Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the end-of-an-era dept.

"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."

38 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So the industry by dwywit · · Score: 2, Informative

    -1 Try again.

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

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  2. There is a market for huge planes, in theory by bluegutang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    6. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    9. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by mjwx · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by jbengt · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by thereddaikon · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      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]

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by thereddaikon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    16. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    20. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by jrumney · · Score: 2

      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.

    21. Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory by jwhyche · · Score: 2

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

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  3. Good news. by kurkosdr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Less than a third? That's generous! by Entrope · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Boeing vindicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. Who says direct is more expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Who says direct is more expensive? by thereddaikon · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Who says direct is more expensive? by kalpol · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    3. Re:Who says direct is more expensive? by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  7. Re:So the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:So the industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. The cost analysis by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:So the industry by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. The Industry is doing Great!! by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    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...

  12. Doesn't matter anyway by sycodon · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  13. Re:Another European white elephant.... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. Re:Another European white elephant.... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

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