hubs. They simply can't afford to fly there with their business model. Those airlines will want the 787 and A350, and those will carry more PAX in total, but mostly at low budget scum-class.

In the last 20 years the world economy has tripled, most of that growth is in Asia and South America. A lot more people are going to want to travel in the foreseeable future.

[Rich46yo]

Again you sound like it's something personal. Wherever the A380 flies it has been welcomed with great fanfare.



PR we break out the fire Hoses every time troops come back from a combat zone. A photo Op doesnt reflect the general attitudes of major airports towards the 380, the gist of which is they dont want the thing.

Its no more personal to me then it is to them. They dont want it cause it slows down their operations and costs them money. I am merely repeating what they say. Frankly the only thing starting to irritate me is that you are ignoring every fact Im presenting to you and trying to spin it. My participation in this thread is about over. I can only say the same things so many times.























And many, many more.

[PR3D4TOR]

Can you quote an airport business executive (not one of the proles who actually have to do the work, but the guy he works for) saying he doesn't want the A380 bringing business to his airport?

[CavPuke]

You are looking at "recommended minimums". The actual separation times are far different and based upon other factors as well. Like traffic density and weather. The "where Im getting the info from" is from the mouths of the guys in the tower charged with maintaining separation. They say 8 to 10 mins is the actual norm and they also say they dont even want the A380 here. Now Im placing a picture of a Major INTL airport with the red spots marking the ends of a major runway where we recover and launch many INTL and large air plane flights. I want you to imagine in your mind how that wake vortex disrupts the flight paths of all the other runway operations in use, both landing and taking off.

You see when they say wake turbulence they just dont mean for the aircraft in back of the Jumbo. Even tho its there where it will probably be worse. But it even affects parallel or crossing runways or flight paths. So Im sure you can picture how one A380 can affect over all air port operations even if it only operates on one runway.

(Image removed from quote.)

Rich who ever you're talking to I think you are misunderstanding. I've worked the traffic in a Level 12 facility TRACON since 1984. While it is common practice to add a mile or 2 separation (1 for the wife, 2 for the kids) if I ever ran 10 minutes in trail on my own accord, which equates to 30 miles at 170 knots (the slowest speed you can assign a jet), I'd be sitting in the chief's office trying to explain it to management and to the airlines as to why I was delaying traffic by using minutes in trail as opposed to radar separation and costing the user big $$$.  As far as the example you give the parallel runway (which appears to be under construction) would also be used as an arrival runway. Even if you were conducting arrival/departures from the same runway only a departing A380 would be a concern due to wake turbulence because you had already made sure that the appropriate separation existed on the arrivals and there again you're talking an increase of 1 minute departure delay. More than likely the NW - SE parallel rwys would be used as dedicated departure or arrival rwys and the lower W - E rwy complex would be the opposite. Again I can't speak to the problems GC may have with Supers.

[Rich46yo]

Coming? Going? It doesnt matter. Were not talking safety here were talking about the slow down of airport operations. And you well know airports hate that cause it cuts their revenue. Some things they have no control of, like weather and such. Other things they do have control over, like not servicing super Jumbos which cut into revenue more they they generate. There is only one super Jumbo and its in a world of trouble.

A great achievement? Yes. But there are reasons why not just airlines dont want it. Airports dont either.