End of the line for the Airbus A380

[JMJNet]

I know it is about A380 but this is an interesting article on 747:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a26290817/boeing-747-50th-birthday/

My question is to the person who posted that this is a failure?
50 years is probably older than most person posting here.
By the way, it is still going probably not for long, though.

 

[MNgopher]

Hindsight being what it is, it all comes down to two things.

One, Airbus was looking to do something to out do the 747. Call it a matter of pride. Make the biggest, get to brag about it, show the might of the Airbus machine.

Two, Airbus predictions that there would be more slot constrained airports (like Heathrow) that would force airlines to fly ever bigger planes to carry the demand in and out of these airports. Boeing saw a different market - the point to point market - becoming more important than the big hub-to hub type market. They saw there was some demand for the big airplanes, but there was in no way, shape, or form enough of them needed or wanted to ever become economically viable. They had a product that could be done for much less - the 747-8, but there was no economic arguement for a new 4 engine airplane, particularly one that required changes from the airports that it would fly in and out of.

Looking back, with the low numbers ordered of the A380, its pretty apparent whose predictions were right and whose were wrong about the desire for the A380.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by fdcg27

These are almost certainly the last four engine types we'll see produced in our lifetimes.


Off topic a bit:

In a strange way, we may still see aircraft with 4 external "motors" (or more accurately, propulsion units) . Airbus and others, including Rolls Royce and Siemens are developing hybrid aircraft propulsion. It's exactly what you would expect. A single gas turbine engine driving a generator. The electrical power is then used to drive multiple external propulsion units.

As far as I know, the testing is still in it's infancy, but a very recent meeting with a company rep indicated that there are interesting advantages. Including very low noise.

NASA is testing multiple versions of electric propulsion.

 

[Mr Nice]

Did Airbus even break even with the A380 ?

I saw a few landing at MIA and it definitely was gigantic.

777, 787, 777X and 797 are what airlines need... not a bigger 747.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Did Airbus even break even with the A380 ?

I saw a few landing at MIA and it definitely was gigantic.

777, 787, 777X and 797 are what airlines need... not a bigger 747.




That may depend on who you talk to. I'm sure Airbus would say it was profitable. The airlines themselves may have a different story. I would guess that for some airlines, having A380s in their fleet was more a status or ego move than anything else. Of course there are always exceptions and certain routes are certain to fill planes, especially the higher priced business class seats which the 380 had plenty of.

 

[4WD]

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.


I have flown business class in several A380's and agree … the seats are purchased and bolted in all these planes and that makes them similar inside … I want a direct flight and don't want to be Airbused to some hub in the ME …

One airline kept this pig alive … And to me that proved all the claims about "significant help" …

At least the B748 can be cargo haulers …

 

[4WD]

Yes …
I have a Dreamer flight in a couple weeks … plan to darken up that cool window and do just that …

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
If you ever get to see AF1 taking off, it rolls the coal.
Hopefully the AF1 after this one will be supersonic.


The next AF1 will be based off the 748i with newer engines(GEnx vs the CF6) and all the improvements Boeing implemented in the 747-8. For what AF1 does, it would be a very expensive maneuver to make a SST. It's basically a flying hotel, state room, 5-star restaurant, freighter and armory all in one.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
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

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[/quote

AF1 has the same engines as on a commercial 747, so I suspect the improved takeoff performance is due to a very light passenger load (even with presidential egos) and a likely flight protocol to gain altitude quickly. No air traffic altitude holds, either.

 

[PimTac]

I wonder how many hours the AF1 engines have or accumulate? Rolling coal could be sign of inefficiency.

As for the weight, that's a good question. The AF1 does not have the passenger and baggage load that the passenger version has but it has a lot of other things like electronics, food, supplies, defense capability, and more that do not apply to a passenger 747.

Every time I flew in a 747 I was always impressed by the takeoff power at the start of the roll.

 

[GrtArtiste]

I don't have a link to support this, but I've read that the Mars Opportunity Rover lasted longer than the A380 program did. YMMV.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by Cujet
NASA is testing multiple versions of electric propulsion.

You would think they would have installed some type of feathering propellers. The aerodynamic drag on those dead props has to be off the chart!

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by 14Accent
I don't know that that's completely true. I think most people want direct flights, however they want them cheap.


I used to fly fairly often, and I was always willing to pay more to fly a more direct route. This is why I always thought the A380 was a bad idea; it was only ever really suitable for those who wanted the cheapest flight at any cost (or those who happened to live near a hub airport).

 

[DoubleWasp]

I have heard that even way back when Boeing first started penning the 747, they designed it to be a cargo plane from the get-go. In case the passenger program failed, they would still have the cargo market. Not sure if this is true, but sounds like the kind of shrewd decision they would make.

If true, then Airbus made a gamble that even Boeing was unwilling to fully commit to 50 years ago. That's a bad sign.

 

[ABursell]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
I have heard that even way back when Boeing first started penning the 747, they designed it to be a cargo plane from the get-go. In case the passenger program failed, they would still have the cargo market. Not sure if this is true, but sounds like the kind of shrewd decision they would make.

If true, then Airbus made a gamble that even Boeing was unwilling to fully commit to 50 years ago. That's a bad sign.


If I recall correctly, the 747 was originally part of the competition for a large military cargo plane, which ended up with the C-5 being the winner, however Boeing decided to move forward anyway.

That leads to one of the interesting features of the 747F (and C-5), the nose cargo door. I have long thought the lack of possibility for a nose door in the A380 would be a limiting factor, wonder how much of a part that might have played in the lack of freighter program.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by JLTD
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.


Well, no.
A loaded A380 requires less runway length than does a loaded 737-900. You could look it up.
Runway and taxiway spacing is a concern with the A380 at some airports, though.
Gate capacity is only a concern within the terminal. The A380 is designed to fit in the same gate space as is any other large aircraft, so space to park one isn't an issue either.
WRT hub-busters, they are nothing new.
Some time after the B757 flew mainly domestic routes, someone figured out that it could fly point to point on shorter crossings as well.
The same is true of the B767-300 and -400, with the -300 even doing trans-Pacific flights.
The main advantage of the earlier 747 models was that nothing else offered the range with a decent load and many twins now do with ETOPS being no barrier in most cases.
The thing is that a good hub features plenty of O&D traffic, with the connections to and from the hinterlands being only a bit of frosting on the cake.
If you look at the world's major hubs, most have plenty of population with the means to travel, with Dubai being an exception.
Most hubs dedicated as such haven't done well, as with Northwest in Nashville or Delta in Cincinnati.
My point is that most of these point-to-point flights either originate or terminate at a major, IOW hub airport.
The A380 is very economical if an airline can consistently fill it at decent yields for at least ten months of each year.
Most carriers can't, so there is little interest in the type.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by fdcg27

A loaded A380 requires less runway length than does a loaded 737-900. You could look it up.
Runway and taxiway spacing is a concern with the A380 at some airports, though.


This happened a year ago, and I live not far from OAK. And OAK sees mostly 737/738/789/A320 traffic from Southwest, JetBlue, Norwegian and Spirit.

Airbus was trying to argue to the FAA/JAA that the A380 didn't need thrust reversers to slow down after landing since the brakes were oversized. They still made the plane have thrust reversers, but just two on the either the outboard or inboard engines.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/lufthansa-...akland-passengers-sit-in-plane-on-tarmac

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27

A loaded A380 requires less runway length than does a loaded 737-900. You could look it up.
Runway and taxiway spacing is a concern with the A380 at some airports, though.


This happened a year ago, and I live not far from OAK. And OAK sees mostly 737/738/789/A320 traffic from Southwest, JetBlue, Norwegian and Spirit.

Airbus was trying to argue to the FAA/JAA that the A380 didn't need thrust reversers to slow down after landing since the brakes were oversized. They still made the plane have thrust reversers, but just two on the either the outboard or inboard engines.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/lufthansa-...akland-passengers-sit-in-plane-on-tarmac


Not sure how this matters, since reversers aren't factored in either takeoff or landing runway length requirements for any aircraft at any given weight.
Astro can confirm this, since he flies the line.

 

[Astro14]

The A380 can stop pretty quickly. I've flown with a couple of FOs who were A380 Captains at Emirates*. It's got good performance.

Thrust reversers are not considered for landing distance performance. Thrust reversers are not considered for rejected takeoff performance, either.

In both cases, there may be an engine problem, and so the airplane must to be able to be stopped with brakes and spoilers alone.

The extensive, and expensive, airport modifications to accommodate the A380 in the US were for larger filleting on taxiways and increased weight carrying on taxiways. No getting around the 1.2 million pounds that beast weighs when it's at max gross. The 80M wingspan was just a bit larger than the 747, so places like SFO had to re-do taxiways so that an A380 could pass by another airplane. The massive gear also requires wider turn space (filleting) as you enter and exit taxiways. For SFO, the cost was over a billion dollars. Other airports, like JFK, LAX and IAD were similar. ORD was doing huge upgrades anyway, and can accommodate the A380 now that they're complete, but I don't think any carrier currently flies one there.

The 737-900 is one of the worst performers built in recent years. The airplane is fundamentally limited by its geometry. It's long, really long, and the landing gear are short. That limits the body angle for takeoff and landing, or the tail will hit the ground. The 737-900 was sold to airlines as a 757 replacement. Marketing guys were dumb enough to believe that...

On final, a 737-900 at normal weight is about 165-170 knots. A 757, carrying as many people, and weighing more, is at 125-130 knots. Since kinetic energy is 1/2MV2 (V squared) that 30% increase in velocity is a 70% increase in energy to be dissipated by the brakes. And a 737 has four, while a 757 has eight. By the way, even the 747 landed a lot slower than a 737-900. On the jumpseat of a 737-900 landing in IAH, I was shocked by the approach speed and landing performance. It was hard to get it stopped on 27, a 10,000 foot runway at sea level. The crew was in full reverse, airplane shaking from the reversers and they were heavy on the brakes while this thing was shuddering and shaking. I contrast that with all my landings there in an A320 or 757. Idle reverse. Little or no braking until approaching the high speed turnoff and then a bit of easy braking...so smooth...so simple, compared with the shaking, bucking, white knuckle landing in a 737-900...on a sunny day, with a dry runway at sea level. I would hate to see that thing on a short runway, or in bad weather...

Takeoff is even worse on that pig. When we started flying the 737 to Hawaii from LAX, we had to operate the airplane with 40 empty seats so that it could get off the ground with fuel for the islands. Think about it: sea level runway of 12,000 feet. Can't get airborne at max takeoff weight from a 12,000 foot sea level runway. Such a dog... And it's geometry again. The tail of the 737-900 hits the ground at about 6 degrees body angle. For a 757, it's about 12 degrees. Since the airframe of the 737-900 can't get AOA, it can't make lift until it's going far, far faster than comparable airplanes like the 757-200, or the A-320.


*Let that sink in for a bit. They were Captains on the world's largest airplane. They chose to leave that job and become FOs at United. Every single one of them is happier being an FO at United than flying for Emirates...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by ABursell
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
I have heard that even way back when Boeing first started penning the 747, they designed it to be a cargo plane from the get-go. In case the passenger program failed, they would still have the cargo market. Not sure if this is true, but sounds like the kind of shrewd decision they would make.

If true, then Airbus made a gamble that even Boeing was unwilling to fully commit to 50 years ago. That's a bad sign.


If I recall correctly, the 747 was originally part of the competition for a large military cargo plane, which ended up with the C-5 being the winner, however Boeing decided to move forward anyway.

That leads to one of the interesting features of the 747F (and C-5), the nose cargo door. I have long thought the lack of possibility for a nose door in the A380 would be a limiting factor, wonder how much of a part that might have played in the lack of freighter program.


Yes. The 747 was designed to compete for the USAF Large Cargo Aircraft. Boeing lost to Lockheed. The USAF thought Boeing's design was better, but Lockheed had the lower cost proposal, which then had huge cost overruns...leading to Congressional hearings...

Joe Sutter (lead engineer on the project) was told that if he could make it into a passenger airplane, and they could sell just 50 of them, Boeing could recoup the R&D cost of the LCA competition. Boeing didn't get any money from the USAF for their work on LCA, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. It was a bid for a contract, plain and simple. They had lost money, and were looking to get some of that cost back.

They kept the high cockpit design of their LCA competitor, because they really didn't know if the 747 would make it in the passenger world, and wanted to be able to resell it as a cargo plane.

Pan-Am ordered 25 of them in 1966. They were delivered in 1969, about 27 months later. A very short development time, and manufacturing facilities had to be built to handle the jumbo. It was a huge financial risk for Boeing - to build something that was more than twice the size of the 707, without knowing if there was a market, or not, beyond Pan-Am's initial order.

The airplane that Boeing wasn't sure about ended up revolutionizing air travel, and 50 years later is still flying, having sold over 1,500 airplanes.

If you want to read a great book on engineering and aircraft manufacturing, read "747" by Joe Sutter.