Slashdot Mirror
Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production (nytimes.com)
The days may be numbered for the world's largest passenger aircraft. An anonymous reader shares a report: Airbus, the European aerospace group that makes the A380 superjumbo, said on Monday that it would have to end production of the plane if its only major customer, Emirates, did not order more (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). The admission by John Leahy, the company's chief operating officer, was the latest indication that Airbus miscalculated more than two decades ago when it bet that clogged runways would create demand for larger planes that could deliver more people with fewer landing slots. Instead, airlines bypassed the major hubs and ordered midsize planes that could fly directly between regional airports.
[...] When Airbus started delivering the A380 a decade ago, after spending $25 billion to develop it, the company based near Toulouse, France, saw the plane as the solution to airport congestion and to increased demand for air travel. Only so many planes can land at an airport in any given day, so Airbus reasoned that planes carrying more people would allow airports to absorb more passengers. The A380 can carry more than 500 passengers while also offering amenities like showers, first-class suites and a bar.
[...] When Airbus started delivering the A380 a decade ago, after spending $25 billion to develop it, the company based near Toulouse, France, saw the plane as the solution to airport congestion and to increased demand for air travel. Only so many planes can land at an airport in any given day, so Airbus reasoned that planes carrying more people would allow airports to absorb more passengers. The A380 can carry more than 500 passengers while also offering amenities like showers, first-class suites and a bar.
So, it is not surprising - especially of the cost of mid-size planes decreases - that airlines would go this way.
Silence is a state of mime.
The general lesson may be the same as that behind the Concorde. There's not a massive market for people willing to pay a massive amount of money for travel by planes. That applies whether the increased cost is for incredible luxury or incredible speed. If this is what is going on, then this does not bode very well for ideas like Musk's point-to-point transit with the Big Falcon Rocket.
It's problem is that it's an ugliest plane ever made. Now if only it had the graceful lines of 747.
That could be part of the problem. They've probably reached a point where mass transport of passengers doesn't pay off anymore. At least not well and fast enough to justify further investment any time soon.
I would expect the market for the A380 to grown in time though. Just not as fast as Airbus might hope,
Then again, this could be just some marketing babble or call for more EU funds for Airbus. The latter being the most likely.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The A380's poor service record with being grounded so much didn't help. It also didn't help that it didn't actually end up helping congestion. The wake off the 380 is so bad they have to space out landings further at major airports like Heathrow. Plus, very few runways were structurally capable of landing a 380, since the last update to max gross weight for runways was the 747.
It just isn't living up to Airbus' promises. And, now that you only need 2 engines for transoceanic flight and 2 engine aircraft like the 787 can cover the world's longest routes, there's no need to have a bigger plane to get good long range performance. There's no business case for the A380, just like there's not much of a business case for the 747.
I have been told all my life that Europe can do no wrong. It is not possible that a European product can fail. I cannot go on. Goodbye.
The problem they couldn't solve is how to load/unload all the passengers efficently. How fast you can get in/out of the gate is just as important as how many passengers you can carry
If you go back 20 years ago when the A380 was being proposed - Airbus confidently proclaimed that there would be a 1,300+ unit market for a huge four engine jet. Boeing predicted that, at best, there would be a 360 unit market.
The difference was based on the assumptions made by each manufacturer. Airbus, at the time, was pushing the A340 (four engine) over the A330 and getting reasonably good traction which lead them to think that four engines and more passengers was the way to go. Boeing had just finished the B777 and could see it eating into the B747 market - the B777 offered better economics for 250-350 passengers which Boeing decided was the optimal passenger size for long range.
It's interesting to see what happened as Airbus started to develop the A380, it gained a lot of good press and a gold plated launch customer in Emirates (to which Boeing responded with the B747-8 to show they were still in the market but wouldn't require a lot of development funds). Boeing sank their development money into the 7E7 (which became the B787), gained sales of almost a thousand sales before the first roll out and Airbus scrambled with the A350.
The A380 failed simply because Airbus misread the demand for the aircraft (along with the desire to have the bragging rights on the largest airliner out there) and Boeing had a better product roadmap for this space. Boeing is now finishing up the first the second generation B777 prototypes while Airbus is trying to finish the A350 line and revamp the A330.
The writing has been on the wall for the A380 for at least 5 years (arguably 10) and really the big question is when will Airbus decide to take the write-down on the lost development costs.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Airbus didn't listen to expert advice from Boeing about the 4 engine giant passenger market size. Boeing has been proved right that the proposed [A380] would trash that market without a return. Of course the 777s undercut both in a lot of cases but one can only wonder if one healthy line would have stayed open a few more years.
Turns out to be just another wasteful corporate welfare and jobs program damaging to both.
I fly long haul international a lot, usually on 777 or 380, mainly in cattle although sometimes in Premium Economy.
I much prefer the 777.
The 380 always feels more hemmed in and claustrophobic for me, like there's less head room. Also, the 380 just feels more "full".
I'm never up at the pointy end, but I do understand that if $$$ is no object then the A380 is the way to go, but that doesn't concern me.
Also, and this is not based on any hard stats, the A380 appears to have problems with its engines blowing up/falling off. I know it was an issue with the Trent and fixed, but the impression remains.
I have no Boeing/Airbus bias as I (being Australian) have faith in both the US and EU manufacturers.. (and the Embraer from Brazil) and have no real qualms about flying in any of them, but in a 777 vs A380 scenario I'd choose the 777.
It's also quite a sight to be queued up on the apron awaiting take-off in a smaller jet, and to see that massive A380 one plane ahead of you roll out and then take off. It still amazes me it even gets off the bloody ground........ :)
The B52 is still being flown but is not in production. It hasn't been in production since 1962.
So in this vid (from 2013?) I saw the other day, Airbus CEO was saying that China (especially) and India (partially) was going to fuel the demand for massive numbers of passengers per plane. This was going to be the sell for the 380.
Didn't happen.
Same with the 747. Juan Trippe's bet never did quite pay off. He had bet that 747s stuffed to the gills with passengers was the future. Instead, most flew at 50% if not under. I've flown plenty in 747, the only one I've been in that was packed was a meat flight (military charter) from PHL to MHZ in 1990.
Instead, the twins won the sky, and it happened well before the 777. The 777 was the last nail in the 747's coffin.
I'm still glad I got to fly in it, and watch them land and take off so much. Always the highlight of a visit to any airport, challenged only in coolness by some old piston liner like a dc-3, 6, 7 or insane .mil hardware.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Big planes could get more people out of an airport and fly further. Before computerized routing every airline had to mostly operated as a hub and spoke with big planes moving people between hubs. In the 80s the routing problem was solved. It still took 15 years for the airlines to perfect it but it should have been obvious that they would. Next was the distance problem. You used to need a big 747 to get you across the Atlantic or Pacific. Not anymore. The big planes still have an advantage on some long routes that are busy enough to fill them but with the big planes no longer needed between hubs we have a surplus of big planes for the next 5 years.
Big planes could get more people out of an airport and fly further. Before computerized routing every airline had to mostly operated as a hub and spoke with big planes moving people between hubs. In the 80s the routing problem was solved. It still took 15 years for the airlines to perfect it but it should have been obvious that they would. Next was the distance problem. You used to need a big 747 to get you across the Atlantic or Pacific. Not anymore. The big planes still have an advantage on some long routes that are busy enough to fill them but with the big planes no longer needed between hubs we have a surplus of big planes for the next 5 years. Reply to This Share
The bad news is that they're losing money on the A380.
The good news is that they're making it up on the volume of the A320. It looks like they made a genius move on the C-Series as it eliminates the need for them to revamp the A319 line so they can focus on the A321/MOM (Middle Of Market) aircraft.
Boeing, on the other hand, is making their money on the big twins and hoping the B737 can catch up/be profitable while trying to figure out if their MOM aircraft will be an extended B737, shrunk B787 or new aircraft.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Tell Airbus about your feelings. I'm sure they will revise their plans.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The general lesson may be the same as that behind the Concorde.
Unlike others, I agree...But I think you went to the wrong conclusion
So actually you do not agree because you think the lesson to be learned is NOT the same as the lesson from Concorde. The problem with Concorde was cost and the sonic boom which limited both the number of people willing to travel on it and the routes the plane could fly: generally only routes over oceans were possible.
The problem with the A380 is almost exactly the opposite. The cost per passenger is less but the experience of each passenger is worse due to the long time to load the craft and the need to fly through a hub. Similarly, there is no limit on the routes the A380 can fly but there is a limit on the number of airports which have the infrastructure required to support such a huge plane.
I got to fly on a 380 some years ago between Singapore and Hong Kong. I thought it was great. The plane seemed to laugh at turbulence. The whole ride was smooth as silk. Too bad it hasn't really worked out for Airbus because I feel that if more passengers actually rode on it, they'd probably like it.
I live in NZ but I'm from the UK. I go home every so often for visits. I always fly Emirates just so I can fly in the A380. Why?
I've flown in 747's so many times I've lost count which is why the first time I flew in an A380 I almost shit myself.
So used to hearing the engines of the 747 go full throttle, being thrown back in my seat as it launches itself down the run way, I expected the same of the A380.
Not so. When it took off (from Auckland) it felt like it was taxi-ing down the run way. In my head I'm thinking "come on Cap'n put the f-ing boot down".
He didn't. It just trundled leisurely along. I'm now thinking "FFS, there's water at the end of this run way, stop teasing and go man!"
Then all of a sudden it lifted it nose. My knuckles went white. It soared gracefully into the air. I was gob smacked.
That and it's so much quieter than any other jet I've ever flown in.
If you have to spend a whole day at 36,000 feet sitting on your arse watching tv & movies then I recommend doing in this bird - while you still can...
The fundamental problem for the A380 is that twin jets are cheaper to operate than quad jets. The 777 may not carry as many passengers, but it has lower cost per passenger-kilometre than the A380, or indeed the 747 (which isn't so different in size than the 777.)
I have seen this stated many times. However, I don't really understand why. For example, this article states "those newer, more reliable [twin jet] engines have also been bigger and more efficient" but doesn't say why jet engine companies aren't also making more reliable and efficient engines for quad jets, if it is all down to newness.
I've looked online for an answer, but generally I just find speculation from people who seem no more knowledgeable than myself.
I can give an argument why quad jets should be cheaper. A plane needs to have sufficient thrust to take off and climb out after a single engine failure at the worst time (just after it is too late to abort take off.) If we call this thrust T, then a twin jet needs each engine to be capable of producing T, so it provides 2T thrust. For a quad jet, after a failure it needs T, so each of the remaining engines needs 1/3T, hence when fully operational it need only provide 4/3 T thrust. So a twin jet must be much more over provisioned than a quad.
Speculations I've seen include that four engines are extra complexity (but those big twin engines need a lot of extra complexity to be so big), extra maintenance costs, that engines disrupt lift, so you need bigger wings (and more weight) to make up the losses of having two extra engines, that with engines further outboard you need more structural strength in the wings (hence more cost and weight.)
I'm not saying these reasons are wrong, just that nobody I've seen making those arguments has convinced me they know what they're talking about. In replies, if you have expertise, or are citing someone with expertise, please make this clear.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The A380 looks like a Beluga whale - something just looks incredibly off.
The 747 at least has the cockpit windows in a better place
..........FULL STOP.
please
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Mayhaps the AC was referring to the shithole country of New York City.
The only people who thought the A380 was the future of aviation were the people who designed it and their counterparts in the marketing department. Itâ(TM)s an incredible feat of engineering and an amazing aircraft, but by the time it was released Boeing had already seen decreased orders for modern variants of the 747 (which cost considerably less than the A380).
I agree. Like Concorde there are a handful of routes where it could work, but not nearly enough to make it profitable.
From:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyl...
As of the end of November, Airbus had won orders for 317 A380s and delivered 221, leaving 96 unfilled orders.
BlameBillCosby.com
I've always loved me some bar... and get hammered on a plane. One of the reasons being my aeroplane travel anxiety. It makes it so much easier and merrier.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Anyone know how his round of golf went today?
As always: 5 under par. On every hole.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The A319 was discontinued long before the Bombardier acquisition started. They weren't selling enough of them to make it worthwhile as downsizing an aircraft results in higher per-seat costs.
I didn't swallow the Airbus hype and I didn't shut down my critical thinking ability out of deference for all things European. In the several years before the A380 announcement the decline of 747 sales was entirely evident; airlines were shifting to large twins and away from large four engine jumbos. Many voices shared my view at the time, but the enthusiasm for an Airbus superjumbo as a Boeing rival drowned out anything that wasn't in tune with the fanboi echo chamber. The skeptics were right and the A380 is a dead end; it achieved its dubious goal as a prestige plane and now the market is putting it to bed.
Airbus is prone to this; Concorde is another example. Builders and airlines that actually had to consider the market value of supersonic aircraft killed off their development efforts because it didn't make sense. Only the state supported golden boy outfits like Airbus/AF/BA and Tupolev/Aerflot that could build and run SSTs at a loss persisted.
Several people have provided anecdotes about their A380 experiences and observations about successful A380 operations. I never claimed the plane was useless or that airlines aren't utilizing them. My point is that the plane's reason for existence is about EU/Airbus prestige as opposed to market demand, and the limited sales are mostly the result of European pressure to move the limited production. Unless the EU and UK step in again and squeeze someone to buy more then production will end.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Emirates places $16 billion order for 36 new A380 superjumbos - so much for that.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
If you're talking military craft, the king has to be the C-130, which has been in continuous production for over 60 years now. Heck, the C-130 has been in production longer than the time it took between the Wright brothers' first flight and the first C-130 to roll off the assembly line.
I cringe every time I have to fly on an Airbus. My motto: if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.