Airbus Is Giving Up On the A380 (cnn.com)

"It's the end of the line for the biggest passenger jet ever built: the A380 is going to cease production," writes Slashdot reader Required Snark, citing a report from CNN. From the report: The European plane maker said Thursday that it will stop delivering A380s in 2021 after its key customer, Dubai-based airline Emirates, slashed its orders for the huge jetliner. "We have no substantial A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production, despite all our sales efforts with other airlines in recent years," Airbus CEO Tom Enders said in a company statement. The company has delivered 234 of the superjumbos to date, less than a quarter of the 1,200 it predicted it would sell when it first introduced the double-decker aircraft. Its plans were undermined by airlines shifting their interest to lighter, more fuel efficient passenger jets that have reduced the need to ferry passengers between the big hubs. "Passengers all over the world love to fly on this great aircraft. Hence today's announcement is painful for us and the A380 communities worldwide," Enders said. "But keep in mind that A380s will still roam the skies for many years to come and Airbus will of course continue to fully support the A380 operators."

Comments

Re:So the industry

[dwywit]

-1 Try again.

Hint: stick to one point per sentence, and avoid hyperbole.

Re:So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more efficient per person to carpool.

There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[bluegutang]

Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.

The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[LynnwoodRooster]

Not to mention that due to the extreme size and weight of the aircraft most airports required rework to even handle them, so only the biggest/busiest airports dropped the millions and millions of dollars to be able to handle them.

Bottom line is that Airbus bet on the A380, and Boeing bet on the 787. Boeing won the bet...

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Sique]

This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.

Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's okay at London Heathrow or Dubai, where half a dozen of the monsters can be fitted together as they take off and land, but for everywhere else the wake turbulence is an issue that reduces the number of aircraft movements and hence the number of passengers that can be accommodated.

It would be easier in a theoretical world for all the smaller jets (737s and A320s) to use one runway for both takeoffs and landings, and the larger planes to use the other runway, but in the real world that's even more difficult to organise.

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem is that compared to a dream liner, it has no advantages.

A380 cost over twice as much, but dream liner has the same range. North end up costing the same per seat.

So it's way smarter and more versatile to buy multiple smaller planned then the 380, as you are less flexible in your routes and limited in your airports.

It's actually surprising it sold as well as it did.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[AmiMoJo]

There is also a move away from direct flights. Direct is faster but more expensive, the cheapest option is usually to have a stop over somewhere.

Luxury carriers like Emirates are more able to handle the higher costs, but the cheaper ones seem to have found that people are willing to add time to their journey to save money.

Unfortunately this has further polarized the market. It used to be that you could save maybe 100-150 Euro by adding an extra hour or two to your long distance 12 hour flight, but now it's more like saving 500 Euro but you have to add 8 hours, and there is nothing in-between.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jeremyp]

No. The problem is that it has got four engines. Two modern twin engined planes can carry more passengers with better fuel economy to more airports with more flexibility. The Boeing 747-8 has also bombed, at least in the passenger carrying market and for the same reason: nobody wants four engined aircraft anymore.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be "that guy," but "direct" is a technical term in air travel. A "direct" flight may have several stops, but the flight number does not change. That's they way travel used to work: a flight from, say, NY to LA would make several stops along the way, and it would be "direct" from NY to LA because you didn't have to get off the plane at the stops. A "nonstop" flight does not make stops.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Sique]

In general, the economical evaluation of planes has to look into many factors: Transport capacity is only one of them. Fuel efficiency, maximum distance, cost of servicing, cost of operating, cost of landing slots, expected number of passengers, expected price per ticket etc.pp.

The design of the Airbus A380 started, when oil was comparatively cheap, at the end of the 1990ies. At this time, cost for the flight crew and the landing slots were more important, causing the flight operators to look for the largest capacity possible to haul as much passengers with as few planes as possible. This was the heyday of the hub-and-spoke approach, where as many passengers as possible were carried to a few but large airports, which were connected to each other with very large vessels. In this environment, the A380 totally made sense, as the big plane to fly the backbone routes of the international flight network.

More fuel efficient planes made it economical to connect medium sized airports directly without going through a large hub. And here, you don't need the large capacities, slot prices are lower, so you can offset the higher crew cost of operating more planes. For those relations, the A380 is simply too large and not fuel efficient enough, and its demands on the airport infrastructure are too high. So the number of relation it can operate economically is shrinking. And higher oil prices caused the cost of fuel per seat to increase, and the more efficient planes are flying cheaper even when you need more crew for more planes. And with their lower operating costs on ground for service, they even compete successfully on the few remaining large capacity relations the A380 was designed for.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Freischutz]

This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.

Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.

What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually a flight from Germany to Thailand e.g. (or Australia) with a stop in Dubai or Oman is only roughly 2h longer, sometimes 3h. And it is actually a welcome stop to eat "real food" and drink a real drink. Well, if you accept the costs in the airports.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[_merlin]

Not everywhere - in Australia/Asia, "direct" means no stops.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Luckyo]

Airbus made the same bet with A350. It competes for the same segment as 787.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[dunkelfalke]

The wings are too heavy, but not just because of the fuel tanks.
They were sized for the stretched A380-900, an aircraft with an almost 100 tons higher maximum take off weight, so they are too sturdy for the A380-800.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[AmiMoJo]

I used to do London to Tokyo via Helsinki, which only added an extra hour or so. But now if you want to pay the kind of prices I could go direct for a decade ago you have to go via South Korea or Hong Kong or Poland. A 12 hour flight became 13 hours via Finland and now 22 hours via SK in the best case.

Oh, and you have to change airports in SK, and the train ticket machine doesn't take credit cards, as I discovered.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

In US parlance we use "nonstop" for that, and "direct" for flights with stops.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bullshit argument without knowing the added delay in comparison to the increased passenger capacity. The article that you cited is from 2005,and does not mention the expected increase in delay. However, you happily assume that this is a problem for the A380. Why? Are you shilling for somebody?

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[MightyYar]

They didn't really "bet" so much as react to the 787 success.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[ebh]

In New York, that's JFK and LGA, but there are only so many markets big enough to handle separate airports.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[sunking2]

Not an impossible or even difficult logistical problem, especially considering any airport that services an A380 has plenty other heavy category planes that aren't as impacted. It's what airports do. And extra minute, and that's all it is for say a 777, to wait to get another 400+ people off the ground is something the airports would take all day long.

The problem is there really isn't a market for this plane. You can't justify the costs of the plane and infrastructure when a percentage of your flights legs don't fully book. And that is unavoidable. Certain days of the week, times of the years, or whatever fill flights, others don't.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Luckyo]

Thank you for sharing with us that you think that modern passenger aircraft can be developed in a couple of years.

In real world on the other hand, this process requires well over decade in development. Meaning that a350 was in development cycle long before any meaningful information on orders on 787 were available.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[mjwx]

Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.

The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.

Only for airports that are congested, sadly this is London Heathrow with only two parallel runways and is the 7th busiest airport int he world.

The Wake Turbulence Class (WTC) of the A380 isn't the biggest issue however, the A380 was designed for flights between hubs that could handle it. The problem is that an A380 cant fit inside a normal airport gate (the bit with the boarding jetway) so this limited the number of airports it could land at more than its WTC.

The A380 is a fantastic aircraft to fly, more roomy than any twinjet, even on a crappy airline like QANTAS, let alone a good one like Singapore. They'll still be around for a while but without new ones, we're seeing a golden age of jet travel slowly die with it and be replaced with the ever shrinking seats on twinjets.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jbengt]

As the poster below implies, there's a lot more to it than reducing the number of flights. more to it than reducing the number of flights. There's a lot of infrastructure that may or may not be able to handle the large plane. They may be restricted to certain runways & taxiways, and would definitely be restricted to only a few gates. The airlines would have to pick up the tab, one way or another, for reworking jet bridges & gates so that four exits can be used, including the unusually high ones for the second deck. They would need to have a councourse that can handle the exceptionaly large influx of deplaning passengers at once, including mundane things that might not work such as a large-enough waiting space, enough toilets, wide enough aisles. The list goes on.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[thereddaikon]

It does appear to be a reaction if you look at the timelines. The 787 was flying before the first A350 was even produced. Its definitely not a case of Airbus seeing the success of the 787 and following suite. But it probably is a case of Airbus hearing about the 787 while still in development (they start hawking these things to customers years in advance) and decided to get in on that segment as well. In fact if you look at the wiki article the narrative seems to be that the A350 is definitely a reaction to the 787. Airbus initially wanted to ignore it but was pressured into developing a competitor by its customers. They probably shouldn't have listened though. They've sold a fraction of the things compared to the 787.

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The A380 requires a custom gate so people can embark and disembark from two levels at once. I dont know how many airports have actually installed these to date.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[thegarbz]

The fuel economy is incorrect, but the flexibility is quite on point. The A380 certainly has better fuel economy than 2x twin engine aircraft. The sheer size of the A380's engines is one of the things driving this, larger engines (physically with higher air bypass on the turbo fan) are more fuel efficient up to a certain point (which has yet to be reached).

But your flexibility thing is key. The point is not to carry more passengers to the same destination. For that the A380 is the undisputed king in cost and efficiency. The point is that all those passengers rarely want to go to that same destination, and that while shuttling several hundred people from one hub to the other is quite efficient, when a significant number of them don't want to actually go to hubs it becomes quite a problem.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Eravnrekaree]

Yes. The A380 makes no business sense. Smaller aircraft are fuel efficient. Airlines do not like the mega craft because they want to also adjust the capacity for different routes. With A380, they are stuck with this huge plane they cannot fill and they cannot adjust to the changing market conditions. The idea that launching a single A380 rather than several smaller planes would be appealing proved wrong. It makes things more inefficient for the consumer who has to wait longer for a flight and cannot schedule their flights at times which are convenient for them. Airlines are consumer oriented which is how things should be, its a competitive market which helps ensure good value for consumers, the consumer wants a low price and convenient scheduling, the arguments for A380 are often not based on the needs of consumers. Airlines do not like flying half filled airplanes and like to adjust the capacity on a route which you can do with smaller planes by adding more planes. So it makes no financial sense for an airline.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Luckyo]

Thank you for sharing that you are also utterly ignorant of how modern civilian airliners are designed, and are utterly impenetrable to reality on top of it.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[MightyYar]

At least read the Wikipedia entry before accusing us of talking shit.

Airbus initially rejected Boeing's claim that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner would be a serious threat to the Airbus A330, stating that the 787 was just a reaction to the A330 and that no response was needed. When airlines urged Airbus to provide a competitor, Airbus initially proposed the "A330-200Lite", a derivative of the A330 featuring improved aerodynamics and engines similar to those on the 787.[10] The company planned to announce this version at the 2004 Farnborough Airshow, but did not proceed.[10]

The initial A350 concept, based on the A330
On 16 September 2004, Airbus president and chief executive officer Noël Forgeard confirmed the consideration of a new project during a private meeting with prospective customers.[10] Forgeard did not give a project name, and he did not state whether it would be an entirely new design or a modification of an existing product. Airline dissatisfaction with this proposal motivated Airbus to commit €4 billion to a new airliner design.[10]

The original version of the A350 superficially resembled the A330 due to its common fuselage cross-section and assembly. A new wing, engines, and a horizontal stabiliser–to be coupled with new composite materials and production methods applied to the fuselage–would make the A350 an almost all-new aircraft.[10] On 10 December 2004, the boards of EADS and BAE Systems, then the shareholders of Airbus, gave Airbus an "authorisation to offer" (ATO) and formally named it the A350.[10][11][12]

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[thereddaikon]

I would ask that you provide proof of your claims but I don't think I will get any. You went straight to insults and assume you are right with no facts

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[tungstencoil]

Not necessarily. I've flown plenty of times with just one gate access on the lower level. People just take the stairs. It takes longer, sure, but it isn't a big deal. The second level is typically used for First or First/Business. If there's Premium Economy or just Economy on that level as well, they end up lumping them on the main jetway anyway.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[darkmeridian]

You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if you read the summary up top before posting, it states "Its plans were undermined by airlines shifting their interest to lighter, more fuel efficient passenger jets that have reduced the need to ferry passengers between the big hubs."

The A380 was designed with the idea of stopovers (travel to a hub, then from hub to hub). The 777 is more conducive to direct flights.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[DRJlaw]

What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient.

No. Four engines were initially required for power, then required for collective reliability/failure tolerance for long-haul over water flights. However, four engine pods create substantial additional drag and double your maintenance issues. As power and, especially, reliability have improved, the trend has been toward two very large engines for long haul over water flights. That is a principal reason for the shift from the Boeing 747 to the Boeing 777, which seats about 90% of the amount of passengers (the 777-300 can seat 368) and costs about 35% less per flight hour to operate with roughly equivalent range (+/- 5% depending upon variants being compared). Principal source.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

And when we realize we've booked a direct flight instead of a nonstop, the profanity is nonstop.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[DRJlaw]

So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.

Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.

link.

The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[dunkelfalke]

The funniest thing about it is that some of these airlines changed their minds about that and did ask for a modernised A330 after all. Cue the A330neo that now cannibalises a part of the A350 sales.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[MightyYar]

It must be an absolute nightmare to have such a long, expensive development cycle and supply chain, along with heart-stopping capital costs.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Freischutz]

So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.

Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.

link.

The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.

That's kind of what I was saying.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Freischutz]

You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.

Well the A350, more than the 787 since Boeing made a lot of customers nervous by completely messing up the development of the 787 and also the running of the Charleston assembly line which has led some customers to stipulate they'll only accept aircraft made in Seattle.

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The International Trade Unions only buy a very few airliners for the Union Bosses.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[UnknowingFool]

While that might be a problem, I don’t think that’s the main reason the a380 isn’t a success. One main reason I can see that most airports today can’t handle the landing or boarding requirements thus restricting which routes it can be flown. The second one is that the 4 engines are not as fuel efficient as 2 engine planes thus airlines are limited in scheduling in order to make a profit. The last problem is that Airbus is ever made a freight variant and can’t sell to freight companies like FedEx. These 3 problems means that airlines can only fly the a380 on very select routes.

When buying aircraft, airlines are opting for 2 Boeing 777 or even 2 Airbus a350 that they can fly almost anywhere as opposed to 1 a380 that has limited routes and profitability. What is not mentioned that there were actually more orders for 747s than a380 in one year as Boeing still makes/sells a freight version of that old aircraft.

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s the opposite of what you were saying.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[LynnwoodRooster]

By the time Airbus put the A350 project into action, Boeing had sold dozens of 787s... That's not a bet, that's an "oh crap" reaction.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for sharing that you are also utterly ignorant of how modern civilian airliners are designed, and are utterly impenetrable to reality on top of it.

STFU, troll..

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[LynnwoodRooster]

The first sale of a 787 was on April 4, 2004. The A350 project started September 14, 2004. Airbus dismissed the concept of a more fuel-efficient, long-range, medium sized aircraft until Boeing started selling them in quantity...

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[k6mfw]

changing topic here, some years ago Aviation Week had a four page foldout ad for the 380. It showed how it will have showers and a shopping mall like they have on cruise ships. It reminded me of how 747 was first visioned as the top floor would be a bar with a live band (some of those early flights had these, and passengers required to seventies polyester fashions). I saved that magazine because though only illustrations (380 was still in design/development) it would be humorous years from now of "what were they thinking."

Now I cannot find that magazine.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, there are similar problems in Thailand, BKK.

Two airports and connecting flights, especially domestic ones are on the other one, and via bus etc. it takes abut 1h (good traffic) to +2h (bad traffic).

Oh, and you have to change airports in SK, and the train ticket machine doesn't take credit cards, as I discovered.
That is why I don't change back my local money - unless it is in the range of $50 or more - I keep it for the next trip

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[LynnwoodRooster]

You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the 777 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes

Fixed that for you. The 777 was the first ETOPS-180 plane certified as such at launch.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jwhyche]

Right. Carry some cash. Got it. I'm about to start doing some work for a company. I'll be flying out of Sanfran to Tokyo a few times a year and a couple of times to SK. I'll be flying out on U.S. based airlines so I'm kind of not looking forward to the hell involved. My flights will be on the company dime and the way that usually works out they would ship my ass baggage class if that was an option.

I'm dreading these flights so much I'm actually thinking about looking my ex-wife and seeing if I can borrow her broom.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Solandri]

Four engines is less efficient per ton-mile than two. (Two engines are less efficient than one, but people seem to think having a redundant propulsion system is a good idea in an airliner.) This is true for planes, boats, cars (where 4WD uses slightly more fuel than 2WD). And the capacity of an A380 (575 in typical 3-class seating) is less than 60% more than a 777 (365 in its largest 3-class version), less than 50% more than an A350 (387 in largest 3-class version). Not twice as much.

The A380 doesn't haven a weight advantage either. It's MTOW is 1.268 million pounds, or 2205 lbs per passenger with 575 passengers. The 777 MTOW is 775,000 pounds, or 2123 lbs per passenger with 365 passengers with similar range. The A380's weight per passenger is often worse due to the increased difficulty of booking 575 passengers for a single flight. This was a complaint Boeing often received about the 747, which led it to develop the smaller 777 and 787.

Its fuel capacity (560,000 lbs) @ 575 passengers and 8000 nautical miles gives it a consumption of 0.122 pounds per passenger-mile. The 777-300ER (321,000 lbs fuel) @ 365 passengers and 7370 nmi has a fuel consumption of 0.119 pounds per passenger mile. So a fully loaded A380 actually burns slightly more fuel than a fully loaded 777-300ER. That means the only time it makes sense to use an A380 instead of a 777 is when you have more than 365 passengers wanting to fly a certain route (but fewer than 575), or when a route is between 7370 and 8000 nmi.

Also, part of the A380's problem is that there is practically zero demand for it in the second hand market (discount airlines and airlines in developing markets). That makes its acquisition cost higher for the airline initially purchasing it since they can't recoup as much of their initial investment when they retire the plane. Its primary customers remain the airlines catering to wealthy travelers (more than half the A380 orders are from Emirates).

Way back when the A380 was first announced, I pointed out over and over (and the Airbus fans kept modding me down) that Boeing had pitched the idea of a full-double deck 747 to the airlines ever since the 747 first entered service in the 1970s. Boeing never built it because there was never enough demand for it from the airlines. McDonnell Douglass pitched a similar plane back in the 1990s, and it too met with little interest from the airlines. It took the EU with its "government should decide what happens, not the market" philosophy to force Airbus to build a plane with insufficient market demand. (The cockpit of the 747 was placed on a second deck to allow for loading cargo through the nose in the freighter version. So using the second deck for more passengers was an unintended side-effect.)

At the same time, Boeing bet on smaller, more efficient twin-engine planes (the 777 and 787) servicing more direct routes, instead of the hub and spoke model championed by the A380 and 747. Boeing's market research appears to have been accurate, as that's what the airlines are buying (over 2000 orders for the 777, 1400 for the 787, nearly 900 for the A350). For two decades the 777 had the long-range 300+ passenger market all to itself. It completely demolished Airbus' offering (just 377 deliveries for the 4-engine A340). When Airbus introduced the A350 as a competitor to the 787, the airlines rebelled and Airbus was forced to redesign it to be bigger so it would compete with both the 787 and 777.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[LynnwoodRooster]

Fuel economy per seat shows the 777 and the 787 have better fuel economy than the A380. Even the low-seat density version of the 787. Perhaps it's the way Boeing designs as compared to Airbus that is the reason their aircraft have better fuel economy per passenger than the A380.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

United flies 787s between SFO and HND and it's a pretty pleasant trip.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest thing about it is that some of these airlines changed their minds about that and did ask for a modernised A330 after all. Cue the A330neo that now cannibalises a part of the A350 sales.

Better to have one product of yours cannibalise another than the money go to the competition.
 

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jrumney]

Having witnessed an airport that went from almost exclusively B737 / A320s to a 50/50 mix of those and B777 / A330s, I hate to tell you that airport capacity is much more than the number of planes the runway and gates can handle. Airports also need to upgrade their parking, check-in counters, restaurants, security scanners, immigration desks (if international) and seating areas inside the terminal if they are going to handle more passengers. It ends up being just as easy to build another terminal and perhaps runway than finding space inside the terminal to cater to all the extra passengers getting off the bigger planes.

Part of what held the A380 back though is the extra airbridge it needed at the gates. This limited the slots available to them, though this seems to be slowly resolving itself now - initially Singapore airport had specific gates in Terminal 3 (A1 - A6, B1 - B6) which A380s had to use. Now, they seem to be using gates all over the three full-service terminals.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jrumney]

Conversely, you could also say that the 787 was a reaction to the A330 taking Airbus from a minor player in the medium size airliner market to 50% market share within the space of a few years. Airbus ignored it until it became obvious that the 787 wasn't just to recover Boeing's competitiveness (minor updates to the 777 did that), it was to leapfrog them and take that market back.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their own fault. They should be designing them using reusable libraries of snap-together parts, so they can be agile and adapt to the market. In software development, we make libraries of code that allow substantial reuse, and look at us now!

If software was built the same way that airliners are, the first woodpecker to come along would .... anyway. Yeah.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jrumney]

Not necessarily. Singapore Airlines has a "direct" flight between Singapore and Canberra which stops in Sydney on the way, and another between Singapore and Wellington which stops in Melbourne. These replace a previous Singapore-Canberra-Wellington flight that did not have enough demand to fill the plane.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA reacts with more aiports and similar, where you have lots of little planes.

(The obvious cultural difference is look at the top ten list of airports by takeoffs and landings vs. top ten list by passengers. )

Movements: 7 of the top ten are in the USA, and the USA holds the top four spots.
Passengers: The USA only has TWO of the top ten. (ATL and ORD).

You can see what the A380 really delivers when you see Dubai is number three by passengers - and not even in the top twenty by movements. You can see the stats here. (Dubai, DXB, is the home hub of Emirates so it's really A380 central there.)

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[demonlapin]

There aren't many markets big enough to support A380s that aren't big enough for multiple airports. Houston, Dallas, Chicago, LA, Bay Area, NYC, South Florida, all have multiple commercial airports, and that's just in the US.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[jwhyche]

Thanks. I'll look into that when it starts happening.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[DRJlaw]

You literally said that the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew and one landing slot had "more efficiency" than four engines with two crews and two landing slots.

That has no relation whatsoever to fuel per mile per passenger seat.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[breeze95]

This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.

Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.

What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.

The issue for carriers operating the A380 was that the plane needed to fill all the seats to be economical and most flights were operating below capacity (most flights were only half filled). UAE is the biggest customer for the A380. Dubai is the world 3rd busiest airport and still UAE had a hell of a time filling all the seats on their A380s without offering discounted tickets. So what is the point of operating the A380 if, on average, it will be ferrying no more passengers than the A330 or Boeing 777? The UAE really, really wanted the A380 to succeed but they had to cancel all their back orders, thereby forcing Airbus to kill the project. The future of air transport is with Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 not the A380.

Re: There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Boeing are probably lying on their efficiency test scores.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[cheesybagel]

Not all A380s had that configuration. The main European carriers which had the A380 for example don't engage in that kind of extravagance.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[HornWumpus]

Always specify business class for flights over 4 hours, during salary/contract negotiations. Don't move on that point, negotiate elsewhere.

Not only does it get you better seats, it puts you at the end of the list for being used as a road warrior.

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[thereddaikon]

Someone with mod points really doesn't like me. How is my above comment trolling?

Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory

[sysrammer]

Lots of statements that someone "on the continent" wouldn't care for.

Good news.

[kurkosdr]

Good news. The hub-and-spoke model needs to die a quick death. If that means taking impressive planes like the A380 with it, so be it. You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't carry a handbag and you'll be able to run faster.

Re:Good news.

[110010001000]

How would this end the hub and spoke model?

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight"

LOL what a cushy life you must lead.

You want anxiety? Buy a house and lose your job the next week.

Have a shitty job and watch bills piling. up.

Have endless medical symptoms and doctor after doctor sees "nothing".

If running in an airport causes anxiety, take off your blinders you spoiled idiot.

In an airport, everyone is there to help you, and you just need to go see the airline rep and explain your situation and you'll get a free hotel.

Oh but then the towels might not be the right color.

Maybe the concierge can give you some Paxil for the anxiety.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

How would this end the hub and spoke model?

What's the point in having the hub and spoke model when all new long range aircrafts (with a capacity of 300-400 passenger seats) can take off from normal airports and fly halfway around the world to your destination ?
Right now you have small airports, medium airports and hubs. When you can take off from a medium airport and go directly to your destination hubs become pretty useless.
I can take a plane from Milan direct to the US. Why the fuck would I need to go to Paris or Frankfurt and then book a flight from there to the US ? Multiply this situation for hundreds of normal airports around the world and see the big strategic error of Airbus.
You don't need no A380 for flights within a country, even big ass countries like the US or China. All that you've got left are intercontinental routes, and those are being better served by modern 2 engines long haul airplanes like the new Boeing. And things will only improve from now. Plus you don't need to re-engineer/rebuild entire airports to handle the A380.

Re: Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

^ This guy has never tried to clear Frankfurt in under 30 minutes in the middle of summer. "Anxiety" is an apt description.

Re:Good news.

[kurkosdr]

The hub and spoke model is ending or more accurately losing relevance, and it's taking planes like the A380 that were designed to serve a hub-and-spoke model with it.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

The hub and spoke model is ending or more accurately losing relevance, and it's taking planes like the A380 that were designed to serve a hub-and-spoke model with it.

If you think you are going to get direct flights from El Calafate (Argentina) to Corfu (Greece) any time soon, I have some terrible news for you...

Re:Good news.

[mjwx]

Good news. The hub-and-spoke model needs to die a quick death. If that means taking impressive planes like the A380 with it, so be it. You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.

Never experienced this at all.

1. Because I don't have a hand bag.
2. Because I plan my flights better than that. If booked on separate tickets I leave enough time to ensure a delay will not cause any issues with my ongoing travel, if on the same ticket the airline is responsible for housing and feeding me until they can get me to my destination.

In fact I'm flying to South America via the US in a few months, even though they're on the same ticket I have ensured that I have a minimum of 3 hours to transit though Chigago O'Hare because you have to pass though security at US airports.

Re:Good news.

[thegarbz]

You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.

This is called "poor planning".

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point in having the hub and spoke model when all new long range aircrafts (with a capacity of 300-400 passenger seats) can take off from normal airports and fly halfway around the world to your destination ?

Because an entire plane full of people don’t need to travel between random city A and random city B. So it’s more efficient to have people from all over the country gather at one place from their various origins then redistribute to their various final destinations.

Re: Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually "this guy" had to run across Schipol to get to Frankfurt...
i wasn't being chased by hungry leopards
no one was shooting at me
give me a break with the anxiety

Re: Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you book a 30min layover?

Re:Good news.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Good news. The hub-and-spoke model needs to die a quick death. If that means taking impressive planes like the A380 with it, so be it. You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen. While in some unusual circumstances you might see something like a Des Moines to Reno flight come out of nowhere, you aren't realistically going to see Des Moines suddenly get flights to places the hubs service like, say, Santa Fe, New Mexico. This will have almost no impact on the hub system. International travel and smaller, less popular US destinations will still have to use the hub and spoke model. And by the way, under the old system some of the flights were kind of crazy and sure weren't direct. For example, if you wanted to get from Tampa to Des Moines, maybe you had to hop from Tampa - Atlanta - Chicago - Des Moines as an example. The hub and spoke system got used and survives because it makes sense. And to be clear, I picked Des Moines as a random location as a somewhat important US city with minimal current connecting flights because it fits my examples really well.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news. The hub-and-spoke model needs to die a quick death. If that means taking impressive planes like the A380 with it, so be it. You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.

A cry for the dumbing down of slashdot. A 4 (insightful) for a comment that the hub and spoke model needs to die a quick death, because someone has to run around an airport. This must have been self modded.

The hub and spoke system doesn't determine where they put the corresponding connecting flights. Airlines and Airports could do a better job of connecting flight location without losing the hub and spoke system.

The reality is that to service 2 small cities economically, it is better for the airline to fly to a major city and pick up passengers coming from different locations that are going to that second smaller city. So to go to small city A to small city C. You will fly to large city with hub Z and get on a plane that is flying from Z to C. You may be on that plane with people from 10 other cities and flights.

They can still fly planes direct non-stop from A - C, but it will cost the airlines more, so they will charge a premium because they know that the people flying from A to C non-stop direct are doing so because of need, and aren't as price sensitive.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Milan is a relatively large city, and thus a bad example. Don't expect there to be any direct flights from Bologna to the US any time soon. You'll still be transferring through a bigger airport.

Re:Good news.

[sconeu]

Happened to me once, and it wasn't poor planning on my part.

Flying from DC (DCA) to Los Angeles (LAX) via Atlanta (thanks, Delta!).

Plane was 2 hours late arriving at DCA, making it obviously 2 hours late in ATL. And of course, the connection was at the other end of the terminal. I was running through the airport and missed the flight by five minutes. Fortunately, the gate agent at DCA had booked me a backup reservation on the next ATL-LAX flight. Turns out she bumped me up to first class in the process. Kind of a nice "sorry about that" gesture.

Re:Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Delta automatically rebooks you if you miss a flight due to a delay.

Re:Good news.

[kurkosdr]

It was a 4-hour delay. You can't plan for random delay.

Re:Good news.

[spth]

Hub-and-spoke seems mostly dead to me already in Europe.

High-speed rail to get to / from an international airport, direct flight between airports in between.

Domestic airports (unless kept alive via heavy subsidies by local politicians than can't stand the loss of "their" airport) have reverted back into airfields for hobby pilots. In 2024, new EU regulation comes into effect, placing limits on subsidies given to airports (subsidies will only be allowed for investments then, but no longer for operating costs). This will kill most remaining domestic European airports.

Re:Good news.

[Ichijo]

Don't take the last flight of the day.

Also, we need more high speed trains to get people to and from the hubs, so if you miss a local flight due to a delay or weather grounding the flight, you can take the train instead. This may kill the shorter flights (in turn killing the hub-and-spoke model), but those are the flights the airlines don't much care for anyway.

Re: Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously a late incoming aircraft.

Re:Good news.

[thegarbz]

This is still called poor planning. That it's not your planning isn't relevant. I haven't flown Delta, but certainly every flight option I have ever been offered by various airlines specifically state the layover time, and I apply more thought to it than just blindly accepting the 30min minimum duration applied in a general case.

Fortunately, the gate agent at DCA had booked me a backup reservation on the next ATL-LAX flight.

Now this is good planning. If you had anxiety about your trip, then you did so because you weren't told about this.

Re:Good news.

[kurkosdr]

No, but I expect Athens to Manchester without having to use Frankfurt or Munich as a hub. Which is btw a flight that EasyJet offers. The A380 was designed with the assumption the regulated "flag-carrier" airlines will keep reigning supreme and that hubs like the ones I mentioned will become increasingly congested. What actually happened is that increased competition in the market from non-"flag-carrier" airlines provided travelers with ability to choose, and they are not choosing hub-and-spoke unless they have to. So airplanes designed to serve the hub-and-spoke model are not selling remotely as well as expected. Which is good news IMO.

Re: Good news.

[kurkosdr]

Then you have better luck than me, I guess. I chose connecting flight four times and I had delays on two of them. One time in Frankfurt my flight to Athens got rescheduled for next morning at 6:30AM, which meant I had to go to a hotel, wake up in the middle of the night and pass baggage check again, the other time in Zurich I got rescheduled to arrive in London past midnight. The A380 was designed to serve the beautiful hub-and-spoke model that is responsible for messed up flights like these.

Less than a third? That's generous!

[Entrope]

Those of us who are better at math know that 234 is slightly less than a FIFTH of 1200. Airbus, 19.5% is way below the "passing" threshold.

Re: So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Where to have it back at school has a gym

So Boeing guessed correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

So Boeing guessed correctly about the direction of the aviation market when they went all-in on the 787.

Now, imagine if Boeing were competent and not propped up with military contracts...

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

So Boeing guessed correctly about the direction of the aviation market when they went all-in on the 787.

Now, imagine if Boeing were competent and not propped up with military contracts...

Boeing is competent. It has just acquired EMBRAER. Yep, small is great!

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

So Boeing guessed correctly about the direction of the aviation market when they went all-in on the 787.

Now, imagine if Boeing were competent and not propped up with military contracts...

Well, let's just say Boeing realized that the 380's size limited the number of aircraft that could possibly sold and that the *real* value of aircraft is cost/passenger mile. So they set up to sell aircraft optimized for cost/passenger mile by lowering operating costs though weight and efficiency savings, not just by adding seats. Their concentration on lighter, slicker, more efficient designs over Airbus's concentration on adding seats paid off in the long run. Which if you think about it, makes sense.

Boeing does have many non-commercial aircraft operations, but the commercial aircraft division still makes money on it's own. So this really has nothing to do with military contracts.

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[_merlin]

Damn, I like the E-jets a lot - far nicer to fly on than 737s. I hope Boeing doesn't screw them up.

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[PPH]

So Boeing guessed correctly

Boeing by and large designs the market. And convinces airline execs and airport operators of what it is that they want.

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[sdinfoserv]

Boeing had a record year in 2018 and 2019 looks even better. The current platform is the 777x

Re:So Boeing guessed correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Boeings non-military operations would not be profitable if they were not able to fund research and development from the military contracts.

Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur and meeted its obvious fate. Just like a lot of other European pie in sky projects. It was obvious to everyone, not now, but 20 years ago that commercial aviation would have gone the route of point to point travel instead of hub to spoke for intercontinental travel . The death of the A380 couldn't have come quicker.
Geez, 20 billion euros thrown down the drain, and the company Airbus won't even have to reimburse the national governments that financed this shit. When you make such a mistake (because this mistake wasn't made on rational grounds, it was made on the stupid French altar of The Grandeur) is made the higher ups should be thrown in jail and their assets confiscated. Let Airbus live or die on its merits. Enough with public money going to such stupid companies.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[110010001000]

So was "clean diesel technology". Turns out the "stupid" Americans were right all along.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

My clean diesel pickup truck has lower emissions than a Prius. No it doesn't get the same fuel economy, but its overall emissions are about half that of the prius.

When you consider wall-to-wall environmental impact between my diesel truck and a prius, there is no comparison. My truck wins hands down.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Kokuyo]

Can't even deny that you are right on these examples. I'm coming to realize that even the way you build framed houses can be... less poverish feeling?... if it is done correctly.

As always in life, things go to hell when too many corners are cut.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[higuita]

Sir, you are talking sh*t and clearly do not know the numbers and are blind by some other political ideas (let be guess, you are a brexit supporter!)

By the time A380 was started to be planned in mid 1990, big airports acting as hub were growing, many airports were at max capacity and there was no big problems with fuel cost or environmental problems. But being very big gave some production problems and delayed it to a point that the game changed. Now you have several smaller airports supporting the big ones, you have cheap airliners and big hubs only make flying longer and costly, so people try to avoid then.
So when it was planned it looked like a good idea and if released on time, it would make still huge sales... but in the end, when it was really delivered it was already a problem.

Boeing started several years later around 2000, where you could see already signs that fuel efficiency could give more benefits and that airport saturation could be workaround with the smaller support airports. That time difference was key for then to follow the right choice. They also had the biggest plane at that time, so they had less need for increasing it even more, making it easier to choose the current model.

Finally, and the main reason why you are talking sh*t, the A380 development cost about 25billions, but at a cost per plane of 445million and 234 were sold, Airbus got around 105billions ... that is still a huge profit, most people would love to multiply 4x their investment, and we are talking billions of profits.

So yes, it is not the right design for current time, but it was when planned... and it was still a huge profit. The major problem is how long will it take for Airbus to replace it

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anne Thwacks]

When you consider wall-to-wall environmental impact between my diesel truck and a prius, there is no comparison. My truck wins hands down.

But when it comes to political correctness, your truck is miles behind a Prius. Go and cry on the naughty step!

Re:Another European white elephant....

[kurkosdr]

The true idiocy with regards to the A380 was having no provision for it to be a freighter. Just like the Boeing 747 has, which still remains an excellent freighter.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[angel'o'sphere]

We have clean diesel technology since 30 or even 40 years.
But the vendors don't want to shift. It is called "water injection" ... you inject water into the burning chamber and reduce fuel usage by 50% and emissions (obviously except CO2 and some NOx) by 95%.
We have some ships on the river Rhine doing it since ages, but as fuel is to cheap to bother, there is no pressure on the vendors to change. It would even work in a small car.

See this one: https://patents.google.com/pat...

There are plenty of other systems.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

But let us compare the toxicity of those emissions. Per given unit of emission, I'm willing to wager the diesel is far more toxic.

Re: Another European white elephant....

[TuballoyThunder]

I hope you are not a financial analyst. You made two errors in your profit analysis. First the 25 billion is the development cost and does not include production costs. A large part of the revenue from a sale goes to covering the cost of production. Second, it is unlikely that the A380 ever sold at list price. Over the life the program, Airbus took a loss on production--they got to having "digestible losses" and were forecasting being revenue positive on production costs. They did not achieve any positive return on their investment

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile in the US they subsidize oil, corn, coal, cars, banks and whatever else.
Let them live and die on their merits.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[wiretrip]

Your argument would have carried more weight had you used the word 'met' instead of 'meeted'. Are you from the USA?

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Shotgun]

But, when I consider riding behind that "clean diesel" truck, I'd prefer that it be shoved up your rear. I have yet to see one of the smaller diesels over a couple years old that don't spew half-burnt kerosene out the back whenever the temperature drops below freezing. And don't give us the noise about how clean and well maintained YOUR vehicle is unless you have the exhaust piped to exit in front of you while driving.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[jeff4747]

When you consider wall-to-wall environmental impact between my diesel truck and a prius, there is no comparison. My truck wins hands down.

Only for the first ~3 years.

Drive them longer than that, and the Prius wins.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're seeing a modern "clean diesel" spewing any more soot/exhaust than gas cars anywhere above -60C, you're seeing a car whose owner has deliberately tuned it to run richer and removed the exhaust filter, rendering it noncompliant with its certified emissions regulations. That's now an issue with local regulations on the cars, not the technology they came with. The exhaust particulate filter is the one thing that just about every modern diesel, small or large, has gotten to work properly - this applies from large semis down to VW Beetles (semis in the US only got proper exhaust particulate filters around 2011, FYI).

For any level of diesel vehicle, the NOx emissions at the heart of the VW emissions lawsuits aren't any more visible idling/driving than the unburned hydrocarbons that gasoline cars spew are. IIRC, NOx is slightly yellow-ish at high enough concentrations, but we'd be talking about cases where it's the majority of a gas sample, not PPT/PPM.

Disclaimer - I had a VW clean diesel for 3 years. I had fun betting friends I could swab the inside of the tailpipe with my finger and lick it after driving 10k miles. Couldn't get anyone with a modern gas car to do the same though: when they pulled their finger out, it was covered in black soot and they backed out.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Megane]

Don't worry, Ariane 6 will surely take over its throne.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[jcr]

The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur

Oh, fuck off with your posturing. You don't know shit, so quit pretending that you do.

The A380 made sense under the conditions that were known at the time of its design. They didn't, and couldn't anticipate the rule changes that allowed two-engine aircraft to make long-haul flights over water. Boeing was looking at making higher-capacity versions of the 747, too.

-jcr

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that Ford and General Motors continued to lie about the defeat devices in their diesel cars and got away with it?

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

Some newer petrol cars have particulate traps, just like diesels and they are almost as clean in terms of soot as a modern diesel.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

The A380 made perfect sense at the time. Market conditions have since changed, but it was the product the market demanded at the time it was developed. Given the fact that Airbus has to deal with a large competitor that can fund all of its development with pork-barrel contracts, I think the development funds were entirely appropriate. Especially if you consider that that competitor is based in a country whose government is not above stealing trade secrets from Airbus and its suppliers, eavesdropping on negotiations and coercing countries into buying its products.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[toddestan]

I've heard that the 747 was designed to be a primarily a freighter. Boeing thought that at the time passenger flights were all going to go supersonic in a few years, and the passenger version of the 747 would be a short-lived variant and after that it would be all freighter sales. That's also why they never went through with creating a full double-decker version of the 747 since they figured the development effort would be wasted because supersonic was right around the corner anyway and a double-decker freighter would be silly.

In a way, they were right about airlines eventually losing interest in the passenger version of the 747, but 20 years later and for entirely different reasons.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[breeze95]

Finally, and the main reason why you are talking sh*t, the A380 development cost about 25billions, but at a cost per plane of 445million and 234 were sold, Airbus got around 105billions ... that is still a huge profit, most people would love to multiply 4x their investment, and we are talking billions of profits.

So yes, it is not the right design for current time, but it was when planned... and it was still a huge profit. The major problem is how long will it take for Airbus to replace it

Your financial analysis on the profitability of the A380 is incorrect. By cancelling the project, Airbus is taking a loss of about 800 million. That's a far cry from the huge profit you claimed. Nice try though.

Re: Another European white elephant....

[breeze95]

I hope you are not a financial analyst. You made two errors in your profit analysis. First the 25 billion is the development cost and does not include production costs. A large part of the revenue from a sale goes to covering the cost of production. Second, it is unlikely that the A380 ever sold at list price. Over the life the program, Airbus took a loss on production--they got to having "digestible losses" and were forecasting being revenue positive on production costs. They did not achieve any positive return on their investment

You are correct. Airbus is writing off about 800 million due to cancelling the A380 program. The A380 program was still in the red at the time of cancellation.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[breeze95]

The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur

Oh, fuck off with your posturing. You don't know shit, so quit pretending that you do.

The A380 made sense under the conditions that were known at the time of its design. They didn't, and couldn't anticipate the rule changes that allowed two-engine aircraft to make long-haul flights over water. Boeing was looking at making higher-capacity versions of the 747, too.

-jcr

Yet Boeing was able to anticipate that the market was not there for super sized jets. How could Boeing correctly anticipate that and not Airbus. Simple, Airbus management didn't properly do their due diligence.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[cheesybagel]

Not just looking at it. Boeing designed the 747-8 which was a total failure.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[kurkosdr]

Yes I think I read somewhere that Boeing expected the 747 to be primarily a freighter when supersonic transport would supposedly become a thing. It was an excellent passenger carrier too though.

Re:Another European white elephant....

[Anonymous Coward]

Airbus and Boeing made different bets. Boeing got lucky, Airbus less so. They both made very reasonable choices given the information at the time.

Boeing vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Boeing guessed correctly and explicitly stated that their forecast for the entire global market for super jumbos like the A380 to be around 250 planes in total IIRC. So their forecast proved to be spot on. The market wasn't worth competing for, and they let Airbus have it, knowing that it wasn't worth the investment.

Airbus isn't interested so much in profit as it is in being a european jobs program.

Re:Boeing vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

or Boeing paid airlines to not buy Airbus A380

Re:Boeing vindicated

[Anonymous Coward]

yes because boeing pumping out weapons systems is not a jobs program
oh yeah forgot
the military is not socialist
brain explodes

Just 25% of the preorders were realized!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Wasted click bait opportunity. Could have snagged a bunch of TSLA and TSLAQ clicks with a little bit of creativity in the head line by including Elon.

The short haul market has been eviscerated by TSA. It is almost like an auto-immune disease. Terrorists caused a flea bite of a damage. And the over reaction by the public, the politicians and the media resulted in this huge organized mass gate-rape, adding two hours to all flights. It is simply not worth flying less than 400 miles.

On the long haul, Europe keeps making wrong bets on fuel prices. Arab oil shock killed Concorde. A380 cost estimates was based on cheaper aviation fuel deliverable in the middle east, and range needed fly to anywhere in the world after a cheap fillup. The advantage is half the differential between fuel price in the middle east and the price at major airports. Boeing with its longer range smaller plane nullified the advantage without incurring the disadvantages of the huge size.

Re:Just 25% of the preorders were realized!

[Anonymous Coward]

What killed Concorde was sound regulation in the US (and by extension in the rest of the world) hence the impossibility of using the damn airplane over land, fuel price came way down the list.

Re:Just 25% of the preorders were realized!

[Anonymous Coward]

What killed Concorde was sound regulation in the US

You can thank Boeing for that. When they knew they could never get beyond a plywood SST mockup, they decided to screw over Airbus' market segment and funded the 'Ban the Bang' campaigns. They also relied on budding socialism in the USA. Which comes down to all the plebes stuck on the ground, whining about why they can't afford an SST flight every time they hear that thump. I've lived under supersonic flight paths as well as in thunderstorm alley. If you can't handle an occasional sonic boom, then what do you do when there's a thunderstorm?

Who says direct is more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct is faster but more expensive.

Obligatory Wendover Productions video.

And if you don't have 10 minutes to kill, here's the moral of the story: When airplanes are full, direct is always cheaper. You pay for less fuel, less labor, less airplane flight time (maintenance), less airport fees, etc. But the challenge has always been filling seats for low-demand routes. Airport logistics aside, you can't fly an A380 between Raleigh, NC, and Dublin, Ireland, because there's not that much demand. And smaller planes couldn't fly over the Atlantic. Hence the need for the hub-and-spoke model of flying: small planes to and from hubs, and large airplanes between hubs.

But now small airplanes -can- fly over the Atlantic. What Airbus loses in the A380, it gains in the Airbus A220, a.k.a. the Bombardier C-Series. (Another obligatory Wendover Productions video.) Now here's a narrow-body airplane that seats 100-130 passengers that -can- fly across the Atlantic, making direct flights between small markets possible. And as December 2018, Airbus has over 500 orders for the airplane, with demand for the airplane continuing to grow. Best yet: Boeing has no competitor to this class of airplane. Airbus has a monopoly on this class of airplane, and it's going to make them rich.

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks, that was very informative.

Re: Who says direct is more expensive?

[Nidi62]

You can fly a 320 across the Atlantic if you are prepared for a 14 hour flight with 2 stops. I do not recommend it unless you are a fan of masochism.

Re: Who says direct is more expensive?

[dunkelfalke]

There exist non-stop transatlantic flights by A32xLR

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct is faster but more expensive.

It depends. It is really an optimization problem. Most Air Lines have gone to a hub and spoke system, to simplify their routes and the optimization of their schedules. If you are flying from anywhere to a hub or between multiple hubs, it is direct and cheap. but if you are flying between 2 spokes you pay for that privilege because airlines have some number of direct non hub flights to cater to the people who need to fly direct and are willing to pay for it.

The real cost to airlines is flying with planes that aren't completely full. All of the other costs are incidental. So using logic that doesn't take that fact into account leads to faulty conclusions. The A380 is being sidelined because airlines can't keep it full enough on enough flights to make it profitable. The other concerns are just mitigating factors.

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[thereddaikon]

Best yet: Boeing has no competitor to this class of airplane. Airbus has a monopoly on this class of airplane, and it's going to make them rich.

You're joking right? If you are so knowledgeable about aircraft then you have to know the 737 Max exists. Not only is it the direct competitor to the A220 but the original 737 invented the segment. It also has 10x the number of orders placed. 500 orders isn't bad but it doesn't compare to 5000 orders. Boeing has also delivered more even though it started making the Max later than the A220.

Re: Who says direct is more expensive?

[Strider-]

Yes, but St. John's NFLD -> LHR is a shorter distance then NYC -> LAX

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[kalpol]

I'm not sure you can say Airbus has a monopoly - a 737 range is only 400 miles or so less than an A220 and it's enormously more flexible in configuration options. There are a lot of them flying transatlantic routes already, New York to Oslo or Dublin it appears.

Re: Who says direct is more expensive?

[dunkelfalke]

https://thepointsguy.com/2018/...

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[jwhyche]

I hate flying on a 737. Love the design, but hate flying on one. It seems like every time I got on one they had run test models to see how far up my ass they could get the persons feet behind me. The 757 wasn't much better. The best plane I think I have been on was the 767. They has so much room even the airlines hadn't figured out how to fuck it up.

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are welcome! And thanks for saying so.

Re:Who says direct is more expensive?

[sysrammer]

Yeah, the 737 has all the comfort and amenities of an shuttle bus.

This is too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can blame airlines who don't plan out flights properly instead they do more frequent smaller capacity flights instead of less bigger capacity flights. Everybody wants to fly when they want to fly, so planned bigger less frequent flights to destinations simply doesn't work.

Ridgid airships FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to stop being in a rush all the time.

Re:So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Unintended consequences.
Efficienty and being green is just hot air.
Forget fuel costs, A380 is not that different. Landing fees are the profit killer, especially where there are no near alternatives in curfew zones.
Airports first raised landing fees for A380, as fewer landings was not what was wanted, and lowered fees elsewhere. Ouch.
Interest rates dropped to record lows - so more aircraft became affordable.
Then seat packing and extra rows in the smaller places were accepted by stupid flyers.
Then new airports were built or expanded, keeping the lid on per pax fees, worked against A380.
Airport security also killed 380's too - imagine if standby flights could come back? Peak screening times rose.

It seems blockbuster longhaul A380 is king - The Haj, CNY and Christmas peak periods when all airport slots are full (and airport wishing more 380's).

When A380's stop being made, watch greedy airport monoplies hike two engine jet landing fees again - because they can.

There's more...please take note...

[bogaboga]

Boeing with its longer range smaller plane nullified the advantage without incurring the disadvantages of the huge size.

Boeings military contracts help a lot.

At least $60 Billion expected according to that link. If it were not for these, Boeing would be in trouble too.

Re:There's more...please take note...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Europe subsidizes the health care cost which is billed to Boeing in USA. So it would come in as a wash. And Airbus also gets lots of military contracts and government support.

Re:There's more...please take note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe does not subsidize health care costs - in first world countries except the US, health care is paid through taxes on workers, including those employed by AirBus and Boeing.

What's expensive is that the US gov't spends more on health care than European gov'ts, and then US employers still have to pay for health care for their employees. The US simply has a more expensive health care system.

This affects Boeing and Airbus - but keep in mind that they both have factories in the US and EU, so it's more about where their balance of production lies.

Re:There's more...please take note...

[HornWumpus]

Where ever you learned that, don't read them ever again. Alternatively, never pull 'facts' from that orifice again.

Most western democracies require citizens buy health insurance.

Wil they be converted to frieghters?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the 380F didn't do well, but we'll see.

Re:Wil they be converted to frieghters?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the 380F didn't do well, but we'll see.

No. There is no (viable) conversion which would allow quick load/unload, unlike the 747-F which has a nose loading door. And then there is the reality that the airports that can handle the A380 are not the large air freight terminals. Sure, all those could be fixed with massive investments into the white elephant. Not going to happen. The A380 is dead. And Airbus is actually financially better for ending the program now.

Re: So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello

Passengers may love it

[WoodstockJeff]

But passengers do not love to fly the routes that the A380 is economical to fly on.

Not to mention that passengers are NOT the customers for this plane, airlines are.

Re:Passengers may love it

[GerryHattrick]

Plenty are getting parked-up, ready for the Haj.

Re:Socialism lost capitalism won

[_merlin]

The 4-engined airliners definitely need more separation. The 747 and A380 need more separation than the 777. Relaxed ETOPS allowing more efficient twin-engined airliners to fly across the pacific is what really killed the A380 (and the A340, and the 747-8 for that matter).

Re:So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.

The cost analysis

[sjbe]

Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.

There is FAR more to the cost equation than capacity constraints for takeoffs/landings at a handful of airports.

The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane.

The article you linked to is from 2005. That might be a problem with the A380 but it's not even near the top of the list of the reasons why it is struggling economically. The A380 is designed for long flights between big hubs. Smaller more fuel efficient planes, low cost point-to-point airlines, minimal number of economically viable routes for such a big aircraft, cost of airport modifications and servicing infrastructure, etc. Basically the A380 only made sense for a few airlines on a few routes. Boeing knew this from their experience with the 747 and so they bet on the 787 instead. Boeing was right about where the market was headed. This isn't to say the A380 was a terrible idea but it just doesn't reflect the economic reality of the airline industry today.

Re:So the industry

[MightyYar]

Carpool in a car, yes - but not necessarily to carpool in a car to the nearest carpool hub - over an hour away, where you then board a carpool bus.

Re:Socialism lost capitalism won

[Anonymous Coward]

The A380 is designated "super heavy", only one in that class.

Small Regional Airports from 1980s Deregulation

[retroworks]

As it turns out, it was cheaper to open smaller regional airports (used by Ryanair, Easyjet etc) than to economize the traditional airports using more seats per landing window. The A380 and 747 had Reagan's de-regulation in their rearview mirror. The object was closer than it appeared.

Re:Small Regional Airports from 1980s Deregulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you have it backwards, or you're not thinking about the US market. It was Carter who deregulated the airlines (in 1978), and that's what brought about the hub-and-spoke system.

Since the 747 was designed in the 1960s, it first went into service on long-haul routes like NY-London and Chicago-LA. Once the hub-and-spoke system evolved in the 1980s it became the backbone for hub-to-hub travel.

It was the emergence of more efficient twin-engine widebodies like the 777 and 787 that were the 747's downfall.

dom

Re:Fucking Millennials

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic; also i'm going to venture a guess that you fall into the millenial/post-millenial demographic. If you're older than that, that's pretty sad that you assert that the next generations are so much worse than your own. The things you say aren't untrue, only... offtopic.

Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Applehu Akbar]

To me personally the golden age of air travel was the early Seventies. Everyday passengers could enjoy the mass comfort of three competing widebodies, while wealthy early adopters could go supersonic on the Concorde. Now both the widebody and supersonic options are gone, and seats keep getting smaller. Even the speed of the average large commercial craft has declined from 600 mph to 500-550.

The plane the airlines really like now is the 737. Although it was designed for short domestic flights by carriers like Southwest, there is a steady trend to push this craft into the ind of longer-range applications it was never designed to serve. I hereby predict that Boeing will produce a 737 Ultra Extended Range, with additional fuel tanks, drop tanks on the wings, and room for perhaps 50 passengers, to serve transpacific long-haul routes.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no regression with this decision. The A380 was an airplane designed in the early 1990s and took until the mid-2000s to be introduced, and was designed for a commercial aviation business model from the 1960s that was completely obsolete by the mid-1980s. The A380, frankly, is designed for a time when airline reservations were still handled with punch cards.

It's just another aerospatialle/airbus white elephant, like the concorde. They are always late to the party. It took them until 2015 to come out with the A350, an airplane meant as a competitive answer to the boeing 777 ... which started commercial service in 1995!

Also, the competing widebodies of the 70s were horrible, fyi. You could either get on an L-1011, which flew like a pig, or you could get on a DC-10, which might have its cargo door blow out, or its engine might literally fall off its wing, and kill you dead. There's a good reason why only the boeing product survived.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[AlwinBarni]

... drop tanks on the wings, and room for perhaps 50 passengers ...

Do you mean this room for extra 50 passengers would be on the wings? Well, would not be surprised.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[PPH]

The A380, frankly, is designed for a time when airline reservations were still handled with punch cards.

And a good part of your trip schedule wasn't taken up by standing in TSA lines.

Same reason the Concorde will never be re-borne (in anything like its present configuration). Pay big bucks to shave a couple hours off a flight. And then spend them getting strip-searched. And it's not always about getting there faster. It's about getting there NOW. Which is more important to the wealthy and business people most likely to foot the bill for the expensive ticket. One flight per day just isn't going to cut it. If I have a need to get to Paris this afternoon, the supersonic flight that left an hour ago and won't fly again until tomorrow is of no use to me. Neither is a plane that is scheduled to queue up the next 800 people for an economical flight.

The next successful SST will have the capacity of a business jet. The economics might suck for any potential economy class. But they can just fly with the other cattle on a wide body. First class supersonic for $20K or even $40K per ticket is possible for a small piece of the market.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Anonymous Coward]

It works for trains in India, so why not?

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Anonymous Coward]

SSTs were designed for a time when we still mailed letters to each other to communicate. You wanna get somewhere now? Then teleconference. No business spends the money now to put people on express flights when you can accomplish the same thing with a couple of mouse clicks.

Another obsolete business model that'll never be made to work, except maybe to build a one-off for some son of a saudi oil prince that he can put in the garage with his 20 bugattis and 10 mclarens.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Koreantoast]

To me personally the golden age of air travel was the early Seventies. Everyday passengers could enjoy the mass comfort of three competing widebodies, while wealthy early adopters could go supersonic on the Concorde.

You mean back in the 1970's when the government mandated that flights costs three to five times more in inflation adjusted dollars. You can still get that service, just fly first class which provides those same amenities at those 1970's prices. Also, those supersonic flights weren't really that comfortable - the seats were cramped, and it was super noisy - the only redeeming grace was that you saved an hour or two on your flight, and you could brag that you had the money to blow on such a "luxury."

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[PPH]

You wanna get somewhere now? Then teleconference.

I know people who think nothing of jumping on a plane to Paris to do some shopping over a weekend.

And then there's high level business execs who believe in showing up in person to make deals. Warren Buffet famously resisted owning a business jet, preferring to fly commercial. Until time and business pressure forced him to buy one (which he originally named "The Indefensible", having criticized other's private jets).

No business spends the money

Quite often, its the owners of businesses that make the decision to charter a flight. Or own their own aircraft.

Re:Aviation technology seems to be regressing

[Applehu Akbar]

The Concorde was for early adopters willing to pay the price, like today's space tourists, knowing that it would be followed by improved versions. Nobody knew then that we would be backing out of the entire idea of supersonic transportation.

Plan for crashes how many people can you sacrifice

[tiffanytimbric]

This plane forgot to plan in that crashes will happen. (human cost) = (rate of crash) * (count of passengers) must be less than financial profit

Re: So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes car pool is very enjoyable nomatter what genders are involved

The Industry is doing Great!!

[sdinfoserv]

Boeing is having a record year. 2018 was a record year and 2019 looks to be even better. The 777x platform has a huge backlog, mostly taking customers away from the older A380.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30...

Re:So the industry

[LynnwoodRooster]

That carpool from Los Angles to Tokyo, though... Heck of a drive!

Doesn't matter anyway

[sycodon]

We will all be taking High Speed rail everywhere in the next 10 years, even across the Atlantic.

Airliners will be a relic of the past. /s

Re:Doesn't matter anyway

[kaatochacha]

Occasional-Cortex, are you on slashdot now?

Re:Doesn't matter anyway

[sycodon]

"/s"

Re:Doesn't matter anyway

[Chas]

What? Could you not sense The DERP???

Re:So the industry

[TechyImmigrant]

Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.

However I have found it to be the most comfortable ride when crossing the Pacific. Upstairs in business class. It's very quiet, spacious and smooth.

Luckily Airbus isn't Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing Google doesn't make airplanes - otherwise Google would be announcing today that in 2 months they'd stop all production of the A380 including all sales, service and support.

Too big & limited

[p51d007]

Limited on where it can park at airports. Runways were not the issue, but the gate space was.

Re:So the industry

[kaatochacha]

Yeah, and I rode one once downstairs in peon class, shortly after they delivered them. It felt claustrophobic and made me think we were only missing the oars and chains. there was surprising rips in the carpet considering how new they were.
I can see why they failed: nobody in their right mind wants to sit through a long flight in that dungeon.

It was my BEST FLY EVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

It rolls off and flies like a Rolls-Royce automobile. Absolutely smooth and quiet.

Re:It was my BEST FLY EVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rolls-Royce peaked with the Silver Ghost more than a century ago. Everything since then has been downhill. So to compare the A380 with contemporary Rolls-Royce is not a good comparison.

Re: So the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame the manufacturer for the airline's fit and finish.

I've flown many A380s and all were quite lovely, though the 10-year old Qantas fleet is starting to show its age. They're due for a refurb this year into next.

It's all in the marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Airbus". Busses are so out of fashion. If they'd been called AirTram they'd be successful, as trams are cool once more.

Also don't discount the Trump factor. He made 'murica great again, so naturally the world was going to embrace boeing, and ditch those faggats across the pond at Airbus ("bus" lol. no one rides a bus).

Congratulations I just wasted your time talking complete nonsense.

One of two things

[Anonymous Coward]

[1] Boeing made the better bet, post 9/11 (multiple versions of the 777 and vmultiple versions of the 787)

or perhaps

[2] They read the "Green New Deal" and decided tha either there is no future for the A380 in a world without airplanes, or the future generations who are stupid enough to fall for it are the sort who should not be allowed on planes.

Sadly another wet dream

[AntisocialNetworker]

Like Concorde, this was a attempt to go down in history, in this case by building a bigger passenger plane than anyone had tried before. AFAIR, people scoffed at the idea right from the start, saying the need to rebuild airports, and the increased turbulence, would make it uneconomic. But the leaders with vision pressed on.

I'm Kind of Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking here as an aviation buff. I'm much less concerned with the Airbus versus Boeing competition. And yeah, modern flying isn't much fun anymore, for passengers.

Put all that aside. The A-380 seemed to presage an era of super-jumbo airliners, which meant that aviation would clearly develop in an airframe direction that I would characterize as awe-inspiring and perhaps even grandiose. There's something visceral in watching a very large aircraft take flight. It's not logical; it's emotional.

And aside from the super-jumbos, I gotta say that modern airframes are kinda... boring. The SST's died off. No, don't raise the issue of the new supersonic companies; I doubt any of them will achieve commercial success. Talk of blended wing-body airframes has never gone much beyond talk. Lighter than air systems have fundamental problems their proponents either cannot or will not address.

I thought the super-jumbos might become a little like the grand old amphibious aircraft of the 1930's were; symbols of modernity, travel, the good life, and the best parts of cultural connection.

Re:So the industry

[TechyImmigrant]

Yeah, and I rode one once downstairs in peon class, shortly after they delivered them. It felt claustrophobic and made me think we were only missing the oars and chains. there was surprising rips in the carpet considering how new they were.
I can see why they failed: nobody in their right mind wants to sit through a long flight in that dungeon.

So a US carrier then?