A380 flown to disassembly

[kildress]

Sad to see a modern and relatively fresh plane being broken up, regardless of the finances.

https://m.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/airbus-a380-worlds-largest-passenger-plane-lands-in-ireland-at-knock-38979100.html

[CurtainTwitcher]

The A380 (and all commercial aircraft) are the children of finance, finance also eats it's young.

[cashash]

I can remember when the first A380's came into service and although I was not very impressed with the aircraft from the start I'm still surprised that they had such a short commercial life. Seems that 4 engines are just not wanted nowdays.

[Loose rivets]

Apart from when you have two fail on the same flight.

To an old guy, the life of that 380 seems like infant mortality.

[usbhub]

A380 is simply too big. It is quite difficult to find enough passengers to fill it.

[tdracer]

Airbus completely missed the reason why the 747 was so popular - particularly the 747-400. If you wanted the range of a 747, you needed a 747 - there simply were no viable alternatives until roughly 25 years ago.
Now, the longest range commercial aircraft are all twins, so you don't need to fill up an A380 (or even a 747) to make it viable.
Airbus was also fooled into thinking the 747 was a huge cash cow for Boeing. Yes, Boeing made money on the 747, but no where near the numbers Airbus believed...

[usbhub]

I know the case of the flights across the Atlantic (Air France and KLM). The passengers are obliged to buy round-trip tickets (a one-way has an enormous cost). No refund is possible if you do not come back (which is often my case) because the return ticket is just $2! I noticed also that the planes are always full. So, it is essential for big planes to have all seats occupied.

[jolihokistix]

When they were first announced the concept horrified me: arriving as a passenger at an airport with five or six hundred others, to be dumped into the slow queue funnel at point of entry.

[FullWings]

It’s a pleasant aircraft to be a passenger on and my colleagues say it’s nice to operate. Unfortunately, it's rather heavy at around twice the empty weight of a 777, so is not exactly economical, plus it can’t take anywhere near the amount of freight. There is also a bit of a dearth of suitable alternates in the event of a “land at nearest”. An interesting experiment that proves biggest is not always best...

[ATC Watcher]

Airbus made a gamble at a time where slots and airport access was an issue and hubs the way out , pushed by airlines like Emirates who did put they money where their mouths were . But it failed.
as to the weight to .pax ratio , remember that the current version flying is the equivalent of the SP version of the 747. The final serie would have carried well over 1000 pax ....
The other reason to develop the 380 was to take Boeing head on and compete with them on all sizes incl the 747, . and beat them on the long run with modern designs , . It that they succeed, and probably . looking at today, beyond their wildest dreams .

That said very sad to see a beautiful modern aircraft being scrapped so young... One was recently donated to the le Bourget air and space museum .. another sign ..

[old,not bold]

............... The final serie would have carried well over 1000 pax .... ..Maybe so, but there is no prospect of major hub airports being designed (ie rebuilt) to manage that. It's bad enough with the volumes being dumped all at once at immigration queues now, to say nothing of 2 - 3 hour waits for baggage. Unless most, if not all, major hub airports start a redesign and rebuild programme now, to come on stream in 20 years time, to cope with an imaginary large aircraft that exists only on its designer's future projects drawing board, if it exists at all, there will be no demand from airlines for anything bigger than the current range of heavy twins. And quite right too; these mega-aircraft are an abomination.

PS remind me of how long it takes to disembark a full A380, from stopping at the gate, through one hole at the front of the aircraft, or two if you're lucky. And then imagine 1,000 passengers doing that. The industry has gone mad; air transport is supposed to be quick and efficient, and here we are, even now, adding up to 3 hours to each end of a long-haul flight. It's madness.

[Octane]

I would of thought it'd be a great Haj aeroplane, 600 plus pilgrims say Jakarta to Saudi?

[AviatorDave]

Airbus made a gamble at a time where slots and airport access was an issue and hubs the way out , pushed by airlines like Emirates who did put they money where their mouths were . But it failed.
as to the weight to .pax ratio , remember that the current version flying is the equivalent of the SP version of the 747. The final serie would have carried well over 1000 pax ....
The other reason to develop the 380 was to take Boeing head on and compete with them on all sizes incl the 747, . and beat them on the long run with modern designs , . It that they succeed, and probably . looking at today, beyond their wildest dreams .

That said very sad to see a beautiful modern aircraft being scrapped so young... One was recently donated to the le Bourget air and space museum .. another sign ..

Modern, certainly. Beautiful? Not im my books. There, the A380 comes right after the Beluga.

[cashash]

It’s a pleasant aircraft to be a passenger on and my colleagues say it’s nice to operate. Unfortunately, it's rather heavy at around twice the empty weight of a 777, so is not exactly economical, plus it can’t take anywhere near the amount of freight.


The guys on the ramp when it was introduced couldn't see how it was going to make money when you looked at how much extra fuel you had to put on compared with a 777 on the same route and how much less (if any) freight you could load in the belly. When EK made the DXB - LHR route all 380 they also had to put on a 777 freighter to take all the cargo that no longer fitted.

[kcockayne]

All very sad. Such a great shame it didn’t work out . In my view - as a passenger - a great aeroplane which deserved to do better. But, I acknowledge the economic deficit.

[triploss]

I know the case of the flights across the Atlantic (Air France and KLM). The passengers are obliged to buy round-trip tickets (a one-way has an enormous cost). No refund is possible if you do not come back (which is often my case) because the return ticket is just $2! I noticed also that the planes are always full. So, it is essential for big planes to have all seats occupied.
I'm afraid someone's been telling you porky pies. No refund is possible because you most likely bought a nonrefundable ticket (you wouldn't get a refund if you cancelled before departure either - although you could probably rebook for a fee, which you can do even if you've flown half the ticket) - but the actual fare construction is such that each half is generally half of the ticket cost. The real problem you'd face is that you agreed to fly the itinerary as ticketed, and the airline very likely has the right to charge you more money for the pleasure of not taking your return journey. They mostly don't, but they could. The real reason for these expensive one-ways is that the business travellers who are the primary audience for one-ways have the spare cash to buy such tickets, but they don't want to make them convenient for the cheap passengers who fill the back.

[tdracer]

Modern, certainly. Beautiful? Not im my books. There, the A380 comes right after the Beluga.

Nah, the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter (LCF - aka 'Dreamlifter') is worse than the A380, maybe even as bad as the Beluga.

Triploss, it's not as common as it used to be, but I've run into cases where a one way ticket was actually more than a round trip. About 25 years ago, I was leaving on an extended overseas assignment, so I was going to drive my car to my parents house in Colorado to store and fly back home. It was cheaper to buy the round trip ticket and leave the second half unused than to buy one-way.

[Jump Complete]

Re whether the A380 is beautiful or not (and personally I think the Buluga is far prettier) an ex colleague of mine pointed out during the taxi at Frankfurt, that the A380 looks like Eric Pickles (UK Politician for the uninitiated) from the front; a fat, round face with all the features in the middle, I totally agree!

[DingerX]

The Skytanic is on its way out. Someone could do research on what was said here during it's development. I remember more than a few voices pointing out it was a case of confusing a desire to be literally the biggest and the best with an actual business plan. Their decentralized approach to manufacturing was once the gold standard in how not to do outsourcing, until Boeing said "hold my beer".
Winner: 773

[Fris B. Fairing]

It's always sad to see a perfectly serviceable aeroplane flown to the breaker's yard.

[Toruk Macto]

better it gets broken up than be kept and cause airlines to break apart financially .

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Didn't work out that there wasn't enough hold space for any freight.

[Commander Taco]

Quoting myself. But for the curious, the series of miscalculations mixed with hubris was well documented as far back as 2008. The writing was on the wall for the 380 for many years.

”The A380 debacle was well described in this book:
Quote:
Airbus vs Boeing by John Newhouse, published in 2008.
It’s still an interesting read. The book describes a combination of hubris on the part of Airbus, faulty market analysis, and the mistaken assumption (as verified by td) that the B747 must somehow be a cash cow for Boeing as the 747 lacked a direct market competitor.”

[USMCProbe]

Airbus makes good products. I have quite a bit of time in the 320 series. But their marketing department needs to be taken out and shot. The 340 and 380 were both commercial catastrophes. What the market wanted was a 330, but Airbus initially dumbed the 330 down to be a much shorter range aircraft. Airbus's marketing department then allowed themselves to get bullied into spending billions on the A350. Then, they back off, and start offering the 330Neo. They are now splitting the orders between the 350 and 330.

Airbus's biggest strength, is that their biggest competitor is more screwed up than they are. Screwed up in different ways, but still screwed up. Airbus should outsource their marketing department to Boeing. That is about the only thing Boeing gets right.

Somehow, Boeing forgot how to build airplanes.

[Lookleft]

I don't think Boeing forgot I think they chose not to.

[MechEngr]

I like that Airbus is still trying to worm out of a court declaration they received unfair government aid to develop the A380 on the grounds that it was such a failure that it did not affect Boeing. Right. So while Airbus was flush with direct government support cash and Boeing was struggling to keep up, nothing else of any import was going on.

[ZFT]

Maybe so, but there is no prospect of major hub airports being designed (ie rebuilt) to manage that. It's bad enough with the volumes being dumped all at once at immigration queues now, to say nothing of 2 - 3 hour waits for baggage. Unless most, if not all, major hub airports start a redesign and rebuild programme now, to come on stream in 20 years time, to cope with an imaginary large aircraft that exists only on its designer's future projects drawing board, if it exists at all, there will be no demand from airlines for anything bigger than the current range of heavy twins. And quite right too; these mega-aircraft are an abomination.

PS remind me of how long it takes to disembark a full A380, from stopping at the gate, through one hole at the front of the aircraft, or two if you're lucky. And then imagine 1,000 passengers doing that. The industry has gone mad; air transport is supposed to be quick and efficient, and here we are, even now, adding up to 3 hours to each end of a long-haul flight. It's madness.
​​​​​​
Immigration queues have nothing to do with the aircraft type you fly in on. Spent well over 2 hours at LHR T2 recently Inter Europe on a narrow body!!!

[MechEngr]

​​​​​​
Immigration queues have nothing to do with the aircraft type you fly in on. Spent well over 2 hours at LHR T2 recently Inter Europe on a narrow body!!!

The length of the queue does have something to do with demand.

If they can process 100 passengers per hour and a 100 passenger plane arrives, then it will take 1 hour for the last person to clear.
If 600 people arrive on one plane then it will take 6 hours.

Since the alternative to 600 people on one plane was multiple planes on a staggered schedule (they would not fly them simultaneously) then the depth of the queue will be greater than if, for example, it was 6 100-passenger planes at 1 hour intervals. Producing a huge spike in delivered passengers was exactly the reason the A380 was created in order to avoid multiple planes to move the same number of people.

[ZFT]

The length of the queue does have something to do with demand.

If they can process 100 passengers per hour and a 100 passenger plane arrives, then it will take 1 hour for the last person to clear.
If 600 people arrive on one plane then it will take 6 hours.

Since the alternative to 600 people on one plane was multiple planes on a staggered schedule (they would not fly them simultaneously) then the depth of the queue will be greater than if, for example, it was 6 100-passenger planes at 1 hour intervals. Producing a huge spike in delivered passengers was exactly the reason the A380 was created in order to avoid multiple planes to move the same number of people.
​​​​​​
Sorry but just doesn't work that way. We were stuck behind a group of about 50 pax all whom seemed to have incorrect documentation and each one took ages to be either processed or rejected. Nothing to do with spikes or multiple arrivals

[ATC Watcher]

If 600 people arrive on one plane then it will take 6 hours.
Common ! have you ever flown through Dubai , FRA , SIN or CDG where multiple 380s arrive at the same time ? First some arrive at different terminals, the disembarkation is done on 2 different levels and then the electronic booths or immigration agents are proportional to the number of pax expected. What is the difference between an 380 and 2 777s on opposite gates on the same prier ? all go though the same immigration booths at then end of the pier ....

[DaveReidUK]

Winner: 773

That's certainly true of the 77W (777-300ER), but the non-ER -300 is arguably even more of a niche aircraft than the A380, with only 60 built by the time production ended around 15 years ago and, as with the A380, early examples now being scrapped.

[Twitter]

Perhaps they can send it to RAF Marham to replace the Victor gate guard which with its over 60 years in all weathers is being given away.
Doesn’t look as good of course...

[triploss]

Triploss, it's not as common as it used to be, but I've run into cases where a one way ticket was actually more than a round trip. About 25 years ago, I was leaving on an extended overseas assignment, so I was going to drive my car to my parents house in Colorado to store and fly back home. It was cheaper to buy the round trip ticket and leave the second half unused than to buy one-way.
Indeed - and both in Europe short-haul and TATL long-haul, round-trip tickets are almost always cheaper. That may have been the case a long time ago as you say, and it's still very much the case these days.

But that doesn't mean that the return has zero or minimal value. You're still buying two journeys on one ticket - they simply will refuse to sell you a cheap outward journey unless you also pay for the cheap return journey, but that means the ticket is constructed as something 2x300 GBP (not 598 GBP plus 2 GBP). That 300 GBP fare 1-way fare has a condition attached, which is: must be ticketed together with a return journey (that return journey will happen to be available at a similar price). You can find 1-way fares without the return condition... but they just cost a lot more.

It may not seem logical from the outside perspective, and it does seem like they're giving you an effectively free return - but the underlying construction is fares for each journey, which may have the requirement to be part of a round-trip ticket (cheaper) or not (more expensive). Just like they can have requirements around having e.g. 6 days between outbound and inbound (cheaper), or no requirement (more expensive). Or refundable (more expensive), non-refundable but rebookable for a free (less expensive), and sometimes completely non-changeable (even cheaper). Similar reason why Milan-Zurich-SFO might be cheaper than Zurich-SFO even though you sit on the same long Zurich-SFO flight. All around optimising what you can pay.

And if you buy a lot of returns where the return isn't used, expect your travel agent or employer to be contacted for some extra cash. But that's only a risk for very frequent travellers...

[MechEngr]

​​​​​​
Sorry but just doesn't work that way. We were stuck behind a group of about 50 pax all whom seemed to have incorrect documentation and each one took ages to be either processed or rejected. Nothing to do with spikes or multiple arrivals

I assume you mean that you were behind passengers who were being cleared at nearly 0 per hour, in which case you are still in line and will never leave. "Ages" to clear means it took some amount of time, so if 500 of them arrived in a single batch ahead of you would that take A) just the same amount of time before they got to you or B) 10 X as long as it took to deal with 50 of them?

The duration of the backlog is proportional to the number in line. While the total processed per day has a limit, the length of the line depends on the peak arrivals.

[ZFT]

I assume you mean that you were behind passengers who were being cleared at nearly 0 per hour, in which case you are still in line and will never leave. "Ages" to clear means it took some amount of time, so if 500 of them arrived in a single batch ahead of you would that take A) just the same amount of time before they got to you or B) 10 X as long as it took to deal with 50 of them?

The duration of the backlog is proportional to the number in line. While the total processed per day has a limit, the length of the line depends on the peak arrivals.

As my initial post stated in took over 2 hours I'm obviously not typing this whilst still in the queue,

As for your other comments, we shall have to differ as my experiences of immigration queues are so vastly different to yours.

[threep]

An aircraft designed for spoke and hub operations just as the industry moved to point-to-point. A fantastic technical tour-de-force but mismatched with current route economics.

I must plan a trip on one soon so I can experience it as a passenger. I regret not booking a trip on Concorde when I had the chance.

[Rat Catcher]

Modern, certainly. Beautiful? Not im my books. There, the A380 comes right after the Beluga.
At least the new Beluga looks ok with the correct paint scheme

[wiggy]

At least the new Beluga looks ok with the correct paint scheme

Yep, ten out of ten for whoever came up with the “smiley” paint scheme on the XL ...

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2018/07/putting-a-smile-on-the-belugaxl-s-face.html

[Less Hair]

The A380's shape looks pretty much like a supersized A319. It's not overly exotic. The wing is big because they had intended to reuse it for stretched versions.

[flash8]

I assume it is being parted out, the engines will fetch a pretty price, and much of the avionics, but it does seem incredulous that such a modern transport aircraft is being disposed of in this way, given that 35 year old 767's are still viable.

As for the the A380 can't comment, efficient twins will always have a market, beyond that is anyone's guess.

[Fonsini]

It could be argued that Concorde and the A380 defined opposite edges of the design envelope for commercial aircraft. And they seem to be heading for a similar “niche” fate.

[Dog Star]

Sad end to proud bird. Nicest aircraft overall to fly in (IMHO) as a passenger.

[USMCProbe]

It is a very nice ride, as is the A350. Actually all the 320 series and up are all nice rides, at least until Airbus started squeezing 9 seats across in some newer 330's in Asia. The 320NEO's with the GTF's are ridiculously quiet for a narrow body. Even sitting right behind the wing, you can barely here the engines, even on takeoff.

[Check Airman]

It is a very nice ride, as is the A350. Actually all the 320 series and up are all nice rides, at least until Airbus started squeezing 9 seats across in some newer 330's in Asia. The 320NEO's with the GTF's are ridiculously quiet for a narrow body. Even sitting right behind the wing, you can barely here the engines, even on takeoff.

The airline determines the seating configuration, not the manufacturer.

[Pilot DAR]

The airline determines the seating configuration, not the manufacturer.

The manufacturer determines the seating configurations for certification, the airline may choose from optional approved configurations.

[VictorGolf]

I see on another forum that parts of the first A380 to be parted out are being sold off as key rings and baggage tags printed with the registration.. Unfortunately they've sold out as I've flown on that aircraft. However they are going to do the same thing with number 2.

[GeeRam]

Its said that Air France intend to retire from service their remaining 9 other A380's by the end of 2022.

[SLF3]

The A380 is short and fat with big wings. As alluded to above, the stretch version would be a thing of beauty.....

SQ were charging about USD 400 more SIN - LHR (business class) for the A380 over the 777. I thought that was more than fair. Roughly the price of the noise cancelling headphones needed to make the two even vaguely comparable!

[cashash]

The A380 is short and fat with big wings. As alluded to above, the stretch version would be a thing of beauty.....


Nah - you would also have to change the face..

[cashash]

Just been watching a vid on youtube about a trip report on one of Air Transats A310's, still flying after 30 years. Compared with the 10 year lifespan of the A380 just goes to show how Airbus got the market for large 4 engine jets totally wrong but cracked it with the twins.

[wiggy]

Its said that Air France intend to retire from service their remaining 9 other A380's by the end of 2022..

It’s a bit more definite than “It’s said”...

https://www.ladepeche.fr/2019/08/01/retraite-annoncee-pour-les-dix-a380-dair-france-klm,8341518.php

[nuisance79]

Just been watching a vid on youtube about a trip report on one of Air Transats A310's, still flying after 30 years. Compared with the 10 year lifespan of the A380 just goes to show how Airbus got the market for large 4 engine jets totally wrong but cracked it with the twins.
Yes, I also watched that clip, I assume it was the Noel Phillips one. The Air Transat A310 was a daily visitor to my local Airport (NCE) in the summer season for the last few years however, there were a few occasions last year when it was replaced by their new A321 Neo's which I assume will ultimately replace the A310 on the YUL-NCE route.

I would imagine the fuel burn is quite a difference between the A310 and the A21N!

[silverstrata]

They will be breaking up brand new B737 Maxs soon...

Silver

[cashash]

No chance of that - the fall back is to simply disconnect MCAS and demand new type training.

[dukiematic]

It is a very nice ride, as is the A350. Actually all the 320 series and up are all nice rides, at least until Airbus started squeezing 9 seats across in some newer 330's in Asia. The 320NEO's with the GTF's are ridiculously quiet for a narrow body. Even sitting right behind the wing, you can barely here the engines, even on takeoff.

A380 is magnificent ride.... but so is the A350. Fully agree. I await my first ride on a 320NEO based on your description!

[CEJM]

No chance of that - the fall back is to simply disconnect MCAS and demand new type training.

The chance is greater that they will break them up then let them fly without MCAS.

[evansb]

The fuselage could be converted to a condominium or a theme hotel. Or perhaps a bowling alley and gymnasium or spa. It is well insulated, and rainproof.

[KRviator]

No chance of that - the fall back is to simply disconnect MCAS and demand new type training.But without MCAS the aircraft does not meet certification requirements for increasing stick force gradient approaching the stall. So no type certificate for the MAX. And I'm pretty sure the FAA won't allow airlines to carry passengers while operating on an Experimental TC - it isn't an RV we're talking about here where you can stick a warning placard on the panel and be done with it.

[The Range]

But without MCAS the aircraft does not meet certification requirements for increasing stick force gradient approaching the stall. So no type certificate for the MAX. And I'm pretty sure the FAA won't allow airlines to carry passengers while operating on an Experimental TC - it isn't an RV we're talking about here where you can stick a warning placard on the panel and be done with it.

How do you that?

[cashash]

But without MCAS the aircraft does not meet certification requirements for increasing stick force gradient approaching the stall. So no type certificate for the MAX. And I'm pretty sure the FAA won't allow airlines to carry passengers while operating on an Experimental TC - it isn't an RV we're talking about here where you can stick a warning placard on the panel and be done with it.

The Canadian Regulator has already suggested that any issues with compliance could be solved.

Canadian air safety official urges removal of key software from Boeing 737 MAX (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/canadian-air-safety-official-urges-removal-of-key-software-from-boeing-737-max/)

However I feel we are now getting away from the purpose of the thread.

[Wonderworld]

I see on another forum that parts of the first A380 to be parted out are being sold off as key rings and baggage tags printed with the registration.. Unfortunately they've sold out as I've flown on that aircraft. However they are going to do the same thing with number 2.

Mine arrived today. Number 730 of 7000.