Another A380 Woe?
Perhaps some folks don’t remember but both FedEx and UPS ordered A-380 cargo freighters. However it became apparent that a cargo variant of the 380 was not going to be developed in the hoped for timeframe, and both companies cancelled their orders. Apparently the cost to design a pure freighter version of the 380, coupled with the additional weight needed to reinforce both decks for freight was cost prohibitive.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes a lot of traffic on a route to acheive the occupancy needed to make the A380 economic.
The last time I was on a BA 744 to JNB there were a lot of empty seats.
The last time I was on a BA 744 to JNB there were a lot of empty seats.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why cant people accept the A380 is a legacy fleet aircraft, its time has come and gone...the A350/B787/B77X are all the replacements...gone are the days of a so call "Hub Buster", it takes to long to turn around, its too big, overweight, slow and not fuel efficient...airlines that have them, will be stuck with them..unless they can trade them in for fuel efficient twins. If it was so fantastic a heap of American/European Airlines would use it as a "Bus Service", but they dont...as for passengers love it, most passengers don;t know what aircraft they are traveling on & really don't care, it the price of the ticket that attracts them!
FlightGlobal: Qantas eyes 777 as "hub buster"
That's my opinion as well. You've got to bear in mind that PPRuNe contributors have an interest in aviation, so it's perhaps no surprise that people here are well informed and opinionated about aircraft types. On the whole, though, even where passengers have a choice as to who to fly with and when (many don't) I doubt the casual traveller really takes the time to research routes, schedules and airline fleets just so they can fly on an A380.
787’s and A350’s - that decision was made a while back:
IAG - International Airlines Group - News Release
IAG - International Airlines Group - News Release
Paxing All Over The World
I had said: The 74 arrived at just the right time to be the success it was.
No but it was just about the ONLY shock for the 747 and in your next statement:
You help to prove my point that it arrived at the right time.
Yes it is and the niche was too small but, as I said, Airbus were always going to build the big one and it might have succeeded. It is fugly but a friend of mine who works for a global travel company (a name you would all know) says that pax ask which rotations on a route are the 380.
But not enough in these changing times and the ultra long timescales of building aircraft. Bear in mind that countless other companies outside the airline world, have failed to adapt to the 21st Century. Mostly, their failures are small and do not make headlines - but they have also failed and lost money and put people out of work.
There was just nothing that came close at the time and it took quite a time for the 340s/777s etc to arrive on the market.
The 380 is a niche product at huge costs IMHO and thats why it had a problem right from the start. And it is fugly. Nothing like the gracious lines of the 47, which still looks just right.
But not enough in these changing times and the ultra long timescales of building aircraft. Bear in mind that countless other companies outside the airline world, have failed to adapt to the 21st Century. Mostly, their failures are small and do not make headlines - but they have also failed and lost money and put people out of work.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 747 had to and could grow over several engine generations to become some success as the 747-200 (mostly used for range) and big success as the 747-400 (perfectly paired with the 767 back then).
The A380 was meant to become a family of aircraft. It's like the A319 member of the A320 family. Closing the program after only one version and generation now is a bit of a change of mind. Where is the stamina Boeing had with the 747?
The A380 was meant to become a family of aircraft. It's like the A319 member of the A320 family. Closing the program after only one version and generation now is a bit of a change of mind. Where is the stamina Boeing had with the 747?
... You've got to bear in mind that PPRuNe contributors have an interest in aviation, so it's perhaps no surprise that people here are well informed and opinionated about aircraft types. On the whole, though, even where passengers have a choice as to who to fly with and when (many don't) I doubt the casual traveller really takes the time to research routes, schedules and airline fleets just so they can fly on an A380.
Other posters are correct though, generally speaking the average passenger doesn't know or care what they are flying on, even when the price of the ticket isn't a factor.
As others have pointed out, until the mid 1990s, if you needed the range of a 747, you needed a 747 - there literally were no other options. But that hasn't been the case since before the A380 entered service - so unless you needed 500 seats, you didn't need an A380 - you could use a smaller, more economical twin engine aircraft.
The 747 had to and could grow over several engine generations to become some success as the 747-200 (mostly used for range) and big success as the 747-400 (perfectly paired with the 767 back then).
The A380 was meant to become a family of aircraft. It's like the A319 member of the A320 family. Closing the program after only one version and generation now is a bit of a change of mind. Where is the stamina Boeing had with the 747?
The A380 was meant to become a family of aircraft. It's like the A319 member of the A320 family. Closing the program after only one version and generation now is a bit of a change of mind. Where is the stamina Boeing had with the 747?
Unlike the A380, Boeing considered all the various 747 models to be profitable (although the -8 may not be - the jury is still out) so it made sense to keep reinvesting to make it better and keep it profitable. The A380 has never been profitable - and was only cash flow positive for a few years. Given it was already considered to be too big, spending billions to make it bigger was unlikely to meaningfully improve it's marketability enough to justify the investment.
The A380 debacle was well described in this book:
It’s still an interesting read. The book describes a combination of hubris on the part of Airbus, faulty market analysis, and the mistaken assumption (as verified by td) that the B747 must somehow be a cash cow for Boeing as the 747 lacked a direct market competitor.
Airbus vs Boeing by John Newhouse, published in 2008.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only an anecdote, but some friends of mine, not in the slightest bit airminded, chose an airline I don't particularly fancy so they could fly on the A380. Despite the contempt for passengers expressed by many professionals, once you fly for more than a couple of hours at a time, even the unwashed know whether they're comfortable or not.
I would hope some enterprising writer is penning a detailed book about the A-380 development and demise. I for one would like to read it. I recently read a great book about the L-1011. It was a fascinating story.
short flights long nights
Can I please ask what the name of the L 1011 book is.. I would love to read it?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advantage of the 777X is that as a twin it is cheaper to operate even disregarding the claimed fuel efficiency of the new engines. It will also carry a considerable amount of freight making it far more attractive as a business proposition than the A380
It looks like there may be more issues ahead for the A380 program and Airbus. Some countries are now squawking about the un-repaid loans associated with the A380 development.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-loan-dispute/
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-loan-dispute/
Puzzled as to how (in this case) Germany - as a risk share partner - had recovered any of the loan if the entire production has run at an apparent loss, presumably servicing the loans forms part of the model. It would be interesting to see what the real P&L on the program looks like without white noise of wider accountancy, i.e. what has it really cost and what has it really lost (or made).
No further news from Dr Peters or Tarbes, have they started to break and realise value from the obsolete airframes? Perhaps with relatively small supply (as at today) the second hand parts market will be as interesting to watch as the second hand airframe market.
No further news from Dr Peters or Tarbes, have they started to break and realise value from the obsolete airframes? Perhaps with relatively small supply (as at today) the second hand parts market will be as interesting to watch as the second hand airframe market.
There was a good book written about the economics of commercial aircraft development: 'The Sporty Game' by John Newhouse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...he_Sporty_Game
I think some of the people cleaning up the financial mess the A 380 leaves behind wish their predecessors had read it.
I think some of the people cleaning up the financial mess the A 380 leaves behind wish their predecessors had read it.