A380 what a crap aircraft, overweight, slow and no better on fuel consumption than a B744...
Ok, I'll accept it was a frustrated rant, however it is still ill-informed. Yes the A380 is controversial and yes it could be better, however it is significantly better than the 747 for airline needs in many respects. It is not for all routes but it does ultra long range and slot constrained airports very well with a standard of (especially premium) passenger accommodation that can't be had on anything else.
Overweight? .. perhaps - they did build the wing for another 100 tonnes of TOW, so they could have saved some weight there. Current production machines have an additional 10 tonnes approx disposable load from a combination of reduced empty weight and increased TOW.
Slow? .. same cruise speed as a 747 - does 0.86 mach quite nicely. Fuel consumption does start to climb a bit after that though.
Fuel Consumption? .. yes it does burn about 20% or 25% more, but then for the same passenger configuration standard, it can carry 40% to 50% more pax.
Airfield performance? .. beats the stuffing out of a 747.
Altitude capability? ... It's great being able to climb above the traffic as an initial altitude ... 3,000 to 4,000 ft advantage over others.
Range? .. Dallas - Sydney with 380 pax (with a very high percentage of premium seats). Nothing else can do that. (777 or 787 can't do the premium end like the A380)
I'll certainly never see full fuel tanks.
And don't forget this is the relative start of its development cycle.
It is not the answer to everything and we certainly need a large fleet of aircraft such as the 777, 787 or A350, however it is very good at what it does. The 747 is still a great aircraft and a stunning example of aircraft design. It still does some things better than anything else, but so does the A380.
N