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.
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 don't get why people hate on the A380 for it's looks and then hold up the 747 as the counter example - to me, the 747 has always looked like it needed a nose job doing, it's simply got a massive disproportional snoz and I can't understand what people see in it.
Now, a plane like the Caravelle or the Comet - those were things of beauty. The Bombardier CSeries has nice proportions, as do the 787 and A350.
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
Boeing is ending 747 passenger production, will continue cargo version production.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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
None of which you see as a passenger...
Nope.. but you sure can from the gate, from the highway which parallels the runway, from the observation deck, from your favorite planespotting perch, etc. Mine was at the fence of what is now Luiz Muñoz Marin (what was Isla Verde International Airport)
Not all plane passengers are plane lovers, but plane lovers *always* take note of what's overhead, even subconsciously.
747's best angle? 3/4 from behind. The wing fillet. That's art. Or simply science. (If it looks good, it flies good.. forgot who said that. Some early aerospace guy, I think)
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Yeah, thats going to end soon as well - Boeing only has a total of 12 in its backlog and delivered more than 12 747s in 2017, so without new orders its doubtful the line will see 2020.
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...
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.
How many 747s have you flown on? I've flown on it maybe half a dozen times and it has always been full. I did once fly on a 777 that was almost completely empty, but those are usually full also. In fact, with the way pricing and flight schedules are lately, I feel like it has been a long time since I have been on a plane that was less than 90% capacity. I did once have the luxury of flying on a 737 with just one other passenger.
That was the 787
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.