JetJackal, get real. The A380 carries only 15% more pax than the 747. Last time I checked, 747s are still flying so why not the A380? Anyway, insurance companies are making a killing, Lloyds are trumpeting at the moment about how great it is to be a Name cos they're charging like the light brigade. I predict insurance companies will be falling over themselves to get some A380 action.
The +15% thing is important to remember whatever the objection (insurance premiums, baggage claim, whatever). This is simply a logical step in the development in aviation. The 747 was 150% bigger than the 707, and was probably too big for the time (it killed Pan Am and did all kinds of damage to the balance sheet at other airlines) and really wasn't the right size til the 80s or even the 90s - the 400 is the best seller of the series. If Boeing have got cold feet then I don't see why that makes Airbus' judgement so bad all of a sudden. If we're having a recession now then it makes the A380 even better timed (the 747 turned up at the beginning of a recession), even better 'cos the world's economy will start to boom and pax will be hitting the skies in record numbers just as the A380 enters service.
Can't see the point of the Sonic Cruiser btw, I think airlines'll have to look far and wide to find pax willing to pay a premium just to save an hour across the pond. Add traffic jams and taxiway queues (not to mention getting stuck behind an A380 in the air) and the time saved is negligable. And the actual flying bit is the least stressful part of the journey. Get me to the airport an hour faster or halve the time spent at the airport and I'll pay whatever you ask. To spend an hour less upstairs being fed and watching movies isn't worth much ££. Who gets off a trans Atlantic flight (Concorde pax notwithstanding) and goes straight into a meeting anyway? Find hotel, stagger round town trying to fight jetlag sounds more familiar.