Airbus Ceases A380 Production

tspear said:
The hub/spoke model Airbus bet on has not proven out. Instead the airlines went the direct model that Boeing predicted.
Click to expand...
Kind of illustrates the European vs. American way of looking at things. "If you want to go here, you must travel this route, because that's what has been carefully planned for you" vs. "If there's demand, sure, we'll fly that route".
 
I'm surprised the 380 did as good as it did. Although I'll admit the ride in it was nice. It was just too much of a hassle for airports (very few options for landing). That limited their use for the airlines that had them. Emirates really jumped on the bandwagon with them, and I supposed it works since the two times I rode on one they were booked, but even Emirates could see the limitations.
 
I was surprised as well that they sold as many as they did. I was also surprised by the fact that airports spent big money on major infrastructure changes to accommodate it. It was obvious early on that it would not succeed at the numbers required.

I found this quote in the article interesting:
“The Franco-German company had hoped the superjumbo would challenge Boeing's 747 and revolutionize air travel in the 21st century.”

The 747 wasn’t its competition. It was killed by the 777 and 787.
 
And a Boeing 777 has reasonable capacity (~400-500 pax) of most A380 (~500-600 pax) with half the engines. There is a significant overlap in capacity while the Boeing probably has lower operating costs. The 777 is probably one reason the 747 is going away. That's my somewhat informed opinion, at least.
 
I've never gotten the chance to fly on a 747, and always wanted to. I always wanted to splurge on a trip to Europe and fly in the upper deck of the 747. I see on a Wikipedia article (if accurate) that British Airways still flies 34 of them, and Virgin Atlantic flies 8. So maybe there's still a chance for me to hop a ride on one before they totally disappear from service.
 
DutchRoller said:
I found this quote in the article interesting:
“The Franco-German company had hoped the superjumbo would challenge Boeing's 747 and revolutionize air travel in the 21st century.”

The 747 wasn’t its competition. It was killed by the 777 and 787.
Click to expand...
And its own A300/A330.. Airbus totally missed the mark. I never understood really what their angle was. They should have learned from the A340, and especially A340-600, the failure of MD-11, the success of the A300, A330, 767, and lastly the 777, that 2 engine was the way of the future... and Boeing's own 747 figures have been shrinking ever since the 767/777/A330 time anyway... Ironically Airbus took a big gamble on the A300.. and they did pioneer twin engine travel on bigger planes with the A300 being THE FIRST ETOPS airliner... the Boeing 767 didn't come along until much later. The A340, and especially A340-600, always had softer sales.. so they knew that 4 engine travel was not what the market was looking for. You have to think part of this was ego driven, as just wanting to undertake a project like that and have something "like" the 747 in their product lineup. By the time they started to actively think about the A380 (around 1990) they should have known that >2 engine travel was a shrinking area

Plus, for better or worse the 747 cemented itself during this perceived golden age of air travel with Jaun Trippe, Pan Am, etc., it honestly did revolutionize air travel. Not sure how Airbus thought the A380 would be doing the same... when, it had already been done decades before and twin engine planes are now cheaper and just as safe

The other thing they missed an opportunity on was using this for any kind of freight. The 747 lives on in the freight world.. and there aren't many choices for very large freight transports.. C5 is military only, so the AN-125 your only other option outside 747. Granted, my understanding is that the the A380's upper level's floor is a critical structural piece so there was no realistic way of turning it into a cavernous beast

**Lastly, it's ugly. For whatever it's worth aesthetics still mean something to people. And where the 747 just looked downright gorgeous the A380 just seems nasty

DutchRoller said:
I was surprised as well that they sold as many as they did
Click to expand...
Same here.. I never really understood what market it was going for.. and if Middle Eastern carriers hadn't ordered these things it would have basically been just a handful of European carriers ordering it, and well, they sort of have to since they basically built it. The countries that make up Airbus love doing this kind of thing.. Concorde, Dassault Mercure, etc.
 
LoneAspen said:
British Airways still flies 34 of them
Click to expand...
And Lufthansa has some brand new 747-800. The British Airways 747 passes over me every day at 4:30 landing at San Diego. It is a site to behold watching it come in low over the buildings when all we get to see all day are Southwest 737
 
^the difference though is, presumably, that all those 747 are paid off.. outside of fuel costs and some higher maintenance of an older plane.. they're likely relatively cheap to operate
 
Airbus had really bad timing on the advent of the A380. They decided to compete with the 747 just at the time that Boeing was having trouble selling 747s anyway. The market for the super jumbo aircraft was never that large to begin with, and couldn't support two air frames competing. They really shot themselves in the foot when they cancelled the A380F cargo model, as that is about the only major use of 747 left anyway.

Ford did the same thing in the early 2000s. They introduced the gas guzzling Excursion as a competitor to one up Chevy's long running Suburban. Only they did it at a time of high fuel prices and dropping sales of large SUVs. It didn't last long either.
 
Larry in TN said:
There's no such airplane. They changed the naming convention and the newest 747 is the 747-8. It comes in two versions, the 747-8i for passengers and 747-8F for freight.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the value added insight. If PoA is one thing, it's pedantic

..incidentally, don't you love the pandering hard for the lucky number "8" for the Asian markets? A380, 787, 747-8.. I'd also be lying if I didn't think the "i" designation wasn't a little irritating

I digress. It's Valentines Day.. let's get some love in the air
 
I read somewhere the whole market changed based on what was legal to fly over water. Once they certified aircraft with two engines to fly across the ponds, the three engine jets went away and the four engine jets barely hung on due to large passenger capacity and freight capability. Smaller long distance aircraft make for more frequent flights to varying destinations, which is more desirable to the flying customers. I think we've reached the end of the bigger is better theory. The 747 will always be the Queen of the skies to me, the 380 I think will just be a footnote in history. YMMV
 
Lantraxco said:
Once they certified aircraft with two engines to fly across the ponds
Click to expand...
Which again, shame on Airbus. Their own A300 paved the way for that with it achieving ETOPS certification in 1977! The shorter-fuselage-but-otherwise-same A310 was flying transatlantic routes and entered service back in 1983

Airbus knew twins were the market. Why they built the A380 is a real head scratcher. If they'd sunk that energy into the A350 they likely would have killed the 787, or at least put Boeing at a major disasdvantage
 
I once flew back to back on a 747 and an A380 (747 from DEN-LHR, A380 from LHR-JNB). The A380 was a better passenger experience, aside from the fact that I picked a seat with a utility box under the seat in front, which cut down on the legroom on one side. The 747 was obviously older, with not much padding in the seat cushions.
 
Tantalum said:
And Lufthansa has some brand new 747-800. The British Airways 747 passes over me every day at 4:30 landing at San Diego. It is a site to behold watching it come in low over the buildings when all we get to see all day are Southwest 737
Click to expand...
Here in PHX, every day and two on Tuesday, Friday and Sunday. Not bad looking for a 50-year-old design. Quite a sight, elegant, graceful.

P7251279.jpg

To me the A380 has that "designed-by-committee" look.

P2203813.jpg
 
Yup! Been on that one!
Didn’t think it was too bad. Never been on the Airbus though.

939056aabacf8061384f3361a87591e2.jpg
 
Everskyward said:
The A380 was a better passenger experience
Click to expand...
Doesn't that come down more to how the interior was outfitted? I was on an AA 757 once that was an absolutely deplorable (can I say that?) experience.. however DL has many of their 757 fully upgraded, much nicer than many of their A320 from NW.. while Jet Blues Airbuses are beautiful. So big grain of salt there.. that is a cool side by side experience though! Next book something on 787/A350 lol

Pilawt said:
designed-by-committee
Click to expand...
So true!! It just seems sterile and without any love. Something very beautiful about the 747.. like an artist drew it or something and was proud of it, as opposed to something that came out of CAD after playing around with splines and polynomials

and since we're sharing 747 pics:
upload_2019-2-14_13-17-23.png
 
Tantalum said:
Doesn't that come down more to how the interior was outfitted? I was on an AA 757 once that was an absolutely deplorable (can I say that?) experience.. however DL has many of their 757 fully upgraded, much nicer than many of their A320 from NW.. while Jet Blues Airbuses are beautiful. So big grain of salt there.. that is a cool side by side experience though! Next book something on 787/A350 lol
Click to expand...
I guess, but these were both BA airplanes, and I flew them on the same day(s).

20160529-IMG_0721.jpg

20160530-IMG_0723.jpg
 
The 747 makes a statement. Everything is a low wing airplane that looks like every other low wing airplane.

But then, I used to work for Boeing.
 
Darn, just as I had decided to trade in my RV-12 for a new A-380....oh well....
 
Tantalum said:
I'd also be lying if I didn't think the "i" designation wasn't a little irritating
Click to expand...
The "i" is for "international". Doesn't make a lot of sense. 747s do very little domestic flying.

On the Airbus side, why did the CS100 and CS300 become the A220-100 and A220-300 when Airbus rebranded them? Why not the A219 and A220 to match the long-standing A319 and A320 naming convention?
 
On the 380 - still a wonderful piece of engineering - for such a large aircraft, those engines are quiet
 
I too will be flying on the BA 747 from DEN-LHR and back this October. I've been on the 707, 717, 727, 737, 757, 767, and 777. I'm looking forward to adding the 747 to that list. I do prefer Boeing aircraft and the way they look. The nose/cockpit area design always looks more finished on the Boeing aircraft. I do work for Boeing, so I guess you could say I'm biased. The A350 is the first Airbus that actually looks good to me, and that is because a lot of design cues were borrowed from the 787. I did fly on a Singapore A380 to Tokyo in the center seats of economy a few years back. It wasn't overly comfortable, but I was impressed by the size. We were so far from the windows that we couldn't see outside and we actually landed without ever feeling the plane touch down. That is quite the accomplishment for a flying building.
 
cmsuav8r said:
I too will be flying on the BA 747 from DEN-LHR and back this October. I've been on the 707, 717, 727, 737, 757, 767, and 777. I'm looking forward to adding the 747 to that list. I do prefer Boeing aircraft and the way they look. The nose/cockpit area design always looks more finished on the Boeing aircraft. I do work for Boeing, so I guess you could say I'm biased. The A350 is the first Airbus that actually looks good to me, and that is because a lot of design cues were borrowed from the 787. I did fly on a Singapore A380 to Tokyo in the center seats of economy a few years back. It wasn't overly comfortable, but I was impressed by the size. We were so far from the windows that we couldn't see outside and we actually landed without ever feeling the plane touch down. That is quite the accomplishment for a flying building.
Click to expand...
If you're going by looks, yes, I like the look of the 747 better than the A380. There's also the experience of flying on a classic. But as far as the traveling public is concerned, the comfort and amenities on the A380 were superior IMHO.
 
Tantalum said:
And Lufthansa has some brand new 747-800. The British Airways 747 passes over me every day at 4:30 landing at San Diego. It is a site to behold watching it come in low over the buildings when all we get to see all day are Southwest 737
Click to expand...
LoneAspen said:
I've never gotten the chance to fly on a 747, and always wanted to. I always wanted to splurge on a trip to Europe and fly in the upper deck of the 747. I see on a Wikipedia article (if accurate) that British Airways still flies 34 of them, and Virgin Atlantic flies 8. So maybe there's still a chance for me to hop a ride on one before they totally disappear from service.
Click to expand...
Some of the Asian airlines also have new 747's. I know a couple of the Chinese airlines have them.
 
That makes sense, considering the interior of the A380 is probably a decade+ newer than the 747 interior. I personally did not find the A380 to be all that comfortable, although I suppose economy class on any airliner will lose its comfort over a 15hr flight.
 
Our QF A380 flight from LAX to SYD last year was sheer torture -- probably more due to the inconsiderate jerkwagon passengers ahead of us and beside us, than due to the aircraft. But the comfort of the seat itself reminded me of first grade in public school. The B-789 on the return trip was a little better, but the seat cushion was still awfully firm, especially for a 15-hour trip.
 
Larry in TN said:
The "i" is for "international". Doesn't make a lot of sense. 747s do very little domestic flying.
Click to expand...

ackshually... the "i" stands for intercontinental. :D

I seem to get stuck on 737s and A320s for most of my travel, but I got to fly a Luftansa 747-8i last month in premium economy and it was a pretty enjoyable experience.
 
Toured the Boeing plant last month. Part of the presentation includes how much a 777 costs and what you get for that. One of the things you don’t get is an interior. The airlines pay for these separately and Boeing merely installs them.

Don’t like the seat? Don’t blame the manufacturers.
 
I got to fly on an A380 last month. It was okay, but it took forever to load and unload. We landed with half the runway left using no thrust reverser! Once we arrived at SFO at midnight, they only had two windows open at customs. All those people getting off at once overwhelmed the system and it took hours to get out of there.
 
've never ridden an A380. UA has quit flying their B747s and I don't miss them. They were getting a bit long in the tooth and looked it. I do like the 787s.

Here's a picture I took several years ago at the Sydney, Australia airport of a 747 and A380 appearing to be nose to nose (but weren't, they were on adjacent taxiways). The A380 is big, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near baggage claim when one came in.

IMGP1894.JPG

That A380 is big, but it doesn't have the class of a 747. I remember when it was under development Klyde Morris had fun with it, calling it the Cloud Crowd, or the Air Whale. I'll stick with the 777 or 787.
 
Larry in TN said:
There's no such airplane. They changed the naming convention and the newest 747 is the 747-8. It comes in two versions, the 747-8i for passengers and 747-8F for freight.
Click to expand...

Well thankfully they avoided calling it the 747-MAX. :rolleyes:
 
Wasn't the A380 really intended for the major cities of greater Asia? Millions upon millions of people, newly "middle class wealthy" from double digit emerging economy growth, urban dwellers with a hankering to spend it on travel? That was the meme as I recall. And given the populations of these major cities weren't all the fast growing Asian airlines going to buy the A380 out of sheer necessity? After all, the airports in those cities, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, only have so much capacity, right?

The take-up by the big Asian carriers looks surprisingly tepid.

Emirates jumped on it because its model has always been to move lots of people through Dubai (not to Dubai), advertising it as the most efficient hub to connect any continent with any other continent. With over 100 A380s in its fleet (just under half of all 380s delivered to date), Emirates is the Pan American equivalent for that plane, without which the program almost certainly would have been terminated earlier. Etihad and Qatar Air are junior versions of the same strategy through Abu Dhabi and Doha, respectively.
 
@Tantalum

Actually Airbus misjudged the market; in a significant way. In the 90s; major airports in the USA and a few in Europe were effectively running out of runway pavement at peak push periods. In addition, the Middle East and Asia only had a few airports; which were highly concentrated. Airlines had been running the hub/spoke model for decades and the Airbus 380 was designed to solve the runway shortage problem by moving more people between these hubs without increasing the number of runways (the primary cost impact of the A380 size was on the taxiways, not the actual runway).

Budget airlines did not go to the major airports at first, they went to the reliever airports (to save money) and went direct between more city pairs with fewer flights. The customers loved the lower cost, and were willing to have fewer flight options for more non-stop/direct flights. The end result, airlines needed more smaller/efficient planes going more places; instead of huge people haulers.
When the rescission hit in 2008; just as the A380 was entering production, the effect of the approach by the budget airlines was being felt by the "major" carriers; they started to copy the model. This effectively killed off the jumbo jets. In addition, to increase revenue and save capital costs, airlines got significantly better at demand pricing. The effect of the demand pricing was to push more flights to what was the non-peak periods. The result is major airports like Heath-row, Atlanta.... now run much closer to capacity all day long instead of at just a few hours a day for peak push.
Last nail in the coffin the A380 was engineering costs; on a plane that large the engineering costs to re-engine with newer more efficient engines, or fixing an aerodynamic shape on the wing-tip is significantly harder, more complex and expensive compared to the narrow body jets. These additional costs effectively meant the A380 could not remain competitive in the marketplace.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top