Last A380 Leaves Assembly Hall

[wiggy]

As per the title, apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere....

French Text (https://www.aerobuzz.fr/breves-industrie/le-272eme-et-dernier-a380-sort-dassemblage/#:~:text=L'A380%20portant%20le%20num%C3%A9ro,dernier%20exemp laire%20produit%20par%20Airbus.)

English Language (https://onemileatatime.com/final-airbus-a380-assembled/#:~:text=Bottom%20line-,Airbus%20completes%20assembly%20of%20the%20final%20A380,by% 20Airbus%20CEO%20Guillaume%20Faury.)

[Feathers McGraw]

I imagine this thread will be moved to the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum.

[Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP]

I doubt the proud new owners even want it. Such a shame.

[srjumbo747]

Why is it a shame? It wasn’t needed and the builders knew it wouldn’t work but like WW1 Generals they pushed ahead regardless.

Google Saunders Roe Princess. History DOES repeat itself.

They went ahead with this project knowing it would fail. It doesn’t even look right. It’s an ugly aeroplane and I’m glad they’ve stopped making this eyesore.

[Tartiflette Fan]

They went ahead with this project knowing it would fail..

I would be interested if you could document this .

[srjumbo747]

Copied from Forbes

Many, many aircraft manufacturing experts, airline executives, industry consultants, airport planners, travel marketing and planning executives, tourism promoters and chamber of commerce-type officials around the globe, and yes, a whole bunch of reporters and pundits did, in fact, advise Airbus leaders in the 1990s not to do it as they were considering whether to build a mega-jet even bigger than Boeing’s 747

Just google “why did the A380 fail”

[Easy Peasy]

By all means: if the reporters told them... they should have listened! We all know they unbiasedly report the FACTS!

[srjumbo747]

Well the facts are they’ve stopped making it because it didn’t work.

[ATSA1]

There was a TV programme about the design and building of the A3XX/A380 made in 1997...An "Aviation Journalist" was interviewed at Farnborough 96, and said "I am not convinced there is a Market for this Aeroplane"

Guess I was right!

[Less Hair]

The root problem is not the size but it's engine generation that is lagging behind at least half a generation compared to what the latest twins have installed. This is why these smaller aircraft at lower economical risk can match the cost per seat of the big ones. Install the same engine generation and the economies of scale are back again - well that is if corona isn't ruining demand.

[ATC Watcher]

srjumbo747, seen your pseudo, I find it ironic to be sarcastic about the final days of the A380 at a time where nearly all the pax 747s are being flown into the desert to die.
Yes Airbus gambled and lost As to telling entrepreneurs what they do will never work , history is full of them , They were plenty of them saying this to the Wright brothers too..

[gsa]

srjumbo747

You might think it’s ugly but I’d far rather be sitting in an A380 for 11 hours than a 787. I remember going to Johannesburg in 1972 on a 747 and it was brilliant, I did the same trip 2 years ago on a 747 and it was a dog, The 380 is a good aircraft for what it was designed to do but times change just a shame it couldn’t be converted to a freighter.

[esa-aardvark]

For me, as SLF, I am disappointed that the 380 has gone along with the 747.
Soon there will not be a decently comfy large jet to travel in.

[armchairpilot94116]

Well the facts are they’ve stopped making it because it didn’t work.

The A380 was not a commercial success to put it lightly. True.

But it was and remains an amazing achievement for Airbus. We are all the richer for it’s existence . I am still waiting to fly it .

The Concorde was not a commercial success either but it was an amazing achievement and we are all the richer for it’s existence .

The A380 has it’s place in aviation .

It does not have the speed and the beauty of Concorde. Nor the romance and passion it instills in many.

It does not have the grace and beauty and the timelessness of the 747. And will never take away anything from the Queen of the skies.

But even though it’s reign was very short and it’s passing untimely it was for a time The King.

it was the ultimate in what could be in the skies . A private apartment with a butler for the lucky very few , showers too.

In it’s way the A380 will never be surpassed ...ever .

it is a tribute to its designers and builders in that you can dream BIG and accomplish BIG things even if it costs you.


a Salute to its expert designers and to those who dreamt BIG and dared to do so.


a Salute to Airbus for making it happen !

Never will we see such a plane again in aviation.

[Jet II]

esa-aardvark

Well if you cannot find a large jet to be comfy in that is the fault of passengers who are unwilling to pay.

The race to the bottom was not started (or led) by the airlines - blame people who book the cheapest ticket on kyak.com or a gazillion other comparison websites.

[srjumbo747]

It’s an aeroplane or an airplane but not a plane.

Saunders Roe made another ‘white elephant’, three of them, in the forties.

“passengers were transported within an unprecedented level of comfort, being provided with luxurious first class accommodation, including a promenade (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promenade), sizable galley (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley_(kitchen)), separate bathrooms for men and women, and individual cabins for passengers.”

So we have seen this before and will see it again.

The people in charge then thought they were right as did the people in Airbus and history has repeated itself yet again although the Saunders Roe Princess was a beautiful aeroplane unlike the A380!

[Less Hair]

blame people who book the cheapest ticket
The customer decides what he wants to pay for. Some people pay more to go at the time of their choice in the morning, at noon or later compared to one daily flight with some very big aircraft.

[Jet II]

It is interesting the comparison with the Concorde - I thought Concorde was cramped and noisy but that was offfset by the time saved and the nice lounge. The A380 used the same lounge as everyone else and had a cabin that was OK but nothing different from anyone else. The A380 didnt have a USP (unlike Concorde)

But both types failed commercially because they were based on the wrong economic reality.

[Fris B. Fairing]

It’s an ugly aeroplane

But it's got a very nice wing.

[Jack D]

Jet II

Have to disagree with you. First class on the 380 was excellent , spacious and comfortable and even a shower or two for the fortunate 14 pax who were seated there.
A decent lounge bar in the business class area
and depending on the carrier ( not BA) an excellent wine list and entertainment system.

It is, or was undoubtedly the most comfortable aircraft for a long haul trip available. The B747 was comparable back in the day , again depending on the operator .

Economically it will be viewed as a failure but that doesn’t detract from its place in aviation history as a great Engineering achievement
and a fantastic place to endure a really long haul flight. Which sadly won’t be bettered in my lifetime as we rush toward low cost mediocrity in all things.

[Cat Techie]

Like the 74's.. Why burn fuel in 4 gas turbines when you can get 2/3rd of the pax across with 2? Work the maths out the 4 donk drivers. 2 Engines carrying Zero Squared at the mo is also cheaper that 4..

[Cat Techie]

The opening of factory space allows wings from a 3rd party country to be built in the EU. Watch that space.

[capngrog]

Jack D

What was the great engineering achievement? Other than size, it seemed to be a pretty conventional aircraft to me and was not that much better than the B-747 which has been in service for 50 years.

[Jack D]

The reasons why it is a fantastic achievement are many and varied. Are you from the USA by any chance ? as consolation I feel the B747 was also a great aeroplane, and a real gamble at a time when the future looked to be set fair for supersonic transport aircraft to take over the world .

[Pugilistic Animus]

srjumbo747

Plane as a shortcut to saying airplane comes from the fact that a wing is fundamentally an inclined plane, not a wood plane....I say plane all the time.

[capngrog]

Jack D

I'm still waiting for a specific example of the "great engineering achievement". Don't get me wrong, I think that the A380 is a fine aircraft, but I fail to see it as a 'break through" design of any sort.

[Anti Skid On]

Well the facts are they’ve stopped making it because it didn’t work.

Em, no; this thing called Covid killed an industry.If Covid hadn't happened they would have kept going for a while. If anything killed 4 engined aircraft it was twins and ETOPS

[Wizofoz]

They had announced the axing of the program before Covid,.

[SMT Member]

Still the most comfortable and quietest cabin in the sky, albeit the A350 comes close on the latter point.

[76fan]

srjumbo747

Ugly? Not from the inside, and economy London to Sydney in an A380 knocks spots off travel in a B777 or B787 in my opinion.

[Less Hair]

Today many aircraft are too big for the current market including big twins. Airbus had no GE90-115B available so they went the quad route.

[c52]

My two A380 flights LHR-FRA and back changed my resolution never to fly long-haul again, as long as I could do it on an A380. Not that I have, yet.

[DP.]

As a mere SLF (and not a particularly well-heeled one at that!), the A380 is easily my favourite commercial aeroplane I've flown on. One flight that stands out was LHR-YVR a few years ago, sat towards the back of the upper deck. Whisper quiet, and very comfortable for economy.

Never really understood the comments about it being an 'ugly' aeroplane. It might not be the most visually attractive of all-time, but it's fine, and quite a sight to at take-off and on approach.

[Bull at a Gate]

I’m with DP. Great aeroplane for the SLF. When travelling Sydney to the UK we would make sure that we flew on an A380. Quiet, spacious and one one memorable occasion when we had accumulated a few frequent flyer points, we had a shower in the air! No other aeroplane can do that.

[5711N0205W]

Love paxing in the 380/350/747 vs 777/787 from a comfort perspective.

Still mass long haul is dead for a while so we’ll have to make do with what we can afford/what’s left when things open up again in a couple of years or so.

[Jet II]

Jack D;

Well a couple of points - First Class on the A380 was good, the showers were a gimmick that I never bothered with. But First Class on all major airlines is good - the only thing that made EK's First Class stand out was the individual cabins and they have those on the 777. The bar area was good but they were not the first airline to have a bar, Imperial Airlines had one in the 1930's.

The A380 didnt have anything that other airlines or aircraft types had - that is why compared with Concorde (or the 747) it was not a revolution, or even evolution, in air travel.

[Jack D]

I wish it were so that first cl on all major airlines is good , sadly that really isn’t the case. Try any US carrier and prepare to be disappointed

As for cabin innovation , bars showers etc.I agree nothing new , but also nothing else has them at the moment , and the comfort and low noise levels, both inside and outside,are exceptional.

The achievement lies in a company, which was only founded in the early 70,s , building, assembling and successfully launching the worlds largest passenger aircraft . Allegedly there are more than 400 technological advances on the aeroplane , which imo counts for something .

[RodH]

snrjumbo 747
Who really cares about what the A380 looks like , it's not a fashion parade where looks count it's built for passengers to enjoy flying and it succeeds handsomely.
Over my many years in aviation I have travelled in an awful lot of aeroplane types in all 3 classes but in the last 10 years either first or Business class.
Without any doubt whatever the A380 wins the comfort and enjoyment as a passenger by a very long mile!!!
The B747 was very good but nowhere near as good as the A380 as far as passenger comfort goes.
The B777 and B787 are not very nice at all , bloody noisy and uncomfortable.
The A350 is IMOP the next best thing to the A380 and the others don't come anywhere near it, it really is a most pleasant aeroplane to passenger in.
It's very sad to see such a wonderful passengers aeroplane as the A380 virtually disappear from our skies.
One can only hope it returns post Covid.

[megan]

It’s an aeroplane or an airplane but not a plane.Plane as a shortcut to saying airplane comes from the fact that a wing is fundamentally an inclined plane, not a wood plane....I say plane all the timeIn the very early days of flight they didn't say "to fly", the phrase used was "to plane", pity the easily searchable early copies of "Flight" are no longer available so you could see the use of the word "plane" in context. Then the US Navy has a person called a "Plane Captain", not involved in carpentry, but responsible for the maintenance of a particular aircraft, the airframe "belongs" to him, and aircrew get to have a lend of same.

[Socalbug Smasher]

Boeing killed the 747 and the all other 4 engine pax aircraft when they built the triple 7.. or rather the regulators did when they gave it 3 hours ETOPS... yet Airbus still went ahead with the whale... not a good looking aircraft by any standards, and was never going to compete with the 747 because it cant be converted into a freighter...it was never going to be a success, it might fly nice ( but how would a pilot know unless he turns off the playstation controlling it :) !!! ) French arrogance ( or a few high high ups at AB) , pushed it though because they thought anything Boeing can do we can do worse, i mean better, and it has its time and place in history...... I bet all the city's and airport authorities who spent millions upgrading runways and terminals are thrilled they wasted all that cash

[James 1077]

Jet II

As SLF who spends most of his time down the back the A380 is by far the most comfortable economy cabin and was always my preferred option; then A350, then B787, least preferred is B777, unless I can find one of the few remaining airlines with decent service and 9-across seating. Haven't flown a B747 for so many years I honestly thought that they had all already been retired - especially when the last one I was on felt like it needed to be retired 5 years earlier (although still preferable to a B777)!

[BEA 71]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1440/emirates_a_380_16_aug_20_7157086e1fcc7591e4af06cd9f139eb7080 5da50.jpg

It has not totally disappeared from the skies, saw this one flying over Munich a month ago. There have been a lot of negative
comments in this thread. I am not a great Airbus admirer, and never managed to travel on a A 380, but have seen a flight
display after a name giving ceremony, and could not believe my eyes when I saw how agile this aircraft was. It was not built
for a beauty contest, but at the time it was introduced, it was a money maker on the routes it was built for. A very good example
was the Singapore-London sector, where 747´s sometimes were lacking the range, and had to stop at Frankfurt for refuelling.
It could also carry the load of two smaller size aircraft which was a great relief on this particular route. Never ever did I hear a
passenger making bad comments about this aircraft, everybody loved to fly on it. Emirates owes much of its success to the
A 380. Given the present conditions and restrictions, it probably guarantees services to some key destinations for a while. I
remember a top manager at British Airways saying that if it was up to him, the airline would only operate B 787 and A 380 air-
craft. The 787 for the thinner routes, the A 380 for high density routes. No one could know that there would be circumstances
like we have them today. And I fear we will have them for a long time.

[ohnutsiforgot]

I wonder when engine technology would have delivered so that a twin 380 would have been feasible.

[megan]

I bet all the city's and airport authorities who spent millions upgrading runways and terminals are thrilled they wasted all that cashWonder if they say the same about the investments they had to make when the 747 was introduced? They invested because they thought they had read the market. No one knows where the airline market is headed at the moment, but pre Covid I was still of the belief, right or wrong, that with the then forecast growth that very large aircraft would have a place as the airspace became saturated. An airport can only handle a fixed number of movements per hour.

[wiggy]

A very good example was the Singapore-London sector, where 747´s sometimes were lacking the range, and had to stop at Frankfurt for refuelling.
It could also carry the load of two smaller size aircraft which was a great relief on this particular route.

I've had a bit of experience operating that route over the last three decades and our 744s certainly were not in the habit of having to make fuel stops en-route because they couldn't "make" London.

On a bad day with perhaps a temporary fuel system limitation or a day when the whole of north western Europe had very poor weather (meaning a high required reserve fuel figure on arrival in the London TMA) then maybe it happened but it certainly was not a feature of "normal" SIN-LHR 744 ops where I worked.

It was also interesting to operate the 777 on that same route and compare the fuel/payload the 777 (especially the -300) needed vs. the fuel/payload our colleagues on the 380 on the same route were carrying...if you could see those numbers you'd probably understand why the accountants like the "big twins", but I accept for many the 380 provided the superior passenger experience.

[White Knight]

From a piloting perspective it is a magnificent aeroplane to fly:ok: As a passenger it is the most comfortable ride in the sky...

The last one may be off the production line but it's not finished in the skies above us...

[Bidule]

Jet II

Yes, you have those items on the 777, but with a lot of noise! The 380 evolution was the passenger comfort - after all they pay for - and the evolution keeps going on with the 350, unfortunately not with the 787.

[Bidule]

and was never going to compete with the 747 because it cant be converted into a freighter...

Don't be so sure! The future is always full of surprises....

.

[Less Hair]

The A380 even had firm orders for the factory built freighter version.
Any conversion would be the perfect amazon package-carrier.

[AndoniP]

The last one may be off the production line but it's not finished in the skies above us...

Amen.

The 777 was ghastly in terms of cabin noise. The A380 was absolutely wonderful, i've flown on it a few times in Business and Economy, hands down the best aircraft i've flown in yet. I've not been in a 787 or A350 yet however.

[paulc]

A few years ago when Air France introduced the A380 they operated a number of flights to London and myself and some friends booked a flight to get a ride on one. I had flown on one before so knew what to expect but for my friends it was their first time. As we took off one friend said to me "is that it" refering to the noise or rather lack of and it is that that sums up why passengers like it so much. The A350 comes very close though.

[wiggy]

People can "like" the aircraft in bucket loads, but you need to follow the money and not the sentiment.

[Jet II]

Bidule

Must be me, I see a lot of people enthusing over the comfort in an A380 but it was something that never struck me as head and shoulders above the competition. Yes it was a bit quieter but when you are watching a movie wearing noise cancelling headphones it was just the same - and you still need noise cancelling headphones on the 380.

Also at lot of passenger comfort is down to how the individual airline configures their cabin. I only flew on the 380 once in Economy and it was easily one of the most uncomfortable flights I have had - but I suspect that was down to it being BA rather than anything to do with the aircraft.

[Wonderworld]

I’ll take Zone A on a 747 over the A380 anyday!

[kcockayne]

Jet II

I have flown on the 380 six times - twice in economy & four times in business - by far & away the most comfortable a/c I have ever flown in (especially in economy). I can only say that I am very sorry that Airbus could not sell many more of them; & that their time is nearly up. We are going backwards ( have not flown the A350) as far as the passenger is concerned.

[cattletruck]

The first time I flew as pax on the A380 was so good that going back to the B777 made it look like a pauper pack, even on the better fresher kitted ones.

The A380 is also unexpectedly very manoeuvrable for its size. I watched a QF A380 perform a semi-aerobatic manoeuvre at the Australian GP and thought its wings would fall off.

Finally, the A380 wing is out of proportion with the rest of the fuselage as stretched versions were planned. The anticipated winning formula with the A380 was that it was meant to alleviate peak slot demand at major airports by carrying two plane loads (airplane loads !?) in the one slot. Then the bottom fell out of international air travel.

Pax love the A380, and many pax including myself are willing to play a premium for the comfort to fly on this beast of a plane (airplane !?).

[MPN11]

Only flown A380 twice (LHR-LAX-LHR). Apart from noise levels v. 744/777, the Club cabin was "same old BA" ... but with smaller side bins that popped open uncommanded!

Colour me apathetic from a pax POV.

[glofish]

The ride on the 380 is nice and quiet, agreed. The shower and the bar are quite fancy, agreed again.

Now let's put 4" of more insulation into the walls with a shower and a bar into a T7, or a Tupolev for that matter, and we'd have the same fan base lauding these airplanes (!) and the airlines pulling them off line later because the economy went down the drain .......
In physics you simply can't have it both ways - more comfort through more weight and more economy just don't go together. Even for Timmys and Ahmeds.
(by the way: that was what i said from day one. Not that the 380 was a bad airplane, but an unsustainable one for unsubsidized business)

The fan base wishing the 380 to return after the crisis can eventually make their wish come true, if they'd be ready to pay the effective price for its comfort, but that simply ain't gonna happen. Neither the earlier, nor the latter!

[fdr]

wiggy

Hmmm. So, August 89... And for many years thereafter, the 744 would be an interesting night out getting the "plane" through the hoops to LHR. There was a 44 that went dark on the ramp post landing holding Goff for a bay, of course that could happen for a little while.. There were others that got headlines. Overall, was much nicer than the classic on the gas, but SIN LHR could be a fun night out for all. SCANDINAVIAN 972 going 78 along the mid levels on 2 blenders just added so much tactical fun. The marketing peepelz that thubked that it was a great idea to run a gaggle of "planes" mixing up overhead Calcutta from multiple Airways, and then fighting for altitude against a low level jet stream at least helped while away the time.

Personally while. Having enjoyed almost all the time in the 1-400's and short stuffs, the 380 wing is exceptional.. The flaps without thrust gates are remarkable, and Airbus got supercrit basics right, that LE radius gives minimal pain. The cockpit is exceptional, prefer the cueing from the 777 and 787, prefer AI's FCS logic +C rather than Boeing. When things go awry, I liked the 777 and 787. As a passenger in any class up to and including steerage, give me the 380. In 20 years, we will remember both fondly. As far as aesthetics go, after a while you either got numb or used to it. Just like the ride difference between the 380 and everything else.. It was a spectacular gamble, and sometimes you win, other times you get a face plant in the poop.

The industry is a shambles for the near future, so it will be a boon for Haj.. In a few years, and for chicken coops

[DP.]

The 777 was ghastly in terms of cabin noise. The A380 was absolutely wonderful, i've flown on it a few times in Business and Economy, hands down the best aircraft i've flown in yet.


Spot on. The return leg of the LHR-YVR A380 trip I mentioned upthread was on a 777, and the difference was like night and day. There's been a couple of snarky comments about fans of the A380 paying a premium for flying on it if they want to see it succeed; you'll find that there are people who have done that - though, admittedly, unlikely enough people to see it have much of a longer life.

[OldLurker]

As I see it, there are two points where the A380 wins:

(1) Passenger experience. Unfortunatey few airlines still give a damn about passenger experience, and it seems the bean-counters are satsisfied that that enough passengers don't give a damn either. (Not in the ads though.)

(2) Slot-constrained airports. This is where I don't understand the logic - but then, I'm not a bean-counter. If you've got a slot at somewhere like Heathrow, and enough people who want to fly, isn't it better to use that slot for A380 loads of passengers rather than only 777 loads?

(By the way, Air New Zealand recently sold its one Heathrow slot for ... US$27 million (https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/03/09/air-new-zealand-sells-heathrow-slot/).)

[wiggy]

The industry is a shambles for the near future, so it will be a boon for Haj..

You mean something like this? :)

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

[Lord Bracken]

A real shame, from a passenger perspective pretty much the nicest ride out there. So quiet and smooth

BA - in F to/from HKG - proper modern compartments and in the early days, a better menu - far more comfortable than the cramped confines of the 747 A zone (where BA cram in 14 seats vs LH's 8). 777 makes a racket inside even up the front
BA - in J again to/from HKG a few times - same seat as the rest of the fleet and no real standout options like the 744 UD - I'd say this was the most underwhelming vs other aircraft of BA
SQ - in J for a short regional hop HKG-SIN - superb
QR - in Y - flew down to SYD with a 18 month old and it was great - flew back on a 787 DOH-LGW which was horrible, even in the bulkhead. Remember 787s are supposed to be 2-4-2 in Y, 3-3-3 is the charter config which everyone has had to adopt as it can't meet its fuel burn promises.
BA - in Y - not as good service as QR (!) but still a very pleasant ride in the little mini Y cabin at the back of the upper deck, again with same 18 month old LHR-SFO-LHR

If flying Y I will always hunt out the 380 services. Then A350.

[DroneDog]

More SLF here and yes by far my favourite aircraft, I am in the fortunate position of choosing myself whom I fly with and when and I opt for an A380 when available.

[bvcu]

Agreed , but progress , first trip in 777 in 1996 and it was far superior to anything then for a good few years , 380 next generation and very quiet !

[Chiefttp]

The case for converting the A-380 to a freighter has been investigated for years. Unfortunately the added weight of the heavier cargo floors make it financially unfeasable. Also the specialized equipment and containers required to load and offload a double decker aircraft are cost prohibitive as well.

[Less Hair]

There are upper deck catering trucks available that can be converted to lift cargo containers. If you look at like 100 plus emirates airframes ready for conversion the idea starts to look more interesting. Think prime air and such. Three wide body decks full of containers and transpacific range. And cargo is doing fine these days. Not sure if somebody will finally do it but those airplanes are available for cheap now. And corona will end one day.

[tdracer]

The problem with the A380 as a freighter is the Max Zero Fuel Weight is simply way too low. The 777-300 as a P2F conversion can carry as much as an A380 and the operating costs are far lower (and the 777F can carry even more). If you're willing to pay the operating costs for a quad, a 747 can carry much more than an A380.
Yes, the A380 can carry it a long way without refueling, but the world cargo market isn't set up that way - max sector length is around 4,000 miles. The A380 has a lot of volume, but there is little demand for high volume/low weight cargo aircraft.
Short story, the 747 was designed from day one to make a viable freighter - the A380 wasn't...

[172driver]

Ugly? Hell, yes! But from a pax POV the most comfortable LH ride ever. I say this as someone who as flown LH for over 40 years on pretty much any imaginable LH aircraft. While I LOVE the 747, the ride in the 380 was vastly superior. I guess these trips will now never be repeated as all my LH flying these days is on EU / US mainline (flag) carriers.

[gnirtS]

Long term lurking on here but i'll throw this in...

From a passenger point of view for me, absolutely nothing comes close to the comfort of a 380. Combination of the smooth flight, the quiet cabin (to the point you hardly know you're in there air). Large windows, huge fuselage and space. Generally newer aircraft so often have far better IFE and connectivity and so on. Its just comfortable, even in economy.
A 350 isnt bad for experience but not close to the 380. Dreamliner a distant third.

747 i genuinely cant remember because its a very long time since i used them. I wasn't aware they were still in general passenger use.

Right at the other end of the scale for me is the 777 where i'll change my schedule, airline or airport if practical to avoid flying on one because its everything the 380 isnt - its noisy, its cramped, its not as smooth, the IFE and so on is usually much older, seats arent as comfortable and so on.

Ultimately if plans allow, ill try to get on a 380 whereas i'll do all i can to avoid a 777 (and specific airlines to avoid).

I can see why *airlines* dont like the 380 but everyone i know on one as pax tends to agree its the best aircraft available for a smooth, comfortable long haul flight.

I'll certainly miss it and now means i need to pick operators that operate A350s or if not, dreamliners.

[artee]

Singapore Airlines turns grounded A380 into a fine dining restaurant (https://www.traveller.com.au/singapore-airlines-turns-grounded-a380-into-a-fine-dining-restaurant-h1r1t1)

[GeeRam]

I'm not anti-A380 in any way, as it gave me work in some of the airfield mods reqd for its operation.........and I've only flown on one twice, in fact my last long haul flight was a BA A380 on the LHR-SFO-LHR route a few years ago.....
However, I guess as others have mentioned, being a Bloody Awful flight I really didn't think it was any better than any other flight I've taken long haul.....I certainly don't remember thinking, wow this is so much quieter and BA's cabin config didn't make it any more spacious or comfortable than any other BA flight.
Sadly, I doubt I'll fly on one again to be able to have another go at comparison.

[ATC Watcher]

The pax comfort is no longer part of the equation in airline management since a long time unfortunately , looking at the last modern Recaro seats on the LH 320 neos, only a few cm think, to gain a row or two, but they are so hard it is painful to seat on them more than an hour .
Yes the A380 on ultra long haul is far superior to the 777 or the 330 for a pax. ..Proof of that is on segments where pax have the choice like FRA-SIN where there were both A380 and 777 services offered every day . the fares on the 380 were higher than on the 777 , and when you booked , whether LH or SQ you got a special advert besides the fare : A380 to justify the fare difference and the 380s were filling up faster than the 777s...
Another benefit that has not yet been mentioned ,and than one has also on the 787 and 350s, is that you are less tired on arrival .. and this is worth gold for the business traveler. .

On the technical side, someone here said earlier that there was no technical innovations on the A380 , well not really true ; I had the opportunity to make a few jump seat rides , items like prelanding brake to vacate the runway on the map, automatic following of TCAS RAs were at the time rather innovative. As to the beauty , just look at the wing from behind.. and remember it was the short version , the full long version would have been more graceful..
I hope I will be able to fly on them again for the next 2 or 3 decades..

[Mr Mac]

By far the best A/C for SLF on LH in my extensive experience of LH flying in all types of metal since the late 60,s. I actively seek out travelling in them if possible followed by A350. Not a fan of the 787 and frankly I have lost faith in Boeing engineering. Due to qty about I do fly 777 a bit, but it is a poor experience in comparison. Aesthetically I agree she is not pretty, but neither was the Stratocruiser or the Flying boats of yesteryear, but many people rated the comfort and luxury of both as way to travel, and I think that is what we have here, a classic way of moving about the planet , especially if you are fortunate enough to travel in premium classes. I will miss it when it has gone, indeed as I do currently, as having to fly on other metal LH due to Covid reduction in passenger numbers.

[AN2 Driver]

The 380 as well as the 748 fell victim to the same kind of change in the market. Both were made with the Superhub concept in mind. They were built to connect Frankfurt to NY, Dubai to London, Singapore to Europe and so on. This also worked after a fashion. Looking at Zurich, one of the smaller hubs, EK still filled 2 A380ties daily with folks to feed the Dubai hub, Singapore filled their 380 as well. So did others between the hubs. The idea basically was, to get those huge planes to do the long range work and then distribute the pax off to the smaller airports via feeders.

However, people like direct flights. So the newer long haul smaller planes such as the A350 / B787 turned up, they could do that, transport a smaller number direct to smaller airports, without the need of feeders. Passengers also don't necessarily like megahubs, as they are stressful to change airplanes in, have long immigration queues e.t.c. Add to that the increasing pressure on inner-European flights just for example with environmental taxes e.t.c, the feeder concepts were no longer attractive.

IMHO, this is why the super cathegory failed, for the time being. I somehow think that in a couple of years, once Covid is ancient history and people will want to fly again, they might be sorry to throw them away so quickly.

Also I think the main reason the A380 is totally gone now is that they never made a freighter out of it. Cargo, as opposed to pax traffic, has increased recently and high volume cargo planes would be in demand. Airbus could have replaced the An124's with a proper Cargo 380, but they chose not to do it or rather the concept of the 380 relied on the 2 deck layout so they could not.

[Hartington]

Probably a naieve question but.....
Would it be possible to remove the floor of the upper deck and use the saved weight to strengthen the main fllor to create a viable freighter?

[Less Hair]

That is not possible.

[procede]

Actually, the target for the A380 was mainly runway capacity constrained airports where an airline cannot get any additional slots (which ended up being mostly limited to LHR). A side market was high yield routes.

The hub and spoke system is still alive an kicking and with reduced traveller demand, it will only be more important as it is the only way we can still efficiently connect destinations throughout the world.

[procede]

Hartington

The fuselage has an oval shape and the upper deck floor basically keeps it that way...

[172driver]

There's one thing I can't get my head round to: flying LAX-FRA at least twice a year on an 380 (Lufthansa) in a premium cabin, the airplane was always full with perhaps 2-3 available seats in C and a couple in F. Y and Premium Y usually sold out. Why does an airline not make money with that kind of load factor? Serious question to those who know.

[armchairpilot94116]

https://youtu.be/Yyjbq5nRZE8

To think the A380 created such an excitement worldwide. Here Airbus flew one into Taipei to drum up sales and yet China Airlines and EVA didn’t buy any. Even though they could have used them on the Taiwan /US runs where for example EVA has as much as three daily to and from SFO and LAX from TPE with their triple 7

i guess the A380 wasn’t of much use to them on their other routes while the triple 7 fits in perfectly

and this may have been the same for many airlines

It simply was too narrowly focused an aircraft
The 747 just managed to be not too big on many routes while being just about perfect on others

[etudiant]

172driver

It's not enough to be full, it has to be full with a decent yield. The airlines have not managed to square that particular circle.
If the experience of the merchant marine is any guide, we will eventually have two or three global carriers, along with a passel of 'tramp steamer' equivalent budget options.
Now would be a perfect time to make that change, because all the airlines are currently wards of their respective governments.
Unfortunately, airlines are such a small part of the global economy that they do not get much serious government thought.

[FullWings]

I liked the aircraft to fly on but it was pretty uneconomic, driven mostly by the facts that it weighed as much as two 777s when empty and four engines vs. two is only going to have one winner. That and the inability to take much freight with all the passenger luggage filling up the holds and the long turnarounds unless you could put multiple jetties on it.

The people I know that operated it all thought it was great, with good performance (and low reference speeds), an excellent cockpit, nice crew rest and in my airline, decent routes. I never really wanted to fly it though as you got about half the fun things, like takeoff and landing, as there was a lot of heavy crewing, but you got twice the problems, with a cabin crew of 20+ to get through security, immigration, check in, transport, hotel, etc. and all those pax who were going to generate more issues.

They will live on in some shape or form but it did seem to be a gigantic vanity project from the word go. The 747-800 never really went anywhere either so Boeing were probably pretty relieved they didn’t try and build something of equal or greater size...

[Anti Skid On]

Something that has been lost in this discussion (other than someone mentioning the 2-4-2 seating in the 787) is the 777, once upon a time was a 3-3-3 config in Y (even saw 2-5-2 in early MH birds). Most operators have gone to the horrid 3-4-3 that was once standard on the 747. I will always book according to comfort rather than price.

[etudiant]

Wise traveler, but unfortunately most people flying are bereft of your knowledge. The airlines won't tell you and the travel agents rarely if ever go beyond the arrival and departure times.
The ongoing effort to make air travel cheaper by packing in more people may have been arrested temporarily by the virus, but otherwise remains in effect.
Sadly, any prospects for a less demeaning air travel experience are further constrained by the various 'security' and 'health monitoring' systems, enormously ineffectual and expensive kabuki make work systems that only serve to make travel deeply unpleasant.

[White Knight]

Also I think the main reason the A380 is totally gone now

No it is not.........................................................

[srjumbo747]

172driver

So many passengers and so many bags and not much room for cargo which is a massive money spinner.
Thats why the price of cargo has gone up recently because there are less passenger flights therefore less cargo capacity worldwide.

[Jet II]

armchairpilot94116

I think this hits the nail on the head. Just like Concorde there were only a finite number of routes that made economic sense, and just not enough of those to make it a commercial success.

[GeeRam]

srjumbo747

And air freights costs have pretty much trebled, if not quadrupled since July, because of this.

[tartare]

Many, many moons ago a younger Tartare in journalist disguise was told by the then head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes on a visit to Orstraya that they didn't believe in the hub and spoke model.
Thought he was nuts at the time - but I guess he was right.

[tdracer]

Something that has been lost in this discussion (other than someone mentioning the 2-4-2 seating in the 787) is the 777, once upon a time was a 3-3-3 config in Y (even saw 2-5-2 in early MH birds). Most operators have gone to the horrid 3-4-3 that was once standard on the 747. I will always book according to comfort rather than price.
The airframer has little say on how each airline configures their interiors - not much more than some max numbers. Operators could easily put showers and private bedrooms in even narrow bodies such as the A320 and 737 - in fact there are 737 BBJs configured that way right now. But few people would be willing or able to pay the resultant ticket prices. The race to the bottom that we were witnessing prior to Covid was because most people shop by price, not by value - it's not just the airline business, there are many retailers whose very existence is dependent on shoppers who buy based on the lowest price - not the best value (not to mention the manufacturers who make the crap they sell).
The 767 was designed for seven across seating but was provisioned for eight across - thankfully very few airlines went with the eight across (many years ago I did a flight test on 767 configured for eight across - I barely fit in the seats and I'm not a large person, not to mention over 60 lbs. lighter back then). The 777 was designed for nine across, provisioned for ten - and for a long time most 777s were configured for nine across until the race to the bottom dictated ten across. Similarly the 787 was designed for eight across, provisioned for nine - but because of the race to the bottom few 787s were ever configured with eight across.
The A380 got the showers, lounges, and suites because the operators couldn't routinely fill the aircraft if they packed them in like sardines - so instead they treated the A380 as a premium product with lots of room and amenities. If anyone had ever operated the A380 with it's advertised 800+ passengers, the passenger experience would have been at least as miserable as any 777 and 787.

[James 1077]

The A380 got the showers, lounges, and suites because the operators couldn't routinely fill the aircraft if they packed them in like sardines - so instead they treated the A380 as a premium product with lots of room and amenities. If anyone had ever operated the A380 with it's advertised 800+ passengers, the passenger experience would have been at least as miserable as any 777 and 787.

I disagree - stuck in the middle of lower deck economy you have no idea of what luxuries are available upstairs - but it is still far more comfortable than a 777 / 787 due to lower noise levels and the seat width. B777s with 3-3-3 seating have reasonable widths but you have to deal with the constant roar of the engines for hours on end; and I've never been in a 787 with decent economy seat width to compare.

But A380 versus 777 on 3-4-3 is incomparable. For one thing I can eat on an A380 as I can shift my legs slightly to the side and so get the tray table down ... I can't do this on a 777 without putting my knees under the neighbouring seat's tray table, When travelling alone this means 15/16 hours with no food or sleep - doable, but by no means enjoyable! And I enjoy the A380 - even in the depths of economy!

[Wickerbill]

Interiors are down to the operator and not the airframer! You are more comparing airlines than the aircraft themselves. You can make a 777 quieter if you pay for extra insulation.

[ATC Watcher]

True , but how come all 380 from all operators I flew with ( quite a few) are very quiet and I have yet to have flown a quiet 777 .. But I did not fly all the airlines operating them . You know one with quiet 777s ? But it is not only the noise level, it is also the space inside and the air circulation .

[tdracer]

But A380 versus 777 on 3-4-3 is incomparable. For one thing I can eat on an A380 as I can shift my legs slightly to the side and so get the tray table down ... I can't do this on a 777 without putting my knees under the neighbouring seat's tray table, When travelling alone this means 15/16 hours with no food or sleep - doable, but by no means enjoyable! And I enjoy the A380 - even in the depths of economy!

Which is all down to seat width and pitch, which is operator specific. Nothing to do with the aircraft except as to the limit as to how many people you can legally carry.
If anyone configured an A380 for it's advertised 800+ passenger limit, you'd find the seats to be just as uncomfortable - perhaps worse.

Yes, the A380 is quieter - but I spend 90% of the flight wearing my noise cancelling headphones regardless...

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

The A380 did have a USP in that it was a full length double decker. Well it was a USP to me as I wanted to fly on it from the day if it’s launch, I have flown the bird many times and the both up and down cabins feel huge and airy compared to a 77/787. I flew 737max from New York to EDi and never again. It is interesting that civil aviation has always moved forward to bigger and faster planes since the first days of flight but now twice in the space of the last two decades we are moving backwards to smaller and slower aircraft.

[Chu Chu]

The most comfortable flight I've ever had was an A-380 from LHR to IAD. My wife and I were the only economy class passengers on the upper deck . . .

[AirportPlanner1]

Same on an Emirates flight, well not quite as there were about 6 of us up there, but great to be able to stretch out and sleep after an overnight first leg.

[procede]

MichaelOLearyGenius

The square cube law really hurts larger aircraft when it comes to empty weight per seat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law

From that perspective, the A321 Neo (/LR/XLR) basically nails it.

[Bidule]

tdracer

I do not know your sources of information, but Boeing and Airbus do not seem to have same numbers. From the public Boeing and Airbus documents, as well as IAI for the 773P2F, all below, the freighters summary is:

Maximum volume / Maximum Payload

747-400ERF 738 cu.m / 123 t
747-8F 874 cu.m / 133 t
773P2F 819 cu.m / 101 t
380F (Cancelled) 938 cu.m / 151 t



https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1269x923/747_400erf_d2f2d254a4772ada95ad5be938ded3fd96bcadd5.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/712x923/747_8f_cb5a01403940b0f35fa5d99e5d81c1e91b404fbb.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/710x328/777_300ersf_12590558ed4c28626768a996018122a7ac6a85b0.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/715x923/380f_063e8a86ce7bd6e4cb04ed97f4e29b2934caceca.jpg

[Chiefttp]

Bidule,
Airbus never built the freighter version. My Airline bought at least 10 of them as well as FedEx. Airbus never went through the development of the freighter version because once the floors were strengthened for cargo ops, the additional weight made it uneconomical to operate. If your numbers are correct, why didn’t Airbus build the freighter, and especially today, when cargo ops are booming?

[Less Hair]

In fact they did design it. They even built the first set of wings for the freighter.
This wing was meant to be the wing for the A380-800R and stretched -900 as well. They halted the freighter when they had to redesign the harnesses overnight and some other stuff. At that time they must have realized that the hoped for market was way smaller than expected.

[tdracer]

Bidule
Paper airplanes don't count - as others have pointed out, the A380F was never built.
To get your quoted 151 ton payload, Airbus was going in increase the MZFW by 41 tons, while decreasing the empty weight by a further 26 tons (I wonder if they could have achieved that empty weight number - once they add all the extra structure and main deck doors for a freighter it generally doesn't make all that much difference in the empty weight compared to the passenger version). The passenger A380 can only carry about 84 tons of payload - less than the 777 P2F.
As I previously posted, the 747 was designed from day one to make a good freighter - the A380 wasn't. If Airbus had gone for the higher MZFW for the passenger A380, a P2F mod might have worked, but they didn't and it's too late now. 20-20 hindsight and all that...

[Less Hair]

The A380 freighter was no general cargo freighter but mainly intended for containerized express cargo on three decks. The high range was the selling point. Asia- inland USA nonstop and such. This is why FedEx and UPS had already signed firm orders. Looking at the planned A380-family of HGW versions and stretches it made sense.

[Volume]

I wonder when engine technology would have delivered so that a twin 380 would have been feasible.
It is relatively simple maths, if you want to have the required thrust the engine will have such a large diameter, that the real challange will be designing the landing gear. It is a bit like the 737 Max issue... To accomodate an engine that large, you probably have to do a high wing design typically not popular with passenger aircraft customers.

They went ahead with this project knowing it would fail.
I would be interested if you could document this .
Just saw an older report from the A380 rollout on TV the other day...
Statement from Charles Champion : "Everybody told us we would fail, but we proved them wrong"
...maybe...

As a passenger I will really miss to bo on board of one, and will be more than happy to no longer cueue up with 500+ fellow passenge at check-in, security, boarding, immigration, or the baggage belt...
A lot of airports killed this projects as much as all the other negative aspects did. Some never managed to manage that large aircraft. All they did was installing additional jetways and putting up big "A380 ready" signs, but never touched the real bottlenecks.

[glofish]

Bad, very bad airports! Just as bad as all those counties that did not adapte their roads to accomodate the fantastic Humvee .....
What a silly argument, not worth your usual expertise.

[procede]

It is relatively simple maths, if you want to have the required thrust the engine will have such a large diameter, that the real challange will be designing the landing gear.

Actually, the main problem is the design of the low pressure turbine, as it needs to spin at the same rotational speed as the fan (which will be very low with such a large diameter). We have geared turbofans now, but not for those diameters and thrust levels (about 825 kN /185 klbf per engine, assuming a thrust to weight ratio of 0.3, which is higher than the current 0.25 with 4 engines due to the single engine inoperative climb requirements).

[portmanteau]

Would like to mention that Emirates as the operator of around 125 380s knew a good aircraft when they saw one and are highly unlikely to agree it has been a failure......

[fatbus]

Great airplane for the intended use. EK has a good plan at 55 380s , trunk routes / slot restricted. Then they got stupid big ego greedy . Prior to covid things were declining now the house of cards has fallen and no one has sympathy for their arrogance.

[keitaidenwa]

It was quite clear 380 was toast, when someone shared how much fuel an fully loaded 380 and full 77W had taken before leaving right after each others from a middle east desert airport to an european capital. The 77W was more fuel efficient per pax! Granted, the 77W was a more flying sardine can configuration, but hey, how would want to fly in a sardine can configured 380?

[Anti Skid On]

The B777 didn't start off as a sardine can, with many airlines using 3-3-3 in economy with a 34 inch pitch, but then EK went for 3-4-3 and a 32 inch pitch. But Joe Public didn't care, they had good IFE and free beer

[Jet II]

When the first 380's came into service we had a 380 and a 777 on adjacent stands and we were shocked at how much extra fuel we had to load on the 380 to the same destination (LHR) - that coupled with the amount of freight that got left behind made the economics seem rather tight.

Of course when the price of oil fell to $50 a barrel the extra fuel burn was less important.

[Jet II]

I think the 380 did very well for EK given that their whole business was built on the Hub/spoke model. I also wonder exactly how much EK actually paid for their airframes given that for most of its life EK was really the only major customer for the aircraft that Airbus had.

[Imagegear]

Having had the good fortune to ride the A380 down to Miami and back, just before the lockdown, and fully understanding that any personal preferences that I may have in selecting my chariot, are restricted by economics. This is one aircraft that will be sorely missed by we, the Punters. I chose the A380 over the 777 on the same route simply on the recommendation of a good number of members of this forum, friends and other sources. Not only was I not disappointed, it made being crammed in a sardine can for 10 hours, infinitely more bearable.

If Airbus made a very large twin, with the same ride quality, internal space, and improved economy, I am sure it would be a winner. (The A350 is certainly moving in the right direction, but needs to grow a bit more.
also don't think Boeing have the mindset to compete with these concepts.

Just my quibbling, doubt the bean counters will ever see it my way. :(

[james ozzie]

There seems to be an accepted wisdom that the A380 is "roomier", especially in long haul economy routes.

My butt tells me this is not so, as do the comprehensive seat pitch/width schedules found in Seat Guru. Sure, maybe an inch here or there on pitch/width between carriers/types but really nothing to warrant the gushing praise for the 380 sometimes seen in these posts.

I take the point that downward pricing has done this. Most non-aviation people I speak to do not know the aircraft type they are travelling in and care even less.

[Imagegear]

I have had occasion to ride a 787 a number of times. When flying on that thing, wifey and I pack inflatable butt cushions that we blow up just before taking our "seats". The thing creaks and squeaks like a plastic bucket even when lightly loaded. Flashy window blinds don't hack it for me. The only marginal alternative would be a 343 config 777.

Admittedly not all airlines have the same seat setup, but on BA, I would take an A380 over anything else on long haul. It helps that we are able to travel PE or Business. Still as I say, no one wants my opinion, it's not cost-effective enough.

As for gushing, well I hate flying anyway and only endure it because there is no other way to reach my destinations, If I had the time and the money I would go by ship.

[ATC Watcher]

Most non-aviation people I speak to do not know the aircraft type they are travelling in and care even less.
That is because more than half of flights are around 1h , an the vast majority of the rest is less than 4 , so makes no real difference if you are in a 737, 320 or even in a CRJ or E190..
If you are flying over 10h I can tell you that people do know and look at the aircraft they fly. So much so that on routes where types compete , like FRA-SIN for instance where the A330, B777, 747 and A380 were avail , the fares on the A380 were always higher and the first to get full .
The same was briefly visible on Delta, where the 767s were competing with the A350 on some routes, but that was all before Covid..

[DaveReidUK]

If Airbus made a very large twin, with the same ride quality, internal space, and improved economy, I am sure it would be a winner.

While I hesitate to use the word "never", that's a pretty good description of when we're likely to see a twin (from any manufacturer) bigger than the 777, for reasons discussed already in this thread.

[Less Hair]

I don't expect any double deck cabin concept to come back, twin or not.
Not enough cargo volume. That fired back massively.

[procede]

What limits the belly cargo amount mostly is the large center wing box and the large sloping empennage. While the latter has a lot to do with the double deck design, the first one is mostly due to high range requirements.

[Less Hair]

And you have two floors full of passengers putting their heavier stuff downstairs to fill the cargo space left fast.

[fatbus]

Always had some room for cargo withe the possible exception CPH 650+ Pax/crew/infants!

[Gipsy Queen]

Imagegear

I have made the same passage in a A380 and found it a pleasant experience. By contrast, seated at the arse end of a Triple Seven from LAX to AKL was most uncomfortable. There may have been a stability issue with this flight because the yaw damper was working overtime and we were shunted about mercilessly. Returned via Seven Four - it was a privilege to fly in The Queen.

[Socalbug Smasher]

I like the line "For so long the A380 seemed like the future of air travel"........ I don't think at anytime it looked like the future of air travel, that's why its dead....the CV just spread up the process

[RetiredBA/BY]

Just your opinion, no better than mine.. I was convinced it was the future due exponential expansion of air travel.

The Airbus guys shared my view, sufficient to to invest a huge amount of time and money into the project.

Still THE aircraft for long haul travel.

[Commander Taco]

Well, it’s too bad the Airbus guys didn’t read this and bail on the 380 long ago:

Airbus vs Boeing by John Newhouse, published in 2008.

[osborne]

Last A380 flies off to Hamburg.

.https://actu.fr/occitanie/toulouse_31555/video-revivez-l-envol-vers-l-allemagne-du-tout-dernier-a380-assemble-a-toulouse_40303262.html

[golfyankeesierra]

Did’t know they use Hamburg for long term storage nowadays.
But at least 2 A380 pilots had the chance for some sticktime ..

[DaveReidUK]

golfyankeesierra

"Didn’t know they use Hamburg for long term storage nowadays."

It's not going into storage. The photo in the link might give a clue as to its intended destination.

[fatbus]

EDHI final assembly and exceptance not storage ?

[Less Hair]

Cabin outfitting, paint and functional checks before handover.

[osborne]

It will return to Toulouse for a special event / delivery.

[Longtimer]

DaveReidUK
Emirates Plans Airbus A380 Flights To Munich For Easter Rush - Simple Flying (https://simpleflying.com/emirates-munich-easter-a380/)

[DaveReidUK]

The A380 in question is being delivered in May, so it won't be playing any part in the Easter plans.

[Tom Sawyer]

Imagegear

And that is sort of the problem - it was 10-15 years too late for the market, and 10-15 years too early for the technology. At the point it came into service carbon fibre airframes were a long way into development, and more advanced Integrated Modular Avionic systems were getting less complicated, i.e. lighter, than the 380s CPIOMs etc. I really like it as a passenger and Licensed Engineer - their lack of current activity has probably cost me my current job. For me, I think if there is ever going to be an aircraft of this size again it will be a carbon fibre twin with a bit more freight volume available..

[Imagegear]

I really don't want to talk about this anymore, just to say I am more than gutted.

I am already booked on QM2, I hope it goes.

[Pugilistic Animus]

So I take it that the A380 has not yet amortized the huge spending done on her development

[Commander Taco]

According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2019 USD$17billion invested with less than half the required 750 frames to break even sold.

[Less Hair]

On a positive note not the entire amount is wasted as assembly halls and factories can be used for something else like Broughton's wing assembly.
Isn't it remarkable that Boeing erred as well with their 747-8 strech and that Airbus in parallel to the A380 had developed the biggest twin RR engines could lift, the A350?
I wonder how market predictions could be so off the mark like this time? Travel grew as expected but finally midsized twins harvest the market.

[airsound]

The excellent Simon Calder reported in the London Independent on 14 March after an interview with the BA CEO Seán Doyle: The entire British Airways fleet of 12 Airbus A380 (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/a380) “SuperJumbo” planes is currently grounded, but Mr Doyle said it would return to long-haul flying.

“The A380 isn’t flying at the minute but it is in our plans for the future rebuild of the airline,” he said. “Exactly when we will put the A380 back into service is something that we’re not clear on.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-airways-family-premium-leisure-passengers-b1816396.html

[glofish]

Less Hair asked:
"I wonder how market predictions could be so off the mark like this time? Travel grew as expected but finally midsized twins harvest the market."

Sean Doyle said, emulating Tim Clark:
​​​​​​“The A380 isn’t flying at the minute but it is in our plans for the future rebuild of the airline,”

I ask:
How many times will such megalomaniac dudes at the helm repeat the same mistakes? It was written on the wall (and commented so by many) in 1990 and it will remain so even if the industry experiences a sound rebound after Covid. You simply can't beat physics in conjunction with economics.

[cattletruck]

Should a covid-19 miracle cure appear then perhaps the A380 may live for a few more years yet.

In our microcosm called Australia where unrestricted international travel has now been banned for over a year, Australians have taken to travelling in their own backyards. This has sent prices for used cars, new cars, car-hire, accomodation, entry-tickets, etc, etc through the roof because of the sudden huge surge in demand. When the ban on international travel is lifted I would imagine a similar surge in demand would occur in air travel for a couple of holiday seasons at least.

[kiwi grey]

So I take it that the A380 has not yet amortized the huge spending done on her development
According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2019 USD$17billion invested with less than half the required 750 frames to break even sold.

Airbus have written off the costs of developing each airframe as those costs were incurred. Hence stopping any programme - including the A380 - early only costs Airbus the actual price of closing down, such as scrapping tooling, laying off people, etc.
Of course, they won't see any profits from airframes they didn't sell

Boeing's "Program Accounting" method defers the start-up costs of an aircraft building project and then pays these deferred costs down over an 'Accounting block' of aircraft. If the Accounting block is not reached, the manufacturer has to write off any development costs not yet amortised. For example, in the case of the B747-8, Boeing has so far had to write off $US1.383 Billion ($569 million post-tax in 2015 and in 2016 another after tax charge of $814 million), there may be other charges in 2021 & 2023 as production comes to an end

[Pugilistic Animus]

Thanks Kiwi... that's big information but also very interesting

[Dave Gittins]

Just finished reading the Haynes Workshop Manual on the A-380. It's only about 4 years old but surprising upbeat about how the world will beat a path to Toulouse's door as soon as the recession upturns.

[wiggy]

Well as far as the local press are concerned the last "bird" has flown so they'd better be quick in beating a path to the door up the road from me.

I'm pretty sure from what I've heard (but can't find a source) that the construction hall has already been repurposed, or at least was in the process of being so when aviation pretty much ground to a halt..I'm not sure the jigs have been tossed into the Garonne yet

Toulouse local newspaper link:.."..............The departure signals the end of the superjumbo industrial adventure"

https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/03/17/airbus-lultime-a380-a-definitivement-quitte-toulouse-9433584.php

[tdracer]

The lead time for many of the parts is over two years. So it's not just the final assembly hall - it's the entire supply chain, much of which has already been repurposed.
It would cost billions to start it up again, and by Airbus's own admission, the A380 program was only cash flow positive for only a few years (the production rate the rest of the time was too low to be profitable).
Boeing is biting the bullet on the 747 - while it still has a viable freighter market (unlike the A380), the production rate is too low to be profitable. When the fuselage vendor announced they were going to close the facility where the panels were made, Boeing had the choice to make the investment to take the tooling and restart fuselage production elsewhere, but determined that in wasn't a wise use of money and resources.
Face it - A380 production is dead and buried, soon to be followed by the 747-8.

[JohnMcGhie]

As others have said, there's no comparison with the A380 on long-haul.

I am in Sydney, so most of my trips are across the ditch to Auckland, across the puddle to LAX, or across the ITCZ to China. And I have to pay my own way, which means I can only afford cattle-class.

So yes, I search the schedule, looking to maximise the amount of the journey I spend in an A380. Yes, I pay a bit more for the ticket, but I arrive less zombified. SYD to LAX in a 380 is three movies and a nice snooze. In the 777 buzz-box it is an endurance test! The 747 is cramped, noisy and uncomfortable in comparison, and the A330 just has to be endured. DFW to SYD allows an extra movie and a longer snooze: but it's a gruelling chore in a 747 (even if you don't have to stop for extra fuel).

My introduction to the A380 was AKL to SYD. My partner asked when they were going to start the engines: I pressed my ear against the window to confirm, then announced "they already have!" I learned two things on that trip: the other was "don't get stuck in a window seat with a bladder like mine!"

Suspended in a cigar-tube above the Pacific, one has 11 or 12 hours to be grateful that in the case of engine failure, the crew has a spare. In a 777, I diligently renew my acquaintance with the power of prayer!

At my age, chances are I will be dead before that last A380 is scrapped: I will be searching the flight schedules for her!

[Dropp the Pilot]

If only, if only the fairies would drop whatever the customer likes on his plate, cost be damned. Think of those slices of foie gras that would come with your McDonalds happy meal!

Here in the real world, an airplane that carries 15% more people but costs 30% more to keep flying makes for a very, very short-lived business plan.

The costs of Gallic hubris have not been so well-demonstrated since May 1940.

[Less Hair]

Gallic hubris?
There is a bit of brit and german and even US capital involved as well isn't it?

[wiggy]

tdracer

:ok:

Our local local town's main factory, situated about 70 km from Toulouse, produces some large metal components for the aviation industry. One such line of work it had was producing parts of the 380 landing gear...they announced that particular line of work had stopped, funnily enough, about two or three years back.

[Less Hair]

Same goes for the 747. Suppliers finish long before the final delivery. Now with so many A380s stored and available for disassembly and the fleet underused even less spare parts will be needed.

[tdracer]

wiggy

I don't know why, but I've heard before that some of the landing gear forgings are among the longest lead parts.

[procede]

Dropp the Pilot

Actually the cost per seat kilometer of an A380 is practically identical to a 787 or 777 at a similar seating configuration. The problem is consistantly filling it with enough yield, especially now with all the restrictions. Another issue is that a 777 and 787 can carry more cargo under the floor.

[DaveReidUK]

procede

"Actually the cost per seat kilometer of an A380 is practically identical to a 787 or 777 at a similar seating configuration."

Yes, if the A380's SMCs really were 13% higher than the 777's, as suggested, then the only rationale for operating it anywhere would be slot constraints. That's clearly not the case.

[Less Hair]

Has anybody ever shared those actual numbers for comparison? It's two versus four engines to begin with. And denser cabin configurations on the twins mentioned.

[glofish]

Groundhog Day Alert!

No one buys this aircraft no more, no one builds this aircraft no more and almost no one operates the remaining bodies no more, only the one operator who is "stuck with them" by quote of its CEO.

Maybe, just maybe there is a real world reason for all that. :ugh:

[Less Hair]

Yes the facts are obvious but do you have the actual figures behind them?

[Chief Willy]

For such a massive plane to only have the same CASM as a much much smaller 787 shows how bad the A380 is. Other than for slot constrained airports any CEO would take the 787 over the A380. The risk of not filling the A380 seats leads to reduced yield, thus lower RASM and lower profitability.

It really was a white elephant and the fact most airlines have dumped them prove it.

[172driver]

JohnMcGhie

Relax. The 380 was in a class of its own a while ago, but by now there are equally comfy alternatives, such as the B787 and the AB 350.

[Mr Mac]

172 Driver
350 ok 787 dire but both not as good as 380 in my opinion and I have done a lot of LH flying in my time, with quite a lot of time on 380,less on the other two, though the 787 is on my no fly list, as plane and indeed company have issues with them for me.

[procede]

Chief Willy

The square cube law indicates that weight increases with a higher exponential than the capacity/lift. Larger aircraft are thus structurally less efficient (payload over empty weight) than smaller ones, which negates any increase in aerodynamic efficiency (lift to drag ratio).

On a similar note, the A321neo is structurally extremely efficient, so has high payload to empty weight ratio. The aerodynamic efficiency is however a bit lower than for widebody aircraft.

Max payload / Operational empty weight (tonne/tonne)
A380: 84.0/277.0 = 30.1%
B747-8: 76.1/220.1 = 34.5%
B787-9: 52.6/128.9 = 40.8 %
A321neo: 25.5/50.1 = 50.9 %

[ATC Watcher]

procede :
interesting calculation .
B747-8: 76.1/220.1 = 34.5% this for the pax version , the Fs doa bit better of course.
I was curious to see what the An124 ratio was, and surprisingly 82% ( 150 t payload /181 OEW ) our soviet friends did not do a too bad job in their days ..

[LessThanSte]

I'm a fan of the A380 - that Airbus video makes me sad. But it'll be in the air for a while yet and I suspect, in 20 years time, we'll be looking for something to fulfil a similar role. I could see, post Covid, the A380 being helpful to mop up demand into one rotation a day from smaller airports (e.g. BHX). But I'm no expert and it might be more 'hope' than 'realism'. But I'll be glad when it returns to BHX for the trip to Dubai!

Changing the subject - is there any particular reason why the tailfin and engine covers have Emirates branding, but the rest remains unpainted? Is there something special about those that means they cant be painted later?

[tdracer]

The moving bits of the rudder need to be balanced after it's painted. So it's usually painted prior to installation.
It's a pretty common sight around the Boeing flight line to see otherwise unpainted aircraft with the hinged portion of the rudder painted.
I don't know about the engine nacelles...

[ExBa]

LessThanSte

Check out google earth DWC, 110 380’s parked.

[White Knight]

Google Earth images are NOT updated regularly... EK recalling Unpaid leave 380 pilots now so more airframes will be returning to the sky where they belong!

[procede]

I counted 84 at DWC and 33 at DXB. According to airfleets, they have 118 in total, including one that is to be scrapped. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Emirates.htm

[TURIN]

All this talk of it being too late, and too uneconomical to convert it to a freighter may have to eat their words.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/a380-finally-lands-freighter-role-with-lht-modification/138247.article

[DaveReidUK]

An aircraft with no cargo door and a rudimentary (if any) cargo handling system does not a freighter make.

[Less Hair]

This seems to be just the makeshift conversion for short notice standby freighters made from idle passenger airplanes. This obviously needs paperwork and certification but is far from some actual freighter conversion, special freighters and such.

[TURIN]

How about a Combi?

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-frieght-conversions/amp/

[tdracer]

Doesn't address the low MZFW issue - if you carry much cargo there won't me any weight left for passengers.
Further, certifying a new combi is going to be a challenge - the regulations governing a new combi cert were changed after the Helderberg disaster and no one has certified a new combi since that regulation change.

[Anti Skid On]

Now that NZ has banned the shipping of cattle and sheep by sea maybe the A380's could be repurposed as large cattle carriers; 150 tonne payload would = 300 cows, 150 per deck, remove the overhead bins and install a 'waste' conveyor, use the hold for the dung?

[tdracer]

Except that the A380 can't carry 150 tons of payload - based on the MZFW it's limited to around 90 tons...

[Winemaker]

All this talk of it being too late, and too uneconomical to convert it to a freighter may have to eat their words.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/a380-finally-lands-freighter-role-with-lht-modification/138247.article
The article is from May, 2020 and only discusses temporary conversion to a freighter, although it does discuss a permanent supplemental type rating. From the article:
“Anyone who opts for Lufthansa Technik’s exceptional solution now can easily switch to the permanent [supplementary type certification] solution later.”........Jochmann says the change involves “much more than just taking out seats”, because of the different load and safety considerations involved in placing freight in the passenger cabin.
This is not a conversion to a freight aircraft, it's a convenience conversion to allow some freight to be carried after passenger traffic volumes crashed. tdracer gave a pretty thorough analysis in this thread of what would have to be done to make the aircraft into a useful freighter and why it (probably) isn't justified.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The Airbus vanity project is done. COVID simply hastened its inevitable phase out.

[White Knight]

Absolute rubbish. EK is currently bringing long term unpaid leave pilots back to the line so obviously has plans aplenty for the 380. Likewise I believe that both BA and QF have stated they will bring 380s back to flying status. SQ is renewing the cabins of their older models to be brought back to service.

The 380 is, quite frankly, the most comfortable and economic airliner in the sky; Covid lockdown :mad: notwithstanding!

[Chief Willy]

Most comfortable, perhaps. Most economic? Not even close. And that’s all that really matters in this game. They are fuel hungry per seat and have poor cargo capacity. Truly an awful design hence the embarrassing sales figures. BA, SQ, QF are only keeping them as they have slot issues on certain routes and are stuck with the A380 now anyway. Would they have ordered them with hindsight of what would happen in 2020? I highly doubt it. EK’s reason for having so many? Hubris.

The future of longhaul is 787, 350 and long-range A321s.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

Loathe as I am to admit, Chief Willy is correct. The A380 is an incredible technical achievement, but that is not the exam question. It was the right aircraft at the wrong time. If you are an airline executive and are looking for the best value long haul aircraft, you would inevitably be looking at a B777X, B787 or A350 before contemplating an A380. The economics of the case seem undeniable. I feel really bad for the countless people who invested years of work into this amazing project but, Coronavirus or not, there is no scenario that I can see that will lead to anything other than a slow death for the project. Very sad.

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

I can see a resurge in the A380 and B747. After covid there will be a surge in travel and the piddly wee 787’s won’t be able to hack it. The 787’s premier offering is not the best. Premier PAX prefer the spaciousness of the jumbo’s premier cabin. Watch this space, airlines will want to move as many pax as they can in one go once the flying starts again!

[DaveReidUK]

Count of Monte Bisto

"I feel really bad for the countless people who invested years of work into this amazing project"

Most of them will have long since moved on to bigger and better things.

Well better things, anyway ...

[wiggy]

As mentioned upthread they certainly moved on locally some time ago... though now they are dealing with the impact of Covid on the orders for the, as you put it, "better things".

[Alan Baker]

I wonder how few A380's have to be in service before it becomes not worth Airbus' time to support it.

[Less Hair]

With its underworked fleet spare parts and engines must be available for cheap. Which should help with operating costs. To see all this inventory sitting idle is incredible. Billions over billions.
Put in all those seats permitted and bring down the cost per seat. Where is the next people express?

[cattletruck]

I still feel there is a pax class gap between economy and business that isn't well catered for and perhaps could be better fulfilled by the A380. Not all of us are wealthy enough to fly first class or have a company to pay for our business class seats, however many people are capable of paying just a little bit more for some extra creature comforts on a long haul flight, usually up to 50% more. So yes, as a budget airliner the A380 is well and truly dead but could it still have some life in catering for those that can afford a little extra?

[glofish]

This starts getting pathetic. You are actually in a search for customers ready to pay the surplus a daringly designed product needs to become profitable.
Normally it works the other way around, namely manufacturers try to design a product for what customers are ready to buy.
It compares to the unprofitable volume vs. weight ratio of the 380 in terms of cargo capacity. You might try the same here, but i reckon that no one would pay the necessary price to ship styrofoam profitably .....

I say it again: You can insulate any airliner to a A380 standard, you can equip any big airliner with the space in premium as the 380 (ever flown the new First on EKs T7? It has similar space than its 380).
But then these aircraft would become the same incredible technical achievement (:rolleyes:) and similarly uneconomical as the whale.
You very simply can't beat physics.

Emirates is momentarily stuck with its huge fleet of 380s. Therefore it is the only airline that can and will redeploy a sizeable fleet. That is most welcome for our fellow pilots. The loss is the Sheiks and i couldn't care less.
But any small fleet revival or conversion of the 380 will not materialise because this cannot be profitable.

[wiggy]

glofish

I agree with a lot of your thoughts but I know of one airline with a small'ish fleet of 380s whose management seem intent (or so they say) on reviving at least some of the hulls once the upturn arrives ......

It'l be interesting to see what happens in reality.

[donpizmeov]

glofish

But those little 777s become MTOW limited on flights over 10hrs, leaving all that cargo and pax behind. The 380 carries max ZFW to 15hrs. This is why EK like the aeroplane. STC has stated many times he needed the 777 to carry 40t to LAX to make money. In summer, with bump and Packs off it carries far less than that with 80 seats needed to be kept empty. This was one of the main business cases for the 77X. But now it's high purchase cost is scaring airlines and new orders are non existent and past orders are being cancelled.

Big and expensive aeroplanes have had their day. Small and plastic aeroplanes seem to be the future. Sad for travelers.

[glofish]

Hi don

You keep on bringing up this example ….. True, the T7 was limited at ULR, albeit not in the numbers you like to cite. It was not designed for that, the 380 was. The T7 was squeezed into that role by the horrible performance of the 345.
For your other arguments, STC has also stated, that EK was “stuck" with the 380 for the near future, whatever that means ….. Furthermore it makes absolute sense to wanting a new, more modern aircraft tor these ULRs, because the cost needs to be brought to a sub 380 level to make money.

On the other hand it is always a double edged sword to compare older aircraft to newly developed models. To do that with the 380 vs. the T7 turned out to be a bit on the wrong edge, as the T7 is 12 years senior to the 380! Even the fuel guzzlers 346/345 came on line 7/9 years later! The performance of newly developed aircraft should be much better.
STC is right to bitch about the high price of the T7X, being burned by the price of the 380, outrageous subsidies disregarded.

If you keep the performance of all these aircraft at a honest level, it is not surprising that most T7s are busy flying and most 380 kept on ground.
The latter is a nice shower to operate in boom times and a porous bathtub in the slightest economic downturn.

Unfortunately i do consent with your appreciation of small and plastic.

[White Knight]

horrible performance of the 345.

Only uneconomical because Jet Fuel hit nearly $130 a barrel. But the performance was never horrible. Never left people behind... Unlike the 777-300ER as Don has pointed out!

[tdracer]

Another issue with the A380 that is largely ignored is that only a relative handful of airports are really prepared to handle it - now that it's OOP that's not going to improve.
For example, Seattle has become a major hub for operations from North America to Asia (it's significantly closer than either San Fransisco or LAX). However, while it's an approved alternate for A380 operations - it's not equipped for regular service. If I want to fly an A380 somewhere, I need to connect somewhere - not particularly desirable if I can take a non-stop from Seattle. I did that once because I wanted to fly on an A380 - flying two hours to LAX, sitting around for another few hours, then flying an A380 to Korea (which passed within 100 miles of Seattle about two hours after takeoff). Yes, the A380 was a very pleasant passenger experience (business class on Korean), but I could have taken a 777 non-stop from Seattle and saved over six hours of travel time. Not many people will intentionally add several hours to their travel time just to fly on an A380...

[Bend alot]

I pays to keep in mind ULH runs to many places outside USA and USA never embraced the A380, with options to call home.

I like many live in a country that is very limited for direct international flights, so a few or more hours stop over some place is normal. I have never used Sydney for this option it has mostly been Singapore or Johannesburg (one for comfort one convenience or cost) depending on my final destination the 380 flights are looked at favorably as does the transit airport. I actually enjoy planning my long haul over a couple of days a 4-6 hour room in a airport hotel, a bit of a stroll through the terminals and gardens and a few drinks makes it so much more enjoyable.

[Lord Bracken]

Where does the A330 Neo fit into this? IIRC one of the original sales points was that it wasn't quite as efficient as the 787, but much much cheaper to buy. It would also seem not to have as many issues as that airframe.

[cattletruck]

Also keep in mind that the A380 is a smidgeon faster in cruise than the B777 which all adds up on ULH.
Some of us living at the arse end of the world would really hate to see the bird go.

[WillowRun 6-3]

On the Eurocontrol "Aviation StraightTalk" interview series today, BA CEO Sean Doyle was asked about plans for the airline's A380s. Mr. Doyle noted several factors supporting his response that the aircraft will continue to be a part of the airline's fleet and operations, as conditions improve and traffic trends back toward 2019 levels (even if only gradually).

These factors were, the retirement of the airline's 747s; the usefulness of the A380 eastbound for major Asian destinations (e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong); similarly usefulness westbound for some North American destinations (Miami, Boston); and suitability for the density of operations at BA's LHR hub.

Noted here just as news of sorts (not as forecast of actual usage of A380s by BA or any other airline).

[donpizmeov]

tdracer

SEA is an ALTN for our 380s. As are lots of other airports on the North American continent. To become a destination any of them would just need a regular pax number that supports the operation. It operated, several times a day to regional ports like MAN, BHX, MRU for example.

We would, on a regular basis during the season, carry cherries from up your way from both our SFO and LAX 380 ports, that the little Boeing that operated into SEA was unable to carry. :ok:

[donpizmeov]

glofish

I think we are lucky to be towards the end of the career rather the start glowie. But it is good to see a few more 380s being returned to DXB. Parked next to a China southern one the other day in CDG, so a bit of movement over east as well it seems.

[glofish]

One buddy has received the call, two others, really good and professional guys still waiting. Keeping my fingers crossed and, that might amuse you, hoping that some more 380s get airborne again ....

[donpizmeov]

Nah knew you would look out for fellow pilots. The metal that gets them back on the payroll doesn't matter.

Fingers crossed it continues.

[Dropp the Pilot]

Don thinks the A380 makes money. Timmy thinks the A380 makes money. That makes two people according to my calculator.

Every other airline executive on the planet appears to be of the opinion that it is a risible concept, grotesquely executed, and an eye-popping waste of fuel.

Yet we have the two of you crying out the A380 gospel in the wilderness and nobody will listen. It must be tremendously frustrating.

Unless, of course, it is another one of your tremendously sophisticated wind-up attempts with a soupçon of "I-know-who-you-are" barbs.

Tiresome.

[Lyneham Lad]

Article on Flight Global.
​Etihad to ground A380s ‘indefinitely’ (https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/etihad-to-ground-a380s-indefinitely/143419.article)

Intro:-
Etihad has decided to ground it’s entire fleet of 10 Airbus A380s “indefinitely”, as it remodels its fleet around the Boeing 787 and A350-1000, chief executive Tony Douglas has disclosed.

Speaking during the World Aviation Festival on 22 April, Douglas comments that the A380 is “a wonderful product… but they are no longer commercially sustainable. So we have taken the difficult decision to park those machines up indefinitely.”

[Checkboard]

A380 first class is unmatched in the airline world, though.

[DaveReidUK]

Who would have thought, more than 6 months after the last A380 was rolled out and the start of this thread, that we'd still be finding so many interesting things to say about the aircraft.

[FlyingStone]

Checkboard

So was Concorde's speed, but you don't see of similar aircraft flying around.

[wiggy]

WillowRun 6-3

Thanks for the info - basically the BA CEO seems to be saying that he foresees putting the 380s back onto the routes that they were using them on prior to Covid...

[White Knight]

goldfish?? Just noticed the damn autocorrect...

glofish...

It amuses me too; and warms the cockles of my heart:ok:

[Less Hair]

What does the cargo market tell us about efficiency?

Big aircraft work.
Hub systems work.
Older aircraft work.
ULR does not work.

So why throw away all those big passenger aircraft now? It was like a fashion to have them and now it is like a fashion to not have them. Far from rationale.

[srjumbo747]

Really? I’m flying around the world and don’t see many 380’s.
There are, however, many 350’s and 787’s carrying cargo in the hold and 747 freighters.
Not many old aircraft either.

[Less Hair]

Cargo.
There are many cargo 747 flying. There are many converted freighters flying and older passenger aircraft converted as we speak. Like 737-800.

[wiggy]

I rather suspect the likes of tdracer or others will be along later, with the numbers/maths to explain, yet again, why a 380 converted to the freight role makes for a poor freighter vs. other airframes currently available.

[Less Hair]

This is not what I am talking about or claimed to make sense. I don't want to get into any A380 fanboy fights.
It is just remarkable to see how the cargo folks succeed with a different menu. It's by far not only latest neos and dreamliners and twin ULR flights.

[EDLB]

If you carry freight without passengers over 6000 NM the two leg one stop in between will always win over the non stop transport in fuel burn. So why use an ULR freighter with its excess structure material which does not pay. With passenger transport you have a mixed calculation and some freight can pay non stop. But for a freighter I don't see the point. I would assume, that a 380 as 4 holer will become expensive to maintain quick, compared to other 2 donkey options.

[wiggy]

Less Hair

Fair enough..I do think some of the fanboys and fangirls need to be mindful of the Richard Feynman's quote:

""For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

[tdracer]

Less Hair

As I've said before, the problem with the A380 as a freighter is it can't carry the mass. Yes, huge volume, but due to the (relatively) low MZFW it's payload is limited to somewhere around 85-90 tons. That's less than a 777F, and way less than a 747F (the 747-8F is around 150 tons payload) - with much lower operating costs.
Yes, the A380 can carry that payload a long way, but the air cargo system isn't set up that way - the max leg lengths being around 4,000 miles. In short, although a 747F could go much further without refueling, it couldn't carry as much cargo - they'd rather carry more cargo and stop for gas midway than to make a 7,000 mile sector non-stop.

[etudiant]

I always thought that cargo aircraft cube out well before they max out on gross weight. Is that no longer usually the case?

[DaveReidUK]

etudiant

"I always thought that cargo aircraft cube out well before they max out on gross weight. Is that no longer usually the case?"

A PF might well do, but you can't assume that's universally true for freighters in general.

[srjumbo747]

Wiggy and Less Hair, thank you for sensible and informative posts.
There are lots of ‘informed’ people who know nothing but you obviously know what’s what.
I will enjoy relating your knowledge to my colleagues who will love me even more for enlightening them!

[FlyingStone]

etudiant

For express stuff, yes, but a heavy long-haul aircraft freighter will have to be able to carry all sorts of loads, not just thousands of parcels and envelopes.

Big difference is also that B777 can get fly to pretty much any airport, and B747 to most of them. Good luck trying to operate a potential A380F for couple of charters into a small-ish airport that isn't certified for it.

A380 is a great airplane that came at a wrong time, and since it makes for a poor freighter, the end is very near. Time to face the reality.

[FullWings]

I think that is an important and overlooked point. Our A380s are not being used commercially, but are being kept flight-ready to be used when demand returns. The 777s and 787s are doing a *lot* of freighting, some hulls even with seats swapped for nets. Being able to operate in/out of most places that have a moderately long runway of adequate strength is a big plus with ad-hoc operations.

Overall, I really like the passenger experience on the 380, but the economics just don’t match those of the LH twins unless you can guarantee consistently high load factors, and even then it may not work. I can understand running 380s on certain busy routes between slot-constrained airports but in reality it’s better business to run smaller aircraft more frequently if you can, like LHR <-> JFK.

[cattletruck]

Here in the land of ULH, the rumour mill is telling us Qantas are prepping their A380s for a return to passenger service. Exactly what role is anybody's guess at this moment i.e. will it be just bubble traffic, will it incorporate "socially distanced" seating, perhaps a combination of both. I'm sure someone's done the numbers.

[Australopithecus]

The rumour actually is that Qantas are taking some necessary steps to keep the future options open. They have to perform gear swings, and there is a window of opportunity now to perform heavy checks that will be due quickly if the aircraft ever again flies. I wouldn’t get too excited about the prospect of the 380 operating QF services anytime in the next 12 months.

[kiwi grey]

As I understand discussion on this thread https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/640189-qf-a380-s.html#post11037338, some QANTAS A380s will be ferried to LAX for gear swings so they can then be ferried to an MRO shop for a heavy check. If it is not done soon, the airframes will be only scrappable, no longer flyable. MRO shops have plenty of capacity, so that works together nicely.

What is not clear is whether this is because QANTAS expects to get (some of) the A380s flying again soon(-ish), or just Industrial Relations skulduggery.
Currently the QF A380 pilots are all on unpaid stand-down (they are accruing some leave benefits, though). If QF management publicly admit that some or all of the A380s are never going to fly in QF revenue service again, then those pilots affected can legally no longer be stood down, the Reduction In Numbers clauses in their Enterprise Agreement will be triggered. As most of the A380 pilots are top of the seniority tree, such a RIN would cause a cascade of cross-fleet displacements, retraining requirements and potentially redundancy of the least-senior pilots (almost all not on the A380). That would be hugely disruptive and immensely costly. Hence QF management has a huge incentive to maintain that the A380 fleet will come back. Only they no if this is true, wishful thinking or IR chicanery.

[bnt]

I was curious about how many A380s are flying at the moment, and you can do a filter for that on FlightRadar24. I can see that Qantas A380 VH-OQC (https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VHOQC) is active at Victorville, CA, the airport that serves the Southern California Logistics Airport in the Mojave Desert, where it has been in storage since July last year. It doesn't show a destination, but to be active on ADS-B suggests that it could be back on the job soon, doesn't it? Apart from that, I see seven A380s in the air, all Emirates flights to or from Dubai.

[FlyingRoland]

It's a pity to see those 4 engined aircraft leave the scene.
I flew on 4 engines for 12 years until recently our 747s were taken out of the fleet.
2 engines are supposed to be just a reliable as 4 statistically.
But who cares about statistics?

[bnt]

Statistically, if you have four of an engine vs. two of the same engine, you are more likely to see a failure among the four, before you see it in the two. But the difference is that a failure costs you 50% of overall thrust when you have two engines, vs. 25% when you have four ...

[Chiefttp]

I believe the fact that the 777F can carry more payload at a much cheaper cost, as well as the 747-8 Freighter makes the case for an A-380 Freighter untenable. My airline ordered 10 A-380 Freighters, unfortunately, they were never built by Airbus and the orders expired.

[glofish]

The 380 has always been an admittedly comfortable niche product. No revolutionary technical prowess however, it can't even fly a radius to fix RNAV approach, just a nicely built aircraft with a narrow profitability window.

It was a daring bet from the start trying to sell the required break-even number of such an expensive niche product. Any 380 freight conversion would set it up in a similar freight-niche, as tdracer demonstrated.

It will be the same daring adventure now to reactivate or convert these niche planes in an economic downturn where only versatile aircraft with a wider profitability window have prevailed.

We can all wish for a rapid recovery, especially for the pilot community, where profitability is second to offered space, but i guess that will remain wishful thinking at least for the near future.

[donpizmeov]

Totally agree.

[Commander Taco]

A380 Critical Project Appraisal 2002 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/49770248/a-shadow-critical-project-appraisal-the-a380-program-flightglobal)

A lengthy but fascinating read.

[Lord Bracken]

"In 2002, Aboulafia co-authored with Aaron Gellman a Boeing funded report on the Airbus A380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380), released in 2004."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aboulafia

[Less Hair]

Boeing did the same mistake with the 747-8. So it wasn't that obvious beforehand that big airplanes would soon be in trouble. And the 747-8 has even the latest engines.

[etudiant]

Honestly, there would never have been a 747-8 had not been for the the A-380. Boeing did the minimum to copper its bets, just in case their market appraisal was wrong.
Of course, we all know that 'straightforward' derivatives rarely wind up that way, plus they always cost way more than advertised.

[Longtimer]

That's all she wrote: Airbus Will Convert The A380 Production Line To Build The A320 Family Airbus Will Convert The A380 Production Line To Build The A320 Family - Simple Flying (https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-production-line-conversion/)

[FredFlintstone]

More illegally subsidised 320’s for the planet then - great

[Less Hair]

Care to elaborate?