End of the line for the Airbus A380

Status
Not open for further replies.
The A380 has proven to be a very reliable aircraft in service, so I'm not sure what share of issues you're referring to.
From what I've been hearing today, it appears that Airbus is tired of playing with the type's primary customer and there aren't many other new orders in prospect so may well pull the plug, so the A380 may well join the 747-8 as a failed program.
These are almost certainly the last four engine types we'll see produced in our lifetimes.
If you want to fly one, they'll still be active for years to come, just like the 747-8i.
Book any trip with Emirates and you'll experience an A380.
 
We flew from Chicago to London last summer on a BA A380. It's big and comfortable, but other than that, it's an airplane. I would much rather fly a smaller airplane non-stop to my final destination than fly through a hub.
 
They are all headed for the aircraft graveyard.

It won't be long before there's no reason to have them in use at any airline.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html?_r=0

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."
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html?_r=0

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 don't know that that's completely true. I think most people want direct flights, however they want them cheap. Unfortunately, on ultra-long haul routes that just isn't feasible. You either have to pay more, or be at the mercy of the airline's connection schedules. I think the ultimate problem is that outside of a small subset of people who actually FLY these ultra-long flights, there's just no use flying a giant airplane like the A380 in general. Twin engine aircraft are getting lighter, more efficient, and continuing to get extended ETOPS certifications to fly longer and longer routes. Especially if the aircraft is reliable and profitable to have an engine re-fit sometime in it's life to make it even MORE efficient (think A320NEO).

Quad engine aircraft are a thing of the past, at least in commercial aviation. The big bird in the sky (aka the 747) will be around for a while longer. British Airways still has a few that they fly transatlantic, and UPS and FedEx are huge supporters of the program. The development and tooling costs of the 747 program have long since been paid for, so it's a money maker for Boeing.
 
Originally Posted by Reddy45
Those will make great cargo planes one day.

I don't think EGAT or Airbus themselves want to convert the A380 into a freighter. FedEx and UPS were the launch customers of the freight variant - but the 747-400BCF and 777F made better sense on both paper and the real world. Especially for smaller outfits like FedEx who used the MD-11 and A300/310.

Airbus is more associated with the A320 series. Boeing is still the choice for long-haul although the A350XWB is certainly looking nice. Air France, British Airways, Qantas, Emirates, Ethiad, Korean Air and Singapore Airlines will still fly the A380 for a while, but SQ has been known to retire planes early.
 
From what I've read, Etihad is at the edge of the abyss financially and looking for a buyer. Qantas cancelled their remaining options or orders for the 380 and is looking to get rid of a few. Thai and Malaysia are also looking to get rid of them but buyers may not exist.

The Dreamliner has filled a niche with its "long and thin" strategy. They can go across the oceans and with the 789 can go quite a distance. The A350 fits this strategy as well. Passengers on long haul flights prefer a nonstop compared to the hub type system like Emirates has.
 
The A380 is very limited as to which airports it can fly; runway length, gate capacity and space to park it are 3 major factors.
 
Originally Posted by wwillson
We flew from Chicago to London last summer on a BA A380. It's big and comfortable, but other than that, it's an airplane. I would much rather fly a smaller airplane non-stop to my final destination than fly through a hub.


This, plus the flexibility of a smaller airport that cannot afford to remodel for A380.
 
I have flown 3 10+ hour rides on Lufthansa A380s. They were really nice. The issue for me is the huge crowd getting off these things and then waiting in line at customs through an ocean of people.

I wouldn't call it a failure unless Airbus lost money on the aircraft as a whole. If in the end it turned a profit, then it is a success. I also wouldn't call the 747-8 a failure, either, since the cargo version is still in production. But, remember, the 747-8 is also just a submodel in what is one of the most successful airliners ever. The fact it appears it may outlast the A380 is a particular achievement.

It does look like the A380 is finished. It will be interesting to see how long the 747 can hang on. I feel lucky to have flown on both.

Hands down, the 787 is the best experience I've ever had on an airliner, though. Until the 777X comes along or until I get a chance to experience an A350, it is my #1 favorite.
 
Originally Posted by IndyFan
I wouldn't call it a failure unless Airbus lost money on the aircraft as a whole. If in the end it turned a profit, then it is a success.
Hmmm, we'll have to disagree on this one.
As we all know, capital is limited and scarce.
The only appropriate use of capital for any enterprise is to maximize profits.
The measuring bar for success is whether or not the capital expended maximized profits in the given time frame.

In other words, did they make the most they could of the money they invested?
I think the answer here is a pretty clear 'No', therefore the product was not a success.
Yes, they may very well make money on it, but they certainly didn't maximize the use of their scarce and limited capital.

I'll grab my MBA degree on my way out the door, thanks....
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html?_r=0

"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."

The guy doesn't mix words. Like the Concorde, it was an impressive, costly airplane that just wasn't practical. Especially from a cost and operating standpoint that would allow it to be profitable.
 
It's a failure - Airbus has been involved in creative accounting to show a profit on the airplane - i.e. counting future deliveries that were later canceled as part of the program profit. They may end up breaking even.

Flaws?

Oh, so many...it was years late to production, it was 100,000 pounds over design weight, it burned more fuel than promised, required airports and airlines to spend billions to upgrade infrastructure, and it was built for a market that never really existed.

FedEx and UPS canceled their orders, QANTAS returned the airplanes early off lease, Air France, Lufthansa and others cut their orders, the A-380F (freighter) program was canceled.

If it wasn't for the huge number of orders from Emirates, the program would've been the largest, most expensive failure in aviation history. Emirates propped up this program because they wanted the biggest airplane as a matter of prestige. Emirates itself is propped up by government interests, so, no they never really turned a profit with the airplane. The impending demise of Etihad won't help when those airplanes hit the used market.

Nobody wants this big, ungainly, thirsty, pig of an airplane.

I talked about this previously, when I said:

Boeing did an analysis in the late 90s on the future of markets. Their result: that hub to hub flying was mature and that future growth would be long range between medium size cities in a point to point model.

The 787 (called 7E7 for "Efficiency" when it was in development) was designed for that point to point model, it needed exceptional range and great economy.

Airbus disagreed and went after the hub to hub market dominated by the 747. They built the A-380. It promised a per-seat-mile efficiency gain of 25% over the 747...but that leaves it close to the 777 figures and well short of the per-seat-mile cost of the 787.

I've been pretty open in my criticism of the 380 - and I think I am right on the weight overage (I am going, not off the wikipedia or EADS press release of 10,000 lbs overweight, but the promised design and performance specs that EADS shopped to the airlines, including UAL, in the late 90s). The -380 has failed to deliver on performance, reliability and was years late in delivery.

I can forgive the 787 delivery delays, it was groundbreaking construction, including composite structure and new secondary systems architecture.

The 380 was conventional construction...with the only real difference being the higher pressure hydraulics (to save weight) that ended up being scaled back...

Face it, the A-380 is underwhelming despite its size...the lower per-seat-mile operating cost of the 787 will give it a huge advantage in the future fuel price environment, while the operating flexibility of the 787s very longe range, and mid-size capacity will allow it to operate in a multitude of markets in which the 380 could never compete.

As an example, United is now going to offer DEN-NRT (Tokyo) direct flights. The -380 couldn't fly that route, and there isn't enough business there for its capacity. But that direct route will siphon off a bit of business from the SFO-NRT route...leaving fewer passengers for carriers that might operate the -380 in that major hub-hub market.

Boeing has nearly 1,500 orders for the 787. It's back-ordered for the next decade. It's making money and it's opening new markets. A hugely successful airplane program.

20 years ago, Boeing guessed right, and Airbus guessed wrong.
 
Last edited:
The demise of the 4 engine airplane is why they are replacing Air Force One with new ones. There is a slight reliability advantage with 4 engines, especially in the unlikely event AF1 is attacked. That is an application where fuel economy is not an issue. It has upgraded engines and can fly higher and faster than a normal 747. If you ever get to see AF1 taking off, it rolls the coal. I used to live 3 miles from the end of the runway, and when AF1 and Obama left town, that plane when it passed over my house was at least 2 times more altitude and still rolling coal climbing than other jets. There were no other jet contrail visible so I expect they clear airspace. One of the airport guidance equipment stations is in the corner of my pasture. There was a black suburban and 2 men is suits parked beside it. Knowing the rednecks around here, it would not have surprised me if someone had taken a potshot.

Hopefully the AF1 after this one will be supersonic.

Rod
 
As an domestic US/Canada and International traveler what I didn't understand was how the 380 limited the market requiring airports to make upgrades and modifications just for one plane. Not an enticing option for any business, unless you were sold on the business model they were selling. I've never flown one, was booked on one and it unfortunately had a mechanical cancel. The comment above about custom lines really rings true, any airport that has 2 747's land at the same time becomes another 2-3 hours after a long flight.
 
Originally Posted by Imp4
Originally Posted by IndyFan
I wouldn't call it a failure unless Airbus lost money on the aircraft as a whole. If in the end it turned a profit, then it is a success.
Hmmm, we'll have to disagree on this one.
As we all know, capital is limited and scarce.
The only appropriate use of capital for any enterprise is to maximize profits.
The measuring bar for success is whether or not the capital expended maximized profits in the given time frame.

In other words, did they make the most they could of the money they invested?
I think the answer here is a pretty clear 'No', therefore the product was not a success.
Yes, they may very well make money on it, but they certainly didn't maximize the use of their scarce and limited capital.

I'll grab my MBA degree on my way out the door, thanks....


Airbus has struggled to recover direct production costs of each A380. Given the program's development costs of around €25 billion this program could have very well ended Airbus without ever-present government support.

Certainly an interesting aircraft and flying experience, but the wrong airplane at the wrong time and a financial disaster.
 
I flew both several years ago and prefer the 787. It's called the Dreamliner for a good reason. I try to book flights looking for 787s first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GON
Livery reminds me of childhood chewing gum- Condor's First Airbus A330neo Flies For The First Time
Replies
13
Views
991
wpod
wwillson
Flying the Boeing 757-200
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
4K
john_pifer
M
The importance of Safety glasses...
2
Replies
20
Views
930
ripcord
O
Of all the gall!
Replies
12
Views
839
ARCOgraphite
Tharber
How to interview and hire the right Realtor
2
Replies
21
Views
892
AZjeff
Back
Top