Scrapping of A380

[flysmiless]

Scrapping of two A380s lined at Tarbes L airport..

Actually these aircraft are removed from operations due to lack of business isn't it?
Not because of end of engine or structural hours isn't it?

If above is true, can't they use it for cargo only rather than scrapping,,

Video

[CurtainTwitcher]

Depends upon the economics. Conversion costs, fuel burn vs likely returns. Likely to be nil resale value.

[Imagegear]

Might make a really nice three up and four down. Well insulated and at less than the cost of a typical Notting Hill Semi.

IG

[cobol]

It's an environmental solution to the housing crisis. Mounted vertically, the holds can be the lift shaft & service tunnel etc. The wings can be fitted with solar panels and the top flat would be a penthouse for high net worth individuals.

Looks better than some of Foster's creations as well..

[kcockayne]

I think that it was originally stated that Hi Fly were taking 2 A380s, although this does not appear to have happened. Does anyone have any updated info. on Hi Fly's plans for the 380 ?

[Trav a la]

I think that it was originally stated that Hi Fly were taking 2 A380s, although this does not appear to have happened. Does anyone have any updated info. on Hi Fly's plans for the 380 ?

1X A380 is flying for HiFly Malta.

[Less Hair]

It flew for Air Austral end of april.
The two scrapped A380s are very early ones that are non standard. Parting them out is more profitable than converting their cabins and reuse them as airliners.

[Rated De]

Rather amazing for an aircraft with development costs over $9.5 billion that the service life of the aircraft is far less than two decades. With a list price of USD$445 million that is a big bet gone wrong.
Given the hand and glove approach of the manufacturer with potential customer airlines, it shows that at times even the industry gets it wrong.

[Less Hair]

The A380 concept matured over tens of years. While the airline industry moved from carrying more and more passengers through hubs to point to point with smaller aircraft and a focus on business travellers. This is why there are 787 and A350 now.

[Rated De]

The A380 concept matured over tens of years. While the airline industry moved from carrying more and more passengers through hubs to point to point with smaller aircraft and a focus on business travellers. This is why there are 787 and A350 now.

Agreed.

The pressure to be fuel efficient will only increase as the drums of climate change continue to beat.
A whole different discussion. However what is pertinent is that the industry perceives a 'business as usual' approach with incremental technology changes will be sufficient. The jury is out on that one..

[DaveReidUK]

The two scrapped A380s are very early ones that are non standard. Parting them out is more profitable than converting their cabins and reuse them as airliners.

Though they did both fly for SIA for nearly ten years.

[Less Hair]

And then SIA ordered five new built ones to phase out their five oldest. SIA was the first airline to operate A380s. Airbus optimized many details over the years, materials, wing twist, more common cabin systems and such.
The earliest aircraft were to much custom tailored and had needed wiring and rib repairs.

[flying phil 2007]

Those two early heavier A380’s were owned by a leasing syndicate.. they have now cashed in their investment and made a very good return. Worth more as parts. That’s business.

[Less Hair]

The lease didn't work out as planned. They had hoped for at least a full second term. The first term mainly covers the aircraft and the leasing company's cost, the second term usually is the profitable one for the investors. SIA took them only for one term (as planned) and no second term customer could be found.

[atakacs]

Those two early heavier A380’s were owned by a leasing syndicate.. they have now cashed in their investment and made a very good return. Worth more as parts. That’s business.
Do you have any backing for that (I mean the "good deal" part)? My understanding is that their total return was a little over 1% p.a.

[737 Driver]

If above is true, can't they use it for cargo only rather than scrapping,,

Concur with why these two aircraft are being parted out. It is also my understanding that the A380 will not make an easy cargo conversion because of the work required to beef up the cabin floor. Maybe someone else who has a better background can comment?

[Jack330]

I wonder what Emirates will do with more than 100 380’s in the future, unlike a B777 or 787 or even a 767, the A380 will have a value of zero in a decade or so.
basically a big part of ek fleet could be considered a loss of money, I don’t think airbus will help at all since the production stopped and there’s no aftermarket at all.
The good times are over for those Middle East carriers, they all lose money despite the fake forget numbers they show off to the public.
A350, B787 B777x are the future I guess

[tdracer]

Concur with why these two aircraft are being parted out. It is also my understanding that the A380 will not make an easy cargo conversion because of the work required to beef up the cabin floor. Maybe someone else who has a better background can comment?

The A380 simply does not pencil out well as a freighter. Max Zero Fuel Weight is too low - it has great range but can't carry a heavy load - and the cargo market is based around 3,000 to 4,000 mile legs so range above that doen't have much value (747 Freighters seldom even use the center wing fuel tank for that reason - better to carry more payload and make a stop for gas). The main deck would need massive strengthening to carry a reasonable cargo load, and the upper deck is all but unusable for freight - even if it was strengthened, you'd need new, specialized (i.e. expensive) GSE to get the stuff up there. Plus all that extra structure would increase the empty weight without raising the MZFW so now you can carry even less cargo. Of course, there is the option of increasing the MZFW, but that's a huge, very expensive effort (both non-recurring development and recurring to upgrade the individual airframes). The flight deck location effectively rules out an opening nose door for oversized stuff.
Or you can go pick up a 747F and be good to go.

BTW
The pressure to be fuel efficient will only increase as the drums of climate change continue to beat.
Although better fuel efficiency was an early claim for the A380, the bottom line is that the A350, 787, and soon 777X have significantly better fuel burn per seat mile than the A380 (even the A330 NEO is probably better). And the big twins will take you where you want to go, not to some hub where you have to get on another flight to get to your destination.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Let’s not forget these A380s now being withdrawn are the very early non standard ones. Not unlike the very early production B.787s. Which have also proved very difficult to sell. We may get a better picture when later built examples come to market.
Be lucky
David

[CargoOne]

I wonder what Emirates will do with more than 100 380’s in the future, unlike a B777 or 787 or even a 767, the A380 will have a value of zero in a decade or so.

B777 will be difficult too. Very limited number of operators outside the first tier and they typically operate just a couple of aircraft. Remarketing of 777s is difficult already today and we are not into the massive wave of re-deliveries from original operators yet. There is no room for 1300x 772&773 on second hand market except freighter conversions.

[tdracer]

B777 will be difficult too. Very limited number of operators outside the first tier and they typically operate just a couple of aircraft. Remarketing of 777s is difficult already today and we are not into the massive wave of re-deliveries from original operators yet. There is no room for 1300x 772&773 on second hand market except freighter conversions.

But I think you'll find the 777 makes a pretty good freighter (160 already in-service, with over 50 more on-order). Plus, even though it's been in-service for 24 years, you're not seeing many ending up in the desert. The operators just keep flying them.

[Kerosene Kraut]

The more modern and more standard Emirates A380 would be way better for another second hand airline use or for industrial conversion to package freighters. Think Amazon or similar. They are not good for heavier general cargo but lightweight packages would be some perfect cargo.

[BEA 71]

The condition of the aircraft is not the point when looking for a buyer, the problem is mainly the costs for refurbishing, which is the reason, why IAG have dropped their plans to buy second hand A 380 aircraft. It would probably be cheaper to buy new aircraft.

[ironbutt57]

The more modern and more standard Emirates A380 would be way better for another second hand airline use or for industrial conversion to package freighters. Think Amazon or similar. They are not good for heavier general cargo but lightweight packages would be some perfect cargo.



add in the cost of infrastructure required to service these as freighters, one might discover why FedEx early on had expressed interest in the 380, then abandoned the idea..

[last747fe]

Ups also looked at the 380 but ultimately we got 747-400f and then 747-8, as my name implies, I road the classic to the end!

[4runner]

But I think you'll find the 777 makes a pretty good freighter (160 already in-service, with over 50 more on-order). Plus, even though it's been in-service for 24 years, you're not seeing many ending up in the desert. The operators just keep flying them.

yes. The 777 makes a pretty good everything. This was the last Boeing developed before this current regime took over. It was a clean slate design by engineers and limited oversight by accounting. They’re as good as it gets. Ours were pulled off a ramp surrounded by jungle on 2 sides and salt water on the third side and have never left us stranded. We have some of the first build LR’s. Fantastic machines.

[CargoOne]

But I think you'll find the 777 makes a pretty good freighter (160 already in-service, with over 50 more on-order). Plus, even though it's been in-service for 24 years, you're not seeing many ending up in the desert. The operators just keep flying them.

So far 777 freighters are exclusively factory built freighters and while conversion program have been under consideration for years, it is not officially launched yet. And very likely it would concentrate on -300ER due to its much better volume. There are over 100x B777 in storage at the moment, mostly -200/200ERs - these aircraft are doomed. Since Jet Airways went tits up recently we will see how quickly the market can absorb a dozen of -300ERs unless Vistara will go ahead with their suicide plan to take them all at once...

[Sunamer]

The A380 concept matured over tens of years. While the airline industry moved from carrying more and more passengers through hubs to point to point with smaller aircraft and a focus on business travellers. This is why there are 787 and A350 now.
that is to say that Boeing was right again with their strategic moves.

[oldchina]

Former Airbus employees know that for its day the 777 is as good as it gets

[Kerosene Kraut]

Not sure how right Boeing was. They developed the 747-8 believing in the big quad's future themselves.

Concerning the A380 as a freighter: FedEx and UPS had ordered (firm) factory build A380 freighters back then until Airbus cancelled that version during their electrical wiring "harness mess".

[Smythe]

Let’s not forget these A380s now being withdrawn are the very early non standard ones.

True, according to the news, in combination with the lease and parting out the aircraft (leasing the engines) the good Dr made 148% and 155% rate of return on the ac.

I seem to remember FEDEX ordering 380-800F..whatever happened to those?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x688/00006600_976231feeabd4dcf1c10c00494748995c5c0bd9c.jpg

[Kerosene Kraut]

Orders possibly converted to other Airbus freighters?

[tdracer]

Not sure how right Boeing was. They developed the 747-8 believing in the big quad's future themselves.

Concerning the A380 as a freighter: FedEx and UPS had ordered (firm) factory build A380 freighters back then until Airbus cancelled that version during their electrical wiring "harness mess".

Boeing built the 747-8 to take market share from the A380, and to maintain the dominance of the 747 Freighter (remember, the 747-8F was the launch aircraft and entered service first - the passenger version was almost an afterthought). It appears to have worked - the 747-8F is still in production and the A380 is officially dead. Boeing isn't making much money on the 747-8F at the current production rate, but they're not loosing money either.
Yes, there were a small number of A380F ordered early, then cancelled when Airbus ran into trouble with the A380. But even before the orders were cancelled, industry analysts were puzzling over the A380F - for the very reasons I posted earlier. It seems to be rather telling that, after Airbus got a handle on the A380, they never bothered to re-offer the A380F.
The 747 was designed from day one to make a good freighter. The A380 wasn't.

[atakacs]

I seem to remember FEDEX ordering 380-800F..whatever happened to those?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x688/00006600_976231feeabd4dcf1c10c00494748995c5c0bd9c.jpg
for various reasons described in this thread and elsewhere in the forum Airbus decided not to build them.

And conversion is a non starter. There will be a lot of a380 scrapping in the coming years.

[Kerosene Kraut]

The A380F was cancelled by the manufacturer not by it's customers.

[tdracer]

The A380F was cancelled by the manufacturer not by it's customers.
Your point being? Seems to me that would confirm the contention that the A380 wouldn't make a good freighter, at least not without a massive investment that Airbus didn't see paying off.

[Junkflyer]

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/12/first-ana-a380-rolls-out-of-airbus-paintshop-with-unique-livery.html

[Kerosene Kraut]

Your point being?

Customer demand was there.

[bvcu]

777 Freighter conversion not launched yet , carbon fibre floor beams have to be replaced which makes it a big expensive job so market has to right to make it viable.

[tdracer]

Customer demand was there.

Seriously? There was sufficient customer demand to make money if they developed an A380 Freighter, but Airbus decided not to bother? They threw away a lucrative market?
Or was it the same 'customer demand' that lead Airbus to forecast selling 1500 A380s when they launched the program?

[Wizofoz]

Customer demand was there.

At the time of cancellation, the A380F had exactly one order- a single aircraft for Emirates.

[Kerosene Kraut]

At what time? They had 27 orders from Emirates, FedEx, UPS and ILFC when Airbus decided to halt the freighter. Airbus stopped that version and converted orders or cancelled the existing orders.

[Smythe]

the 747-8F is still in production and the A380 is officially dead.

Actually, there are more A380's on order than 747-8F

Currently there are 65 A380 orders awaiting delivery, to Emirates and Al Nippon.

There are 23 747-8F orders awaiting delivery to UPS. (no passenger 747-8 orders)

Given current production rates, they will be shutting down the 747-8 line before the A380 line...

[Schnowzer]

Most of the EK A380s are on operating leases. When they expire at the 10year point there will be either a very cheap follow on lease, a cheap buy or a scrapped aircraft. With 14 flights a day to the UK, a move to 777s would need about 4-5 more slots which are pretty hard to come by so maybe the story has a while to run yet.

[voyageur9]

.... they will be shutting down the 747-8 line before the A380 line...

Yep, 747 line will shut down after 50+ years and 1,500-plus built. A380 line will shut down in less than 20 years and fewer than 300 built.

[Smythe]

I suppose, but the comparable aircraft, the 747-8i sold 47 units. (Another Boeing reaction to an Airbus aircraft) As far as development money well spent, the 747-8i was a huge loss.

Not that it matters much, in reality, both are done.

[DaveReidUK]

Currently there are 65 A380 orders awaiting delivery, to Emirates and Al Nippon.

Notwithstanding what Wikipedia might say, nobody seriously expects another 65 A380s to be built in remaining two years before the line closes.

[atakacs]

Agreed
I'd be surprised if they build more than another 20.

[tdracer]

Actually, there are more A380's on order than 747-8F

Currently there are 65 A380 orders awaiting delivery, to Emirates and Al Nippon.

There are 23 747-8F orders awaiting delivery to UPS. (no passenger 747-8 orders)

Given current production rates, they will be shutting down the 747-8 line before the A380 line...

Do try to keep up - Airbus has ALREADY announced the A380 line will close in 2021, and most of those 65 orders you quote have been officially cancelled - outstanding orders for the A380 currently stand at about a dozen.

[NWA SLF]

Considering the number of 747-8s I see in my wilderness area but on the flight path from Asia to the US prime air freight centers, is it likely the 747-8F will continue for a lengthy period at a relatively low rate. In other words is it likely the 747 will continue on well beyond the end of the A380 if only as a freighter? Aren't the advantages of the 747 over a 777 freighter significant for specific cargos? Not many can justify hiring the AN-225 but the 747 does seem to fill a niche unable to be filled by the 777. Certainly they won't go on like the C-47/DC-3 and 727-200 for which it appears nobody has a suitable replacement.

[Sailvi767]

Not sure how right Boeing was. They developed the 747-8 believing in the big quad's future themselves.

Concerning the A380 as a freighter: FedEx and UPS had ordered (firm) factory build A380 freighters back then until Airbus cancelled that version during their electrical wiring "harness mess".

The 747-800 was a relatively low cost rehash of the 747-400. It probably will end up being profitable. Boeing itself forecast a poor market for large 4 engine aircraft and disputed airbuses projections for the market. For that reason they declined to develope a new aircraft for the market.

[Less Hair]

Without some 747 they could grow the 777 even more.

[Smythe]

Do try to keep up - Airbus has ALREADY announced the A380 line will close in 2021, and most of those 65 orders you quote have been officially cancelled - outstanding orders for the A380 currently stand at about a dozen.

really, is that necessary? At least, when there are no orders, Airbus does the smart thing and cancels production. Cant say the same for Boeing. (one a month keeps a line open? until 2021?)

I dont mind Emirates reducing A380 orders when they add 70 other orders...all told, Emirates probably would have kept ordering.

The 747 was nice to fly, until the A380 came out.

[Bend alot]

Airbus does not have the numbers to get better fuel efficient engines ever.

[futurama]

really, is that necessary? At least, when there are no orders, Airbus does the smart thing and cancels production. Cant say the same for Boeing. (one a month keeps a line open? until 2021?)

Boeing is making money on each 747 produced, and will still be profitable even at one a month (https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/05/12/boeings-conner-747-would-stay-profitable-even-if.html).

Airbus is losing money on each A380 produced (since last year), and will keep losing money until the line is shut down (http://newsinflight.com/2018/02/20/airbus-acknowledges-losing-money-on-a380-programme/).

So who's smarter now, Boeing or Airbus? :}

[Less Hair]

Aren't both A and B at 0.5/month right now?

[tdracer]

Aren't both A and B at 0.5/month right now?

The 747-8F is at 0.5/month - not sure about the A380 (I seem to recall 2/3 per month but wouldn't put money on that).
At 0.5/month, the 747 isn't really a money maker, but it doesn't lose money either and it keeps the line open. Boeing still believes there is a solid market for the 747 Freighter - it's basically without competition in the over 100 ton freighter class and most of those 747F flying around today are getting seriously long in the tooth and will eventually need to be replaced. If they can get it back to 1/month (or higher) then the 747-8 becomes a solid money maker for Boeing.
As Sailvi notes, the 747-8 was a relatively inexpensive derivative of the 747-400 - Boeing didn't need to sell big numbers of the -8 to make money on it. I know what the business case numbers were for the 747-8 when it was launched. It's considered proprietary so I can't post them here, but suffice to say Boeing is easily on track to meet the business case assumptions.

[twochai]

Considering the number of 747-8s I see in my wilderness area but on the flight path from Asia to the US prime air freight centers, is it likely the 747-8F will continue for a lengthy period at a relatively low rate.

Unless trans-Pacific trade flows slow down! But why would that happen?

[mickjoebill]

What size of reduction in fuel costs would give a380 a new lease of life?

Given global warming and calls in Australia to have its own fire fighting fleet, is life as a water bomber feasible? What is its payload if loaded with only, let’s say, 4 hours of fuel?

mjb

[Bend alot]

What size of reduction in fuel costs would give a380 a new lease of life?

Given global warming and calls in Australia to have its own fire fighting fleet, is life as a water bomber feasible? What is its payload if loaded with only, let’s say, 4 hours of fuel?

mjb
At a 30% reduction in fuel they would still be more thirsty than the new twins (depending on units used) in the medium range. So at a 25-35% reduction you would still only be replacing existing frames and not growing the market.

I would expect that a conversion to a water bomber would face the same structural issues as being a freighter. It also is limited by airports that could handle it 130 worldwide.

[B772]

What size of reduction in fuel costs would give a380 a new lease of life?

Given global warming and calls in Australia to have its own fire fighting fleet, is life as a water bomber feasible? What is its payload if loaded with only, let’s say, 4 hours of fuel?

mjb
A reduction in fuel cost would help the entire aviation fleet just not the A380 so nothing would be gained. The maximum A380 payload irrespective of fuel load is just over 80 tonnes.

[hans brinker]

What size of reduction in fuel costs would give a380 a new lease of life?

Given global warming and calls in Australia to have its own fire fighting fleet, is life as a water bomber feasible? What is its payload if loaded with only, let’s say, 4 hours of fuel?

mjb

Water bomber? A380? How big is the weed field you are planning to water?

[West Coast]

Water bomber? A380? How big is the weed field you are planning to water?

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

[Smythe]

An article from 2013 stated that the breakeven for the 748 was 200 aircraft. Development cost was around $4.1billion

Dont know of the accuracy of the article as it was about Lufthansa being the launch customer.

[WingNut60]

......I would expect that a conversion to a water bomber would face the same structural issues as being a freighter. It also is limited by airports that could handle it 130 worldwide.

As a water bomber I'd have thought that might not be such a limitation.
You don't need aerobridges, just a big water tank and a long hose.

[DaveReidUK]

As a water bomber I'd have thought that might not be such a limitation.
You don't need aerobridges, just a big water tank and a long hose.

Whether it's a water-bomber or a passenger aircraft, it will still be a Code F and consequently be restricted as to where it can/can't taxy at many airports.

[WingNut60]

Whether it's a water-bomber or a passenger aircraft, it will still be a Code F and consequently be restricted as to where it can/can't taxy at many airports.

Fair call. I can't see it happening anyway.
All a bit pie in the sky.

I'd still think best chance would be some sort of freighter conversion if someone can come up with a way to make it work.
But even then it may be a very limited market.

[Bend alot]

Fair call. I can't see it happening anyway.
All a bit pie in the sky.

I'd still think best chance would be some sort of freighter conversion if someone can come up with a way to make it work.
But even then it may be a very limited market.
Some Colombians would have a freight solution/s for a fleet of A380's.

[futurama]

An article from 2013 stated that the breakeven for the 748 was 200 aircraft. Development cost was around $4.1billion

Dont know of the accuracy of the article as it was about Lufthansa being the launch customer.

Well, in 2006 Airbus announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6067540.stm) the A380 break even point was 420 aircraft. And that was under extremely rosy assumptions like selling 750 units. :} . In reality the number is likely even higher, and by 2021 (when the program will be shut down) Airbus will not deliver even half the amount required.

Safe to say that both programs lost money, but the A380 was a financial disaster for Airbus of a different scale. They spent $25 billion on the program (six times what Boeing spent on the 747-8) -- and lost most of it.

[ironbutt57]

The A380F was cancelled by the manufacturer not by it's customers.


errrrr.... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-transport-fedex-boeing-idUSWNAS222320061107

nope

[ironbutt57]

At what time? They had 27 orders from Emirates, FedEx, UPS and ILFC when Airbus decided to halt the freighter. Airbus stopped that version and converted orders or cancelled the existing orders.


hmmmm...which articles did you read

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-transport-fedex-boeing-idUSWNAS222320061107

[up_down_n_out]

Agreed.
The pressure to be fuel efficient will only increase as the drums of climate change continue to beat.
.

This is nonsense, and gobbledeegook.
The climate has always been changing.

The global scam of the same name, "AOC I am only joking right?", is a cobbled together mishmash of BS.
It is forgetting conveniently that the MWP (medieval warm period) was 2C warmer than today, the 1st century even warmer than that (Romans growing wine grapes on the Scottish border), and that nobody appears to have discovered the Vikings freighting stuff with 747s to Greenland which was ice free & green in the MWP.

I really give a flying F, what drumbeats are supposed to be beating, the pressure to be fuel efficient has always come from the price of fuel.
That depends on politicos, and who goes to war against who, always has, always will be.

Proof of concept is amply visible looking at the parks of obsolete Tupolevs stuffed into every single corner of Russian A/Ps while the people ferries use Airbus or Boeing over there... and that despite the cheapo Russian gas used to fuel it all up.

It destroyed Transaero, mismanagement did the rest.

Same rules of gravity will apply to Airbus if they carry on killing off stuff that made loads of money for BA (Concorde), set them up with a fleet of A320 instead (also Gov't financed) then set out to show the world how to do it , relax on French govt cash, then take business decisions which are catastrophic for said tax payer. (not that Macron gives a damn really!).

It could be the beginning of the end for Airbus consortium much like other French fiascos such as Air Frantic or Super Phoenix.

[RVF750]

The A380 would be the ultimate Fire bomber really. If you repurposed the centre fuel tank into a water tank.... smaller tanks on the upper deck you could spread the loads to avoid having to re-engineer the floors. It's certainly do-able. Perhaps California should buy one....Would certainly p155 Trump off...

[Bend alot]

The A380 would be the ultimate Fire bomber really. If you repurposed the centre fuel tank into a water tank.... smaller tanks on the upper deck you could spread the loads to avoid having to re-engineer the floors. It's certainly do-able. Perhaps California should buy one....Would certainly p155 Trump off...

The centre tank and upper and lower decks for fire suppressants is certainly a fine idea even some of the wing tank area, but they are very big mods and lots of fluid transfer internally required.

This needs to be offset against available airports that can fill such a craft in an efficient time frame.

The other issue is then the craft is limited by a very limited fuel load due to such modifications - so it is a fixed base aircraft basically. Most big bombers get a few passport stamps.

[Pilot DAR]

It is forgetting conveniently that the MWP (medieval warm period) was 2C warmer than today, the 1st century even warmer than that (Romans growing wine grapes on the Scottish border)

Is probably true. Though back then, there weren't hundreds of millions of people noticing their homes being threatened by the effects attributed to climate change, and demanding that the government take action to reduce those effects. Whether the government, or society can affect change to our climate is another question, but right now, it's public perception.

Like it or not, gas guzzlers, or machines perceived as such, will become environmental pariahs.

[up_down_n_out]

...back then, there weren't hundreds of millions of people noticing their homes being threatened by the effects attributed to climate change, and demanding that the government take action to reduce those effects. .

It's the ATTRIBUTION is the problem.
This "climate change scam within 5yrs or so will all have blown over.
Each time I ask some young green bloviator, how much is the exact percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere they invariably get it wrong by a factor of between 100-1000%, or don't dare answer.

The simple fact is the earth is POOR in CO2, it's just enough to make plants grow, and a little more as we have can only have +ve effects such as to make more plants grow better.
0.04% of the atmosphere is totally incapable of generating the claimed results of course, so let's hound people to death who dare to claim the airline industry makes no difference whatsoever to global temps, which in any case have been falsified and corrected more or less continuously for the last 20-30yrs too.

Then comes the utter bollox bit about homes being threatened by "more frequent hurricanes" (slight problem being that US hurricane activity is at an almost 100 year low), people insisting "the sea level is rising faster than evah before" (totally false, it's not rising any faster than at any time in the last 150 years), and then what happens to people insisting on building on known river flood plains, or eg. not draining the somerset levels in the UK, & selling off the equipment to dredge ditches, building villas in alpine valleys which are known avalanche risks...

One could go on & on, but the sheer crass stupidity of such people who cry their tears when nature takes its normal course, I have ZERO sympathy with.
If any government could take action to reduce said effects, it can be simple.

Force the insurance companies NOT to insure houses built on the slopes of dangerous active Volcanoes such as Vesuvius, in Tornado alleys with homes made of cardboard, where there is serious risk of forest fires, or regularly violent earthquakes such as California.

Stand back, take a deep breath and say,-

YES we could have had lighter aircraft years ago,but we have cars today which weigh up to 30% HEAVIER with bloat and still getting heavier....and in any case it's a dumb society that hasn't evolved from the days of WATT and the steam engine, where we willingly throw away 85% of all the energy we generate, either in waste heat through steam, or through the ridiculously low efficiency of the Internal combustion engine (disregarding traffic jams, when 99% of it is thrown away).

As a society we haven't really advanced in 200 years, the actual exception being the aircraft which has seen fuel consumption drop by a quantum leap in just a decade, and the use of composites & complex metal alloys spiral.
So much is positive, but you daren't say anything positive dare you?

All is as bad or worse than it can possibly imagined to be...so declare a "climate emergency" shut down Heathrow, and export all the jobs to the continent shall we?

Oh let's demonise progress shall we??
It's about all we have to be proud of right now.

[White Knight]

The A380 would be the ultimate Fire bomber really. If you repurposed the centre fuel tank into a water tank....


There is no bl00dy Centre Tank🙄

[sandiego89]

The A380 would be the ultimate Fire bomber really. ...

"ultimate" perhaps only in gallons carried. The certification, economics, crew training, contracting, and upkeep would be nightmare. Big Fire Bombers need big retainer contracts to make sense. Supporting a one off A380 far away from AIRBUS centers would be tough.

[srjumbo747]

Probably one of the most ugly jets ever created and I cannot wait for it to stop flying. It’s an offence on the eyes.
Its called the ‘wa***r’ fleet with a certain UK carrier as the majority of the pilots on the 380 think they’re special.
I, for one, will be glad to see it go.

[Buter]

Probably one of the most ugly jets ever created and I cannot wait for it to stop flying. It’s an offence on the eyes.
Its called the ‘wa***r’ fleet with a certain UK carrier as the majority of the pilots on the 380 think they’re special.
I, for one, will be glad to see it go.

It's "Wan**r Tanker," actually.

Yeah, we're a bit special...

B

[Rated De]

This is nonsense, and gobbledeegook.
The climate has always been changing.

The global scam of the same name, "AOC I am only joking right?", is a cobbled together mishmash of BS.
It is forgetting conveniently that the MWP (medieval warm period) was 2C warmer than today, the 1st century even warmer than that (Romans growing wine grapes on the Scottish border), and that nobody appears to have discovered the Vikings freighting stuff with 747s to Greenland which was ice free & green in the MWP.

I really give a flying F, what drumbeats are supposed to be beating, the pressure to be fuel efficient has always come from the price of fuel.
That depends on politicos, and who goes to war against who, always has, always will be.

Proof of concept is amply visible looking at the parks of obsolete Tupolevs stuffed into every single corner of Russian A/Ps while the people ferries use Airbus or Boeing over there... and that despite the cheapo Russian gas used to fuel it all up.

It destroyed Transaero, mismanagement did the rest.

Same rules of gravity will apply to Airbus if they carry on killing off stuff that made loads of money for BA (Concorde), set them up with a fleet of A320 instead (also Gov't financed) then set out to show the world how to do it , relax on French govt cash, then take business decisions which are catastrophic for said tax payer. (not that Macron gives a damn really!).

It could be the beginning of the end for Airbus consortium much like other French fiascos such as Air Frantic or Super Phoenix.

Precisely what your opinion anyone else's opinion is in relation to climate change or the falsity thereof is irrelevant. Don't remember much of the medieval period, but accept that it may have been warmer or cooler. who really knows?

The point remains that continuing to burn hydrocarbon based fuel, may, at some point actually result in penalties for those emitters beyond a certain threshold.
A market based measure is the objective, which incentives companies and indeed individuals to change their behaviour will be the hoped for outcome.
Presently, basing the decision on simply the price of the said commodity (jet fuel) in this case is perhaps not wise. That is the drum beat. 'Climate change' is what they call it, true or not, tax it they probably will.
For regulatory change in the EU and indeed outside, may see global emissions thresholds established for airlines that push costs at airlines and even maybe their customers.

Whether climate change is man made, natural or some combination of both is not the point. With global narratives focused on emissions, the price of fuel may not be the only consideration into the future.
The industry has got it wrong before.

[Less Hair]

It's certainly not the beginning of the end of Airbus.
Quite the difference: It shows that not prestige but business perspectives decide about their strategy.

[SMT Member]

The centre tank and upper and lower decks for fire suppressants.

Mmm. If you would please point us to the centre tank on the below picture, your idea will be much clearer.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2h3ctpl.jpg

The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.

[Bend alot]

Mmm. If you would please point us to the centre tank on the below picture, your idea will be much clearer.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2h3ctpl.jpg

The proposed, and since deceased, A380F would have had a different floor, for a very good reason. The same reason, actually, you'd want if you're carrying umpteen tons of a fairly dense liquid. So whilst the idea of having a Whale blasting around 200ft above a southern Californian wildfire sounds cool, the actual implementation of the idea may be a bit of challenge, barring the discovery of vibranium that is.
If you give the OP some latitude (I always do), we can assume a translation can call MID (middle) as centre tanks - but what is clear is they referred to using "existing fuel tanks" as fire fighting tanks.

In fact the OP's 3-4 hr Fuel load comment would fit pretty well with the "outer tanks" only and the trim tank part of that total fuel system.

I think all agree the challenge would be too great on a cost effective basis - a moral one has different principals to follow.

[Andy_S]

It's certainly not the beginning of the end of Airbus.......It shows that not prestige but business perspectives decide about their strategy.

Except that building the A380 in the first place was arguably a prestige project......one that they persisted with until they could no longer ignore the "business perspective".

But I agree. Airbus will move on from the A380.

[Smythe]

Safe to say that both programs lost money, but the A380 was a financial disaster for Airbus of a different scale. They spent $25 billion on the program (six times what Boeing spent on the 747-8) -- and lost most of it.

You really cannot compare a new aircraft with an update...

in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....

forget about the engineering cost to design the MAX.

In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).

[ironbutt57]

You really cannot compare a new aircraft with an update...

in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....

forget about the engineering cost to design the MAX.

In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).

unfortunately it's excellent design didnt prepare it for the inevitable, time honored conversion to a freighter..

[Australopithecus]

In reality, the A380 has to be one of the best aircraft ever designed (to date).

It depends...its my favourite aeroplane to pax on, but I wouldn’t want to try to make a profit with it on very long sectors.

[up_down_n_out]

Except that building the A380 in the first place was arguably a prestige project......one that they persisted with until they could no longer ignore the "business perspective".

The French have always been strong on "prestige projects" that are/were business disasters, miring organisations in vast amounts of long term debts, to the point they have to drop other worthy projects that are/can be much better.

You can blame the ENA for that, who have always been ultra strong in the management of the EUSSR also.
(Need a bail-out? No problem French always get a "passe partout").

No doubt you will find the "illuminated" management of AF and Airbus/ EADS are drawn from this "prestige" university ENA, spending their time studying how to make France competitive, commit business suicide, add to the growing 2 trillion + pile of French government debt costing 55 billion a year (or 1700+EURO per second (https://commodity.com/debt-clock/france/)) to service in interest payments on their 55,412,270,936€

One wonders how the French survive at all.
They do have the highest level of tax in the world, so their project disasters will always be financed by the earnings of grand children, n'est pas?
They even now try to shut down their only great successes such as their NPPs and replace them with intermittent unreliable sources of energy.

Good examples:-
Euro Tunnel bailed out...

Air France (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44021431) bailed out several times, still loss making.

TGV - SNCF, now one of the most indebted companies in Europe... the subject of a vast bailout in 2018 forced by the unions.
(who spent most of last spring and summer striking to force the government to underwrite the debts).Still loss making,-
Two out of three French high-speed TGV trains are operating at a loss despite the high prices.
SNCF freight - loss making.,,,,314 million euros in 2016 - accumulated debts then amounting to 4 billion euros.
SeaFrance (was owned by SNCF) went t..ts up.(in October 2008 had been losing in the region of €3 million a month)

Superphénix FBR, shut still costing large amounts to dismantle having generated just 7700Gw/h electricity over 11 years,
closed 1998 still not dismantled fully until 2023.
Alsthom - several bailouts attempted mergers.

Airbus will move on from the A380.

What could possibly go wrong for Airbus producing a vast expenses paid super prestige project like A380, assume it sells, - it tanks, it's a commercial disaster who pays?

If the French banking and insurance market fails, Airbus will be casualty number 1, so it may not be able to "move on", as you put it, and the blame will lie at the door of the 380.
(If you don't believe me look at what happened at Embraer in 5yrs)

[ukc_mike]

One wonders how the French survive at all.
They do have the highest level of tax in the world, so their project disasters will always be financed by the earnings of grand children, n'est pas?

French tax rates are nowhere near the 50% + tax rate of Belgium.

[Captain Capstan]

Overall tax take in France is the highest in the OECD at 46.2% followed by Denmark 46% then Belgium 44.6%

[givemewings]

majority of the pilots on the 380 think they’re special.

So, no change from regular old pilots eh? :E :ok:

[givemewings]

This is a bit JB... but the talk of water bombing... any merit in A380s being used for air to air fuelling? I can imagine the capacity is attractive but again the size present logistical issues not to mention presenting a bigger target...

Now if only air to air water transfer were a thing.. imagine a mama whale circling while the kids come back and top up the fire fighting tanks to reduce time/distance to base... Can't imagine many fires where the payoff would be worth the expense though...

[tdracer]

Evergreen developed a 747 based water bomber about 10 years ago - before Evergreen went belly up. Global then picked up what Evergreen had developed and installed it into a 747-400 - the Global Supertanker. It has a capacity of ~18,000 gallons of water/fire retardant. Apparently it works OK - got used quite a bit during the big California wild fires last year. But, even with a ready supply of old 747s headed for the boneyard, there doesn't appear to be much interest in building another one even though the development work is pretty much done.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.

[WillFlyForCheese]

Evergreen developed a 747 based water bomber about 10 years ago - before Evergreen went belly up. Global then picked up what Evergreen had developed and installed it into a 747-400 - the Global Supertanker. It has a capacity of ~18,000 gallons of water/fire retardant. Apparently it works OK - got used quite a bit during the big California wild fires last year. But, even with a ready supply of old 747s headed for the boneyard, there doesn't appear to be much interest in building another one even though the development work is pretty much done.
I don't know why the lack of interest in increasing the 747 water bomber fleet - perhaps a water bomber that big is just too limited and specialized. But whatever the reason, an A380 water bomber would run into the same issue(s), along with the added costs of development and the limited number of airports it could use.

That's because, as we're figuring out, aerial firefighting is becoming increasingly ineffective against these "big" fires : https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-aircraft-increasingly-ineffective-against-california-wildfires-20190407-story.html

We spend so much money on the aerial effort - and see marginal benefits. The Global Supertanker is quite a sight to see - we've seen it here in California too many times over the past couple of years. But - it's horribly expensive to operate and weather and darkness keeps it grounded when it's arguably most useful (night time when fires tend to calm down).

Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fox_xomGgFg

[JLWSanDiego]

That's because, as we're figuring out, aerial firefighting is becoming increasingly ineffective against these "big" fires : https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-aircraft-increasingly-ineffective-against-california-wildfires-20190407-story.html

We spend so much money on the aerial effort - and see marginal benefits. The Global Supertanker is quite a sight to see - we've seen it here in California too many times over the past couple of years. But - it's horribly expensive to operate and weather and darkness keeps it grounded when it's arguably most useful (night time when fires tend to calm down).

Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fox_xomGgFg
Don't know what fires you have worked on but the ones I have been on (over 50 the past 20 years) the aerial attack has been crucial to the success of our dozer lines

[futurama]

You really cannot compare a new aircraft with an update...

in the long run, Boeing is going to pay $4 Billion just to update MCAS on the MAX....

That puts it into perspective doesn't it. Even with the massive debacle that is the 737 MAX, from a financial perspective the A380 was 2-3 times worse.

[The Ancient Geek]

Yebbut the A380 was cursed by having been publicly associated with the patron saint of boondoggles, our lady Grace Tepp-Ford.
Any project which invokes her name is doomed to be cancelled at great expense to both public and private funds.
See also TSR2 etc.

[parabellum]

Posted this on 18 July 2018 and at least twice years before that, "The A380 Should Never Have Seen The Light of Day"

"The A380 should never have seen the light of day. Boeing offered Airbus a joint effort which Airbus refused, that was the writing on the wall, Boeing cancelling all their plans for an ultra large long haul aircraft sealed the fate of the A380. It commanded, at best, a small niche market for a few of the major carriers on certain routes. Passengers like it but that alone doesn’t make it a commercial success. Possibly intended as a B747 replacement but the B747 had already been replaced by a number of both Boeing and AirBus big twins. Quite significant is the fact that right now there is no apparent market for the 10 year old airframes that are coming up for disposal at the end of their lease period. (Put most of this on PPRuNe years ago, wasn’t believed though!)"

[Bend alot]

There possibly is a new market for used A380's that current owners want to offload.

But it will be a new type of work -
That maybe a new online platform that has some departure date flexibility until X days in advance, then gets locked in with higher loads.
Tourist promotions for just off season destinations - flight accommodation packages for 800 people.
Cruise ship transfers.

But if there is a new market I believe it will be in the available capacity of +800 and other than RPT type operation, most likely with the flight ancillary to the real revenue obtained.

[Bidule]

(Need a bail-out? No problem French always get a "passe partout").

Air France (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44021431) bailed out several times


A great difference with the "big" US airlines regularly using Chapter 11 to revive, isn't it?

Also, Airbus is not French but European and Germany has a share as important as France. Germany also has assembly lines.

So, again as you did not reply to my earlier question, what is your problem with France? What is much better in Russia where you declare to be?

[ironbutt57]

Airbus' own 350, and the Boeing 777x pretty much sealed the fate of the 380..

[srjumbo747]

There possibly is a new market for used A380's that current owners want to offload.

But it will be a new type of work -
That maybe a new online platform that has some departure date flexibility until X days in advance, then gets locked in with higher loads.
Tourist promotions for just off season destinations - flight accommodation packages for 800 people.
Cruise ship transfers.

But if there is a new market I believe it will be in the available capacity of +800 and other than RPT type operation, most likely with the flight ancillary to the real revenue obtained.


Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!

[ironbutt57]

Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!

cheap accommodations for 800 passengers and then how active in between duties?? will they keep it busy enough to pay for itself? how many 380 are needed in a fleet to pay for themselves?

[Bend alot]

cheap accommodations for 800 passengers and then how active in between duties?? will they keep it busy enough to pay for itself? how many 380 are needed in a fleet to pay for themselves?
The line I was looking at was leading and trailing the high seasons, but with base schedules planned well in advance to get the high numbers. It would take some good planning to get the optimum package together that gets reasonable aircraft utilisation but with some selective non utilisation for crew reasons. Non high/peak season operations into cities and even countries can often get good operating cost reductions/deals. I see it would be a very fluid operation and more of a travel agency than an airline type operation. If a pax will spend $1,500 on a flight and $1,500 on a accommodation, meals and drinks package for 7 nights (that you get for $1,000) numbers would be worth looking at.

An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.

[Bend alot]

Barbados? Puerto Rico? Fort Lauderdale? Rome? Barcelona? Southampton?

Large cruise ship ‘main’ ports!
Yep like that but there are many more across the globe.

[FlightlessParrot]

An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.

Or, perhaps, the hajj.

[srjumbo747]

The line I was looking at was leading and trailing the high seasons, but with base schedules planned well in advance to get the high numbers. It would take some good planning to get the optimum package together that gets reasonable aircraft utilisation but with some selective non utilisation for crew reasons. Non high/peak season operations into cities and even countries can often get good operating cost reductions/deals. I see it would be a very fluid operation and more of a travel agency than an airline type operation. If a pax will spend $1,500 on a flight and $1,500 on a accommodation, meals and drinks package for 7 nights (that you get for $1,000) numbers would be worth looking at.

An another market again it would be very GIG economy stuff is to target the Backpackers, they are generally flexible with travel dates and happy to deal with a +800 passenger flight if the $ cost is low.
And will they all be leaving from the same airport too or will it fly around and pick people up?

[Bend alot]

And will they all be leaving from the same airport too or will it fly around and pick people up?
Can only see it working direct for things like cruises and off peak flights in countries, but could be a different country on a roster equal to the number of nights stay that can also vary.

Backpackers would just be follow the crowds direction.

.

[DaveReidUK]

Once we start talking about cruise charters and Hajj flights as the raison d'être for the A380, it's all over ...

[fdr]

Once we start talking about cruise charters and Hajj flights as the raison d'être for the A380, it's all over ...

Would think that Dave is correct in his observation, the aircraft need to be at the end of their amortised life before they transit into low rate utilisation. In the mainline, the aircraft are covering around 4-4500 hrs per year. In the Hajj, they would drop below 2000 hrs a year in general. The variable costs will reduce but the fixed costs will become painful. Going to hi capacity makes a reasonable change in the fuel burn per seat mile, but the yield drops off.

The palace in the sky is expensive as a concept, but the yield is a fair offset. The airlines know what they are doing with yield management, so presumably the merit of changing the seat mix to maximise revenue while reducing the OEW would have been well researched. Reduction in the fuel burn really only comes about from optimising the Breguet formula, and possibly introducing tech stops enroute on routes that can accept that; flying SIN-LHR is considerably higher fuel burn than taking a tech stop in DXB or OMAA etc, even accounting for ground costs and the extra climb/descent.

Glad the analysis is not on my shoulders, the plane is still an impressive experience for the passenger, but in the end it needs to pay for it's fodder.

[Bend alot]

If you got 30, 50, 70, or even 120 aircraft of the A380 breed at the no other sale available price of say $40 million or even up to $80 million each, and then spend the interior refit costs of even $50 million to high capacity on a 20 year plan.

But yes 2,000 hrs is the realistic number to start with on "your" numbers. But again this is not a RPT operation,but an ancillary to a bigger plan.

[flysmiless]

Airbus considers A380 as a success for airbus even though they lost a lot of money on A380. During initial development the cost ranged approx. 17 - 25 billion USD

[DaveReidUK]

Airbus considers A380 as a success

Interesting assertion - what's your evidence for saying that ?

[amf1966]

But yet, as a passenger, I very specifically select flights where the A380 is sheduled - even adjusting dates of travel occasionally.

B787 or A380? No contest for me.

I understand the economics and the potential errors in judgement made by AB, but part of me still wishes that there would be a renaissance of interest and a NEO option back on the agenda - how different could things have been?

Mind you, I recently booked LHR-JFK return and deliberately selected flights schedule to be B747s (and not the B777), so what does that say about me!

[TSR2]

amf1966

Daughter travelled LHR- New York recently. Out on a Dreamliner B789 to Newark, back on a B747-400 from JFK. Now she has no interest whatsoever in aircraft, so when I asked her which aircraft she preferred, I was surprised she said without hesitation the B747-400.

[Dairyground]

Recent in-service problems and development delays for high thrust engines suggest that we may be approaching limits on the thrust achievable. On the other hand, there seems to be growing interest in increasing the capacity of twin jets. If these factors collide, will there be a move back to three and four engine long-haul transports?

Is there a chance that A and B will find it profitable to resurrect A380 and B747 production lines in five or ten or twenty years time?

[tdracer]

Recent in-service problems and development delays for high thrust engines suggest that we may be approaching limits on the thrust achievable. On the other hand, there seems to be growing interest in increasing the capacity of twin jets. If these factors collide, will there be a move back to three and four engine long-haul transports?


The GE90-115B is the highest thrust high bypass engine in existence (~115,000 lbs sea level static thrust), has been in service for over 15 years, and been very, very reliable. It's planned replacement - the GE9X - will actually have a bit less thrust than the GE90-115B. The issues that have occurred with some engines are generally unrelated to the level of thrust - rather it's been the ever increasing demand to reduce fuel burn. And even with some well publicized issues, engine reliability has never been better - the shutdown rates are easily an order of magnitude better than they were 40 years ago. In short, your basic premise is flawed.

Is there a chance that A and B will find it profitable to resurrect A380 and B747 production lines in five or ten or twenty years time?
Well, in the case of the 747, there are currently no plans to shut down the existing line - although currently planned production is freighter only. Boeing remains optimistic that there will be sufficient demand to keep the 747-8F production going for many more years - for it's role, the 747F really has no meaningful competition.
As for the A380, once an aircraft is out of production and the line shut down - that's pretty much it. Tooling is scrapped, manufacturing expertise is lost, vendors move on to other things. Five years after the last A380 rolls out in 2021, it would cost nearly as much to put the 25 year old A380 design back into production as it would to simply design and build a new big quad from scratch.

[Bidule]

Interesting assertion - what's your evidence for saying that ?

Faury's press conference on the 21 May 2019:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-success/

.

[DaveReidUK]

Faury's press conference on the 21 May 2019:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-success/

Ah, right - a bit like my local supermarket selling baked beans at a loss, in order to get customers through the door. :O

From the article you linked to:

Interestingly, Leeham also reports on a question of finances asked by Reuters Aerospace News. Airbus received launch aid from Germany to the tune of $600m. However, this has not been paid back. The Reuters reported questioned why, if the project had been considered a success. Reports indicate that Airbus did not answer the question.

[ZFT]

amf1966

Daughter travelled LHR- New York recently. Out on a Dreamliner B789 to Newark, back on a B747-400 from JFK. Now she has no interest whatsoever in aircraft, so when I asked her which aircraft she preferred, I was surprised she said without hesitation the B747-400.

Not that surprising. I still prefer B74x upper deck to anything else and luckily still manage to find the odd flight with a 400

[Commander Taco]

Faury's press conference on the 21 May 2019:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-success/

That’s called “turd polishing”.

[White Knight]

Those tankers need to maneuver in mountainous terrain - it would be something to see an A380 trying to get low enough for an effective pass . . .


Trust me, the 380 is a very agile aeroplane for it’s size! It would not be a problem!

[Smythe]

Trust me, the 380 is a very agile aeroplane for it’s size! It would not be a problem!

Wholeheartedly agree! Like driving a top fueler vs a Ford Pinto....

Back to the 747-8F...the order saving it was UPS...given the situation, will be interesting to see if it comes to fruition.

[Chiefttp]

I wouldn’t be surprised if UPS orders more -8’s in the future.

[ironbutt57]

Wholeheartedly agree! Like driving a top fueler vs a Ford Pinto....

Back to the 747-8F...the order saving it was UPS...given the situation, will be interesting to see if it comes to fruition.

what situation?

[4runner]

Or, perhaps, the hajj.

i can foresee zero problems with this endeavor. I’m onboard as an investor and crew member. Can we register it under a “flag of convenience” too? Sierra Leon or Naija registration is perfect. Oga Habibi Express.

[tdracer]

what situation?

I was wondering the same thing myself. Drove by the Everett flight line today and there is currently a 747-8F in UPS colors there being prepared for delivery.

[gearlever]

AF A380 early retirement? (https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/air-france-not-update-airbus-a380-cabins-early-retirement/)

[Smythe]

I was wondering the same thing myself. Drove by the Everett flight line today and there is currently a 747-8F in UPS colors there being prepared for delivery.

1 every 2 months? One would think that the profit point is not worth the real estate that the aircraft takes to build.

Orders are coming in for the 777F...why keep the 748F going other than pride?

Some of the boutique airlines are looking to buy up the A388 the airlines are returning...

[tdracer]

1 every 2 months? One would think that the profit point is not worth the real estate that the aircraft takes to build.

Orders are coming in for the 777F...why keep the 748F going other than pride?


The 747-8F at 1 ever 2 months is pretty much break even - they're not making much money, but they're not losing money on every aircraft built (unlike the last couple years of A380s). Boeing still sees a future market for the 747-8F - there are hundreds of 747Fs that are very high time and will soon need to be retired. 777F is not a replacement - it lacks the nose loading, and can't carry much more than 100 tons, while the 747-8F can carry ~150 tons. IF they can get production up to just one per month, the 747-8F will be a money maker.

[Facts R Us]

AF A380 early retirement? (https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/air-france-not-update-airbus-a380-cabins-early-retirement/)

First 2 due out of service Nov & Dec 19.

[billybone]

Ah, right - a bit like my local supermarket selling baked beans at a loss, in order to get customers through the door. :O

From the article you linked to:

What few realize is that the decades long battle between airbus and boeing is centered aound how ' launch aid' is determined, and the financial games played.
The Cliffs notes version re Airbus is and has been since 1992 ( GATT ) that governments could provide launch aid at 'discount' interest rates and based on selling/delivering xxyy airplanes by zz years.
And if the 'targets' were not met via 'payback of loan ' in zz years, then the remainder of the ' loan' would be forgiven. Additionaly, the loan was to be for ' startup- research - development costs '

Over the years GATT became WTO , etc. And a lot of definitons of terms were/are vague eg how the beans are counted and what baskt they must be in.

Thus the legal bean counters have had a near lifetime job of defending their side, and a simple explanation of ' success"' is unlikely to ever be forthcoming.

[Less Hair]

Both have their share of government support. That usual blame game is pure boring.

[screwdriver]

It's "Wan**r Tanker," actually.

Yeah, we're a bit special...

B
Or, possibly in your case, the "Yankee wankee Yankee" 🤓