Twenty or so years ago, thoughtful media reported on how Boeing could no longer afford two major new developments and had to choose: either a fuel efficient, mid-size transport using new technologies and major new subcontractors, with all the problems of new technologies and methods; or something really big and more conventional. Today we see results of that decision.
I’d love to meet and talk with some of the people who were part Boeing’s decision, and I sure hope someone writes a good book about it. (Good like “A Sporty Game: Betting the Company”, The New Yorker, June 14, 1982.)
3
I don't get the love for it from travellers... these things are the ultimate cattle trucks, and my heart sinks when I see I've been scheduled on one. Takes forever to board, just ponderous.
3
“As a result of this decision we have no substantial A380 backlog,” says the Airbus CEO.
Wait a minute. You’ve got it backwards. It’s not the result of your decision, it’s the result of no demand in the market. That’s why you have no backlog and are ceasing production.
Is this “corporate speak”?
3
Good riddance to the A 380 it was ugly, bloated and took too long to board. Not all " advancements" are better than what came before. Europe was closer 20 years ago...The tiny Concord could make JFK / Heathrow in 3 hours. Trains too: 100 years ago the train went from NYC to Chicago about 2 hrs faster than it does today and was more often ON TIME.
6
I'm glad to hear this monstrous pig is dead.
Given that the average airplane pumps out tons of carbon dioxide for each passenger, its the height of irresponsibility to provide showers and a bar for the idle rich.
1
The 380 is a monstrosity, like the 747. Not only do these planes destroy the atmosphere, the air inside them stinks, the bathrooms are inadequate to service a stadium full of people, and evacuating them in an emergency is an impossibility. Once you have flown a 787, you can't go back. I've flown almost 3 million miles on business and leisure, and at this point I'll pay extra to avoid flying 380s or 747s. The sooner they disappear the better for the planet and for the flying public.
4
When I think of an A380, the first thought that enters my mind is : What are the diameters of the fuel lines that feed fuel to each of it's 4 engines, and at what pressure are the outlets of the nozzles that spray it into the engines. If you are an intelligent human, try it. Try to imagine it. And then, contemplate the resulting tonnage of fuel that gets blasted into those engines during a 14-hour flight, and whose combustion products wind up being blown into the atmosphere. And so it goes for every other model of airplane in operation. The A380 is just a particularly evocative example of this problem. To me it's a sickening thought. The A380 is a BEAUTIFUL piece of engineering and, in my opinion a magnificent work of art. But to the extent that we indulge in this extravagance, generations hence will have their standard of living (and maybe their lives) cut in direct proportion to our profligate and wasteful use of toxic fossil fuel. We party-on at our own future expense. And as climate scientists tell us, the bill will soon arrive.
4
Huh? You think smaller planes run on batteries? What’s the per passenger amount of fuel used? That’s a more accurate way of thinking about this. Even if the larger planes used more fuel smaller ones are just as damaging as you claim with the big ones. Flying around the globe so you can sit on a beach in Thailand is madness. Selfish. You probably also drive an SUV. And use far more fuel driving yourself around in three tons of steel.
6
The point is passenger miles per pound (yes pound) of fuel. That is why the B-747 was once more efficient than your SUV.
5
@BillBo
As I recall, what I said was : "And so it goes for every other model of airplane in operation."
These enormous continent-jumpers only ever meant one thing to me: More middle seats. Unless you're flying business class or better, I don't really see the advantage. A 15 hour flight to Hong Kong in economy class is miserable no matter how big the cabin. At least give me an aisle seat.
16
The A380 is the best passenger plane ever built on earth. It is like flying on a cloud. Takeoff and landing are barely noticeable, the plane is so stable that turbolences seem not to exist. In the versions owned by Lufthansa and other airlines, it is like an extremely luxurious couch. Air France of course stripped it down to a version with wooden seats. It is a milestone in aircraft development, succeeding the Concorde. Four engines is what any sensible passenger should hope for, so don't give up yet. Maybe there will be an A400, a four-engined smaller plane with the speed of the Concorde. But the A380 will always remain a human dream come true.
6
Yeah, those Rolls Royce engines (only engine available on the B-767 you could choose between P&W, GE or Rolls) Quantas came very close to killing everyone on board when a fairly new engine came apart and damaged the airframe.
It’s important to note the costs associated with airport upgrades necessary to handle a plane of this unique size and configuration. At LAX, an entirely new terminal with multi-level air bridges built to handle the a380’s double decks and width was recently completed, with another midfield concourse currently under construction. Clearly, the ending of Airbus’ program with only 250-or-so a380’s produced means an extremely poor ROI for all airports equipped to handle them.
4
@Steve I shed a tear every time someone with pursestrings laments the cost of high speed rail as too expensive. Our never ending appetite for all things airplane and all things airport are a disservice to our ability to actually travel faster, more efficiently, and truly point to point.
14
An example of why American based companies are the best at what they do. Regardless of social policies, when it comes to business, Americans are second to none.
3
@MH: Except that most planes of US carriers are cramped with limited overhead storage, tight seating, and long waits to board even if you're in first class. Maybe cost-effective, but consumer poor, with flying itself being much less enjoyable than it used to be.
5
@Dr Jay: I agree that the flying experience leaves much to be desired, to say the least. From a corporate perspective, this is a major reputational and economic win for an American company over a major competitor.
2
Flying LAX-FRA upwards of 10 times per year, i can say the regular economy is just lovely in the A380. But it's always shocked me that they didn't bother to include outlets for the seats, which is a real drag and ruins an otherwise great experience. but for a 14-17 hour flight, it's definitely the best thing out there for economy.
3
@Mark LeVine
That’s an airline decision, not by Airbus.
9
Airbus is estimated to have 1 billion euros in remaining unpaid government loans tied to the A380.
Now that the company will stop making the planes, I expect that the European taxpayer will be on the hook for the unpaid loans.
1
@Alan Dean Foster - the Whale wasn't their only product, and the A350 is selling like hotcakes, as is their re-engined A320 family. Solvency is not an issue.
4
A 380 is a good plane, If they converted both the decks in to business class and had bars on both decks, it would be a game changer. Currently the upper deck has all the good stuff and lower deck is essentially a cattle car.
7
This is the Hindenburg of the airline industry. Last place I want to be is aboard an aircraft with 800 other people.
29
@Eddie - Once you've flown on one, your opinion changes. The wide-open cabin, the serene quiet, the stability in turbulence, all go toward making the Whale the most comfortable bus in the sky. Even economy-class passengers rave about it.
23
@PeteH you must be out of your mind. I've flown over 3 million miles and I'll go to great lengths to avoid 380s or 747s. They are stinking monstrosities.
3
@Eddie I completely agree. The air on these monstrosities stinks, the bathrooms are inadequate to take care of that many passengers, and in the event of a problem, evacuating them would be impossible.
2
Glad it died. Who wants stops on the way to a destination and how many could afford the luxury Bar upstairs. Give us the usual we are used to that has economy and business with all we really need for a flight.
1
All the fawning over the A380 ignores the fact that, for passengers in economy, it was a cattle car beyond even what the 747 or Lockheed L10-11 could be. Sure, its upper deck was great if configured for business class, but overall it was a behemoth that was as out of step with the times as it was unwieldy to taxi.
7
Save the best line for last:
“It was supposed to be a game changer,” Mr. Netscher of Scope Group said. “But, yeah, well, the game changed.”
Yeah, I guess so!
7
Mojave Airport has a boneyard with space available for the A-380 dinosaurs.
2
Concorde = no loss
A380 = ditto
1
Fair comment about A380, but if you truly think Concorde was in same class with its afterburners on a civil plane, arriving in NYC before its departure time from LHR or CDG, it may be your romance and adventure has waned. Elitist yes, beautiful... without doubt. “ The worst thing in life is to see life as it is... and not as it should be” Cervantes
4
I like how the lead photo shows a lounge when we all know it will just be sardine seats 20 across. Why not show a waterbed and squash court in the photo?
15
Not about the Airbus in particular but since we are talking air travel: I had a few transatlantic flights this past year and what the heck is going on with the deplorable lavatories????
We were in Delta Comfort near the front of the plane. Within an hour after takeoff the bathrooms were so filthy and littered and dank I dreaded having to revisit them. Perhaps the flight attendants are exempt from maintaining them these days? If so, for god's sake add $10 to the cost of each ticket and put a porter on the plane whose job is to maintain the restrooms and go around collecting trash from passengers. And to hand out face masks to those who are hawking, coughing and snort their germs onto the rest of us.
Why, in 2019, are lavatory spigots, flushers and waste containers still operated by hand? Why not have floor buttons for turning water off and on, and for flushing the toilet?
What is the point of those spring-loaded waste containers -- you have to touch them with your hand to fit the used paper towel in, which sort of defeats the purpose of hand-washing. (I use yet another paper towel to dispose of the wet one and open the door, but then am stuck with a germy towel to take back to my seat, or start the rigamorole over again with the waste lid.
On the return trip I forwent drinks at the airport pre-flight and only had one beer aboard, and made it fro Amsterdam to Detroit with one quick trip to the lav. Pretty grim.
15
@Earthling
Excellent points which I second. There is no thought to the actual passenger anymore, just calculations how to squeeze that extra penny of profit. A race to the bottom it seems.
8
@Earthling Your question is one the entire flying public is wondering, and is one of those great unsolved mysteries that may never be answered, "why, in 2019, are lavatory spigots, flushers and waste containers still operated by hand?"
Perhaps none of the designers and engineers in Everett and Toulouse have ever seen a UV faucet?
5
@Andrew Lee
Honestly, it boggles the mind. I generally fly only domestic and for 3-4 hour flights don't need the bathrooms so was unaware at how ghastly the conditions could get on a 9-hour flight with a couple hundred people using a handful of lavatories.
As soon as I get a free day, I'm going to contact Boeing and talk to whomever is in charge of bathroom design. I mean, casinos and bus stations have motion sensors on these fixtures -- why can't a multi-multi-million-dollar aircraft?
I would gladly pay more per ticket, if a porter were aboard to take care of these things. $10x200 pax = $2,000. Surely that is enough to employ someone to tend to cleanliness aboard a long-haul flight. And worth it to passengers.
5
Too all the “convert the A-380s to fire bombers” realize this. When the test of the wing failure mode of the A-380 was done where they bend the wing to the point of failure, the requirement is 150% of expected maximum loads. The A-380 failed at something like 125%. The approving agencies EASA and FAA let it slide.
Now imagine that same wing flying low in severe turbulence (fighting fire from the air is usually a mountainous area and there are a lot of uplift from the heat). When they are done dropping they go full power and do a maximum pull up, stressing the wing quite a bit.
Aircraft that fight fires have stress sensors on their wings for a reason.
Also realize most fire suppression is done to protect structure as in the fools who can afford a second or third home in the woods. Imagine the mess a A-380 would make when slamming into a mountain.
Air drops are only effective when done at altitudes of no higher that 200 feet AGL. Not much space for a screw up.
Remember that firefighter that had the wings fail, it was during the pull up after releasing its load.
6
While working for a major airline as a aircraft mechanic we hated the Airbus, but we only had the B-767 ripoff, the A-300-600. It is a hodgepodge of stolen ideas, actually Boeing sued them for the slat design and won. There was a reason we called it the scarebus. Pilots loved it for its power to weight ratio, but pilot’s know nothing about the mechanisms of the aircraft they’re flying. Most airline pilots know as much about aircraft as the average SUV drivers know of their car, they barely know where the fuel goes in.
10
The A380 is the Hummer H2 of aircraft. Briefly trendy, but a limited market for people with a lot of money to blow. A giant, fuel-guzzling behemoth that we now look at and wonder how it was ever believed to be a good idea.
3
I don't care where Emirates Airlines flies or what planes they use - I wouldn't give them a penny of my money. United Arab Emirates stones homosexuals to death. They are one of the most repressive regimes on this planet and I'd honestly be scared to fly on their airplane with my husband.
71
@ScottC There is no association between the end of production of the A380 and sexual orientation
1
@ScottC
The United States is separating children from their parents and locking them in cages. Do you still fly American Airlines?
10
@Andy - Emirates Airlines is wholly owned by the government of Dubai. American Airlines is a shareholder owned company that is not owned by the government at all - that have nothing to do with immigration policy. Your argument holds no water.
13
This article fails to mention the #1 selling point pitched by Airbus to the airline industry - cost per sea-mile.
As planes get larger, costs per seat mile flown decreases. But that is only true if you fly them nearly full. In order to insure that, you have to have less frequency. What Western airlines knew is that on route from say New York to Hong Kong it is more competitive to have high frequency. So 4 Boeing 787 flights per day is more competitive than 2 Airbus A380 flights per day. More frequency = more consume choice. In addition going from 4 to 3 or 4 to 5 787 flights/day to adjust for demand is easier than going from 2 to 3 or 2 to 1 (bigger capacity change).
That is what did the 747-800 and A380 in.
11
The point is that the pax seat per mile is lower in business and first class. Those passengers use more fuel than the ones in coach. As usual the wealthy take more than their fair share. Don’t mention their Bentley that gets about 3 miles to the gallon.
I fly from Frankfurt and Munich to LA and SF three to four times a year and sometimes to Cape Town. I have always sought out 380s and I have flown in economy, premium economy and once in business. Anyone who has flown economy on a 380 and then on a 787 knows he/she is being punished on the Boeing plane. On the 380 I can walk around and stretch and the economy seats (especially on Lufhtansa) are excellent. Bigger screens on the TVs, too. Something else I believe (but cannot prove): it seems the air is circulated better on 380s--and all Airbus planes. I cringe thinking of having to fly on a 787 from Germany to California. Hope they keep the 380s flying for another decade. Until I retire.
41
@Ed Yes but the Boeing Dreamliner is even nicer. Can’t even notice the take off on that thing it is so quiet, and the tinting windows are awesome.
3
@Ed I don't know what planes you've been on, but as someone who has flown millions of miles for business and leisure, I'll take the 787 any time. Quieter, cleaner, better air. And I'm not partial to Boeing--I think the 747 is a monstrosity that belongs in a museum along with the 380--monuments to design gone horribly wrong.
1
@Ed I have enjoyed the A380, in business class too. As for the 787 Dreamliner, I found the air quite good for flights from the US to Japan - the air pressure is higher, and the climate control is better I believe, leading to less headaches, feeling off, having the contacts bothered, etc., when disembarking ...
2
Read "Antifragile" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; it's all in there. There are more than business lessons here--fair warning to both businesspeople and politicians (usually the same folks) who like to think BIG on the basis of shallow "forecasts" that, upon a challenge from time and stress, turn to fairy-dust.
3
The decision to build the A380 will be studied in business schools in the future. 20 years ago Boeing made a bet on the 787 saying there wasn't enough of a market for a full double-decker jumbo. Airbus disagreed. Frankly, I think it was a vanity project. I have to admit, I like flying the A380. Even in coach it was a quiet comfortable ride. However, flying in either the 787 or the A350 is even better. The air pressure is closer to normal and it is easier to sleep. Boeing made the better bet.
12
I think the NYT missed a richer opportunity here to revisit the story published while both the A380 and 787 were simultaneously under development. I recall a fascinating contrast in strategy made public by Boeing, who was forecasting the future in point-to-point flights between smaller markets, and Airbus essentially straight-lining passenger growth of the then-common spoke-and-hub system that required connections through major cities. They both knew each other's strategies and agreed to disagree in that article, continuing to develop the A380 and 787 in parallel and eventually the A380 launched in '07.
We now see who had the better multi-dimensional strategic planning abilities with the 787 winning. The A350 came much later in '15 well after Airbus realized their mistake. That is the future business case that will be studied.
23
I've taken plenty of flights on A380s and I never saw one of these lounges, as the airlines chose to fill up that second story with more seating. That said, it is a lot quieter up there than on the lower level. I'll be sorry to lose that option.
3
@Frank F
What did it feel like taking off? Does it lumber down the runway or do those engines really move it along? I'd love to see one fly.
2
@Frank F
Qatar has them. One of the joys of flying the A380. Of course, only in businesses class.
2
I saw the lounges but never once saw anyone hanging out at one. Always looked creepy and depressing.
2
I've flown the A380 on Emirates 4 times I think, both in coach and business class. Both are the best in the air, especially in business class.
I was so excited when I got to my gate at Dulles to fly Emirates the first time and saw that giant plane. The only other time I was excited about an aircraft was my first 747 flight about 40 years ago. Until I got on the plane and found it just like every other aircraft.
Not so with the A380. Better coach seat size, entertainment and food. More spacious interior, nice lighting. The service in coach was good, but not remarkable, until I upgraded to business class on my return flight. Climbing the spiral staircase, then bam! Just like the commercials, with superlative everything, including the super cool aft bar.
I know they are pigs and throw a lot of turbulence and the supposed politics of Airbus, yadda yadda, but if you want to be wowed when you fly, try the A380 once. You'll remember it.
19
Size, smize.
The real tragedy is that we're traveling at air speeds virtually unchanged for half a century.
The turning point was the USG's refusal (in '68 or '69?) to help develop with private industry a passenger SST. That would have moved the industry forward and increased American dominance in aviation.
The Concorde was a lesson in how not to do it.
Still, to arrive in NY before you left Europe (in terms of clocks and time zones) was a phenomenal advancement in air travel. It's one we could have improved and advanced further if we'd committed to a join industry-government partnership.
Instead we got the usual "it's not the business of government to help private industry" when in fact we do it every day.
Yes, the oil crises of the 70s would have complicated the mission, but it's a mission that would have meant a real change in this transportation mode.
Now we get wifi and things like a little map showing our plane's trip progress.
Wow. I'd change that in a minute for a few hours less travel time.
19
@DD Forget the flight times, with TSA, traffic, etc, I have to leave 2-3 hours BEFORE my flight to get to the airport, then commute an hour post landing to my destination.
For domestic travel - the Northeast Corridor, in California between Sacramento and the Mexican border, and various other multi-state super-regions, high speed rail would be that ultimate form of travel, speeding point to point travel substantially. Shaving hours off of point-to-point regional travel.
From California, everything in Asia and Europe is far, so does shaving 2 hours off of a flight to Paris really matter if it's 2x the cost? Shaving 3 hours off an 18 hour flight to Singapore? Not so much.
4
@DD
The problem is that as speed goes up the energy needed goes up by the square. It's inescapable and there is no technological way around it. In other words, fuel costs become unaffordable -- not to mention the impact that all that fuel burning has on the planet. Let's just stick with the trip times we have and be glad we at least have that.
6
@DD
The problem is the sonic boom. The FAA bans supersonic travel over land because of the boom, which is loud enough to break windows. NASA has handed a contract to Lockheed to build an SST with a much lower sonic boom. If they are successful, that will revolutionize plane travel.
3
From the time Airbus first challenged Boeing it seems to have had its sights set on topping the 747, the jumbo jet that defined long-distance travel. It took the Europeans awhile to get there but the A380 was their answer to the most recognized airplane in the world. Along the way they made Boeing a better company by giving it a real challenge with the A320/21 family against Boeing's single-aisle breadwinner, the 737 (and it's cousin, the 757). Your lede is misleading, Airplanes did keep getting bigger until the late 1980s when Boeing determined that they didn't need to. The heroes are the engine guys -- GE, Pratt, Rolls -- because they made bigger engines that drank less fuel so you didn't need a really big airplane to carry a lot of fuel to fly a really long distance. Airbus was in denial of this basic fact. There are a few super-hubs left in the world, but not many, certainly not enough to support airplanes as large as the A380. I've flown it; it's a nice airplane. It's all very well to think of building and flying such a large airplane. That is, after all, a tale Boeing began telling in the 1970s with the 747. By the time the A380 came along it was no longer a story the airlines or their passengers wanted to hear.
9
I am not happy about this! We keep losing nice things. For example, why can’t we re-introduce a Concorde type speed? It should not take 6 hours to get to London in 2019 when it took 3 hours in 1970.
As a very frequent flyer between NYC and Florida with JetBlue, the experience leaves a lot to be desired. Bumpy, jerky rides are standard. The noise level seems to go up every year. Lately, they’ve taken to boarding active duty military first, which is strange since they are the fittest and youngest among us. There’s a North Korean feel to this practice, but I digress..
The worst plane, one I now avoid like the plague, is JetBlue’s A321. They narrowed the already narrow seats, decreased leg room, and elongated it to resemble the proportions of a hot dog. Somehow they also managed to design an aircraft that transfers every bump and lurch right into the kidneys of its passengers.
Flying the A380 feels like being gently lifted up up up by a puff of cloud. It’s quiet, solid and smooth, a veritable cruise ship in the sky. It *feels* like the start of a vacation, as opposed to these smaller, nimble commuter planes.
Nimble = sporty ride. Think bumps, lurches, screechy sounds like nails on a chalkboard when the wheels come up (WD40 anyone?) or during takeoffs and landings. Can’t we do better than this? Yes, but that might cut into quarterly profits and they literally can’t give up a single penny.
11
@A. Simon Totally agree!
1
@A. Simon
Your belief that seats are getting narrower is widely shared.
But it is a myth. The cabin width of the A321 (and all the other models in that A3xx series) has never changed, nor has the seat width -- it's the same cross section it was when the aircraft were introduced decades ago, and the same 6 abreast seating. It's also a bit wider than its rival the Boeing 737, which also hasn't changed since the 707 was introduced in the 1950's. In short, the seat width has never materially changed nor could it -- It's impossible. OTOH we passengers have been getting wider over the years, which is the real explanation for the perception that the seats have been getting narrower, but that's not the airlines' fault.
3
@John Binkley
You’re spot on about seat width for narrow body planes like the 737. HOWEVER, it has decreased on planes like the 777, not because of Boeing, but because many airlines have opted to switch coach seating from the original 9-across to 10-across, which HAS lead to narrower seats and aisles. The same happened years ago to the 747 when airlines eventually added one more seat per row. A sad trend but it feeds into the equal trend of people buying tickets based solely on price, not any qualitative judgement.
5
Too many engines. No resale value. Too expensive to run. But passengers love it. It's a kind of Concorde 2.0
3
Looks like Boeing got it right with it's market analysis 20 years ago and Airbus got it completely wrong. That's a very painful mistake financially.
9
This is one of those, "I told you so," moments for me. I remember the stories of major airports seeking billions of taxpayer dollars to "upgrade" terminals for the access and egress of 500 passengers for each A380. This was a knee-jerk response to accomodate what I called a "white elephant" when it was introduced.
This aircraft was so huge, it made the 747 look like a commuter model. As they ticked of the list of amenities, it sounded like a cruise ship with everything but waterfalls, zip lines and a shopping mall. This was the Las Vegas strip with wings. Perfect for oil barons of the Arab states but, for the rest of the world, it has been a giant hoax. For international airports, remodeling those terminals at taxpayer expense was a bigger hoax.
Good riddance to The Great While Elephant.
9
Hated that plane. The only design criteria was to see how many folks they could cram into a single plane. Most airports had a single bridge. So they would deplane the upper deck first and then the lower deck. If you are sitting in Economy in the lower deck, it could easily take 30 mins to get off the plane.
And it was fuel guzzler.
Good riddance.
11
I'm a 777 pilot and I think the behemoth A-380 is a pig and has been shown to be a danger to every other airplane in the air, including other A-380s. Their size means that additional wake turbulence separation is required, even at cruise altitudes, which is unusual. So in an era when GPS, TCAS, and other technological advances has allowed for reduced separation of aircraft on ocean tracks, the A-380 needs more space, because airplanes flying through their wake have found themselves in being badly damaged or in nose dives. Additionally, this year my company is having to reprogram/reconfigure all of its simulators for FAA mandated "upset training" and I'm guessing that the possibility of a wake turbulence encounter with an A-380 is one reason why. Their size also required airports like LAX to make expensive modifications to their runway and taxiway configurations to accommodate it. In my view, the A-380 has been a big, expensive debacle, with nice amenities like shower and a bar. For me professionally, it's basically the dog at the dog park that everyone knows should be avoided.
91
Terrific context and perspective, Scott.
14
@Scott .
Hi Scott - Wake turbulence may figure into the need for upset recovery training but I suspect that the main reason has more to do with the engineers designing planes to fly with the center of gravity (CG) closer to the aft limit in order to reduce drag and save fuel. As a consequence, they are less stable. I was a passenger on the first commercial flight of the MD11 and the engineers were still aboard trying to work out the kinks in a fuel-pumping system that allowed them to adjust the CG in flight. Shortly after that flight there was a high-speed upset reported on another MD11 apparently due to having the CG too far aft.
2
I don’t see much written about the national pride aspect of an airplane. For example, looking at it from the outside, the Boeing 747 in all it incarnations, 100, 200, 400 and now 8, has always been a graceful beauty, the Queen of the Skies, and the A380 is plain ugly, especially because of the positioning of the cockpit between floors.
American carriers should fly the latest 747-8, if only for national pride. Instead, only the German Lufthansa ordered it. At least the 747-8 is still available while the A380 called it quits. The 747 has over 4 decades on the A380 and counting.
16
@Thinks
Actually, 110 748-8 are currently flying...two airlines use them for passenger service, Lufthansa and Korean Airlines...the rest are in cargo service.
11
@Thinks
Many US carriers fly Boeing 777s. Why foist an unprofitable plane on them just for 'national pride?' Especially considering the plane is mostly just assembled in Everett with materials and products from all over the planet.
3
@Thinks
Actually the 747 program is also near death -- Boeing told the Air Force to hurry up and order the new Presidential aircraft ("Air Force Ones") or risk not being able to get them at all. The problem is somewhat the same as with the A-380. They are 4 engine aircraft in a 2 engine world -- given recent advances in engine technology and reliability, 4 engine aircraft are simply no longer economical, although in freighter applications they are hanging on.
1
Qantas is at the forefront of busting the Emirates hub model that drove the use of the A380s. You can overfly Dubai from Australia to the UK (Perth to London) on a Boeing 787-9. Long haul travel has a market.
4
And you wonder why Britons are in favor of "Brexit". Welcome to Europe, the home of the government-sponsored boondoggle. It was widely reported at the time that Boeing thought this was a doomed idea, or otherwise they would have done one too.
5
@Jonathan The wings of Airbus are made in England.
3
Not for long!
Forget the "showers and sleekly designed bars" (which are also available on any biz-jet). This is about the 'spiral of death' curve that exists in every technology. That is, at some point the technology becomes so expensive that the society can no longer afford it. Similar spirals can be found in medicine, nuclear power, military equipment, aircraft engines, computers, superconducting supercolliders, automobiles and virtually all technological fields more than about forty years old.
Like the Concorde, the cost of the A380 finally hit the spiral of death.
4
I flew the A380 twice - Emirates and Lufthansa. All I can say is that no one seems to have thought about how to handle all of that baggage arriving at the same time.
23
Unfortunate track record - with the Concorde and now the A380.
“It’s not by accident that all the new models will only have two engines, not four" and "which can carry a little more than half the number of passengers as a 747." So isn't that a break even on fuel per passenger?
Too bad most A380 are part of the Emirates fleet. I personally endorse a BDS movement, especially after reading about Princess Latifa's kidnapping and torture of a woman who only wants to be free.
“It’s not by accident that all the new models will only have two engines, not four" and "which can carry a little more than half the number of passengers as a 747." So isn't that a break even on fuel per passenger? I would think the A380 makes sense for inter-continental flights as it is mostly used.
3
We could also reduce airport overcrowding by developing high-speed rail in the US. Airports severely impact the value and utility of vast amounts of land, and force heavy use of single-occupancy vehicles. Train stations take up much less space than airports, are less intrusive, and less subject to regulatory concerns. Historically train stations were the birthplaces from which towns and cities developed - and they can be again. Lay high-bandwidth fibre optic cable alongside the rail, and get broadband into the interior states. Connect 20-30 cities, make it possible and affordable for people to commute to jobs 200 miles away, then sit back and watch.
72
@Ko
HIgh-speed rail, thousands of miles of fiber optic cable— great ideas and I am for them. They require however a consensus that taxpayer dollars will subsidize them to the same extent they support building and maintaining toll-free asphalt, concrete and steel roads and bridges, and that the government can condemn and buy land to lay them. In a country where taxpayers run away from supporting the schools that teach their children how to read, good luck with that. That's why we will be flying to L.A. from N.Y.C. into the next century.
7
@Stuart Wilder NYC to LAX a flight is reasonable. DC to NYC or LA to SF or even CHI to NYC should absolutely be by train. And we an interstate system with a lot of land adjacent to build the rail and we have boring technology in which we can tunnel under cities as well. We need to stop making excuses and do something bold for once.
5
The problem for Airbus is that most of the people who can afford it's luxury have their own private jets. So it was targeting an audience that wasn't there.
5
@Matt A flight in business or first international is $10-$20k, many seats paid for by business travel budgets. A private aircraft flight is an order of magnitude larger at least, and almost never supported by business travel budgets. The problem with the 380 is not competition from private jets...
2
@Matt
The 300-400 Economy class flyers would disagree with you. Not much luxury there.
3
“To aviation analysts, the story of the A380 is the stuff of business case studies, and not the flattering kind. The life and death of the jet will stand as an example of the high cost of poor forecasting.”—so much of our lives are run on “predictions” that are simply wrong, but faith is placed on them as if those in the business of making such predictions were soothsayers. The fact of the matter is that the chances of predicting anything “accurately “ are at best 50/50. I am old enough to have lived over half a century, and although an academic who is in the business of understanding change over time, I also know there is nothing rational in foreseeing the future. Notions of climate change, the decline of the US empire, mounting inequality in this country as well as the world over, are more recent events (at least in the public’s consciousness) than notions of “poor forecasting “ imply. If the man in the WH and Wall Street shows us anything, is that testosterone more often than not, trumps ( no pun intended) rational choice or accurate forecasting in business or politics or anything involving human action.
9
I will remember my upgrade to an Emirates first class in 2010 from Dubai to JFK with a lot of fondness. It was the kind of luxury I felt completely out of place in, where every ounce of your body screams you do not belong here. You feel like a fraud when you are ordering off a menu which the crew prepares and serves in proper dinnerware. Full body massage sleeper chairs, everything remote controlled by a handheld remote, and your own suite that gives you a room.
Taking a shower in a proper sized bathroom over the Atlantic at over 30,000 feet, with proper towels and walking around padded footwear, Bulgari products, etc. It was opulence. A different version of the venerable Concorde.
And then I got into the smallest puddle jumper, 3 rows, for a 2 hour flight to St.Louis from JFK. The dichotomy was hilarious.
79
@Pillai
Maybe Airbus can refit these hideous airplanes into aerial firefighting units capable of dropping tens of thousands of gallons of fire suppresent on the wildfires arriving with increasing frequency.
Hey, we already have decommissioned 747's for that job. Maybe there is hope for justifying the design of a useless giant of a plane after all.
7
Too bad, but aerial firefighters are private companies that make huge profits and I’ve been asking the NYT do a story on them for years.
2
Water is too heavy for these planes to make any economic sense.
I flew Qantas First on a frequent flyer ticket between London and Sydney, and yes, it was quite the experience.
4
Interesting analogy about the airline industry going from SUV's to sedans when in the automotive market everyone is going from sedans to SUV's
The other thought that crosses my mind is imagine the carnage if one of those planes goes down with 600 people on board!!
6
@Costantino Volpe Looking around parking lots and freeways, I see a lot more sedans than SUVs. I will agree that producing SUVs is more profitable. Once again, we've been had.
4
I wish they would have announced what is going to happen to the 3500 workers affected by the end of production of the A380.
3
@L.A. Mueller
Most likely they will shift over to other productions lines. Very similar to what will happen to the 747 workers once that line winds down.
4
@Roger Binion I hope for this to be the case!
2
I have never been on one, but I saw the mob scene trying to board one at the gate in Sydney. It was obvious that the current gate waiting area was way too small to accommodate the number of passengers waiting to board.
4
I’m not a pilot nor a businessman. I’m an avid observer and have always had a passion for airlines and their amazing flying machines. Even I wondered at the time how the ginormous A380 would survive the not so distant future reality. Millennials want to get from A to B, that’s it. Fuel would not be cheap forever. Green technology would become the new focus of sales pitches. If I knew this, who on earth does marketing and forecasting for Airbus that missed all of this?
9
@Daniel B
Wait, what? This is also the fault of millennials? What isn't their fault?
Unfortunately I don’t have the financial power to ride an Airbus A380. But I am in the approach path to JFK, and it is a true joy to watch the 380s come in and take off. I’m glad that part won’t end imminently.
40
You're in New Jersey, so the A380 is at a higher altitude there on its approach. Here on Long Island, it's a bit overwhelming to see and hear one of those overhead.
10
@Paul in NJ Air France flies the A380 from DC and NY. A quick comfortable trip to Paris, even in economy.
5
@Paul in NJ
Agreed , I’ve watched them often from Sea Bright : )
1
It is an incredible experience as a passenger, take-off is so incredibly smooth and the flight has a stability that could put even the most frightened flyer at ease. When it first appeared there was a feeling of forward progress in airline technology, it was magical. Sad to see it go.
120
@Jason Sypher
No sadder than moi. With more long-haul routes of 12- and 14-hours popping up all the time, I still plan to go out of my way to pick carriers flying the A380, on which even the cheap seats are comfortable and well-appointed.
35
Just remember the aircraft of any size following you are subjected to the physics of such an massive aircraft. Just like a supertanker has a huge wake so does the A380. Minimum of seven miles in trail for all aircraft following the behemoth. Causing more congestion to our finite space in the air. Then it lands and needs extra space there too. Boeing made decisions that made economic sense.
33
Good point
7
Ah, the A380 - showers in 1st class, the fun bar, all that space and outstanding food and service. American carriers are uniformly awful; they’re engaged in a race to the deplorable bottom. Emirates actually made flying a fun and glamorous adventure again. I’ll keep flying Emirates A380s to my favorite destinations for as long as I can.
38
@Bruce Sebree
Agreed about the service on American carriers, but with this caveat - true, the airlines, have been voracious in trying to squeeze out every cent from passengers (of course they are a private business and no one is entitled to "cheap" airfares, however one defines that) but the American consumer bears a huge part of the blame. When you base your purchase decision almost entirely on the fare, proclaim loudly that you "don't care" about things like meals or niceties, etc., the airlines quickly caught on that for most traveller they may moan and groan but will snap up the fare that's $10 lower even if it means worse service and comfort. (You don't go to Motel 6 and then expect it to be like the Ritz.) The airlines have zero incentive to improve basic coach service. Higher fare classes like business are better because they cost more, though even there US carriers still often fail in comparison for a number of reasons, some fair, some not.
27
@Bruce Sebree. Showers and a bar are great for the upper class passengers, but to the rest of us it's just a bigger cattle car. I speak from experience.
15
@George S
Emirates is a government subsidized airline. That’s how they can manage to provide the service that they do. The A380 is a nice ride but the market undermined the mine is biggest mindset.
6
Here's an idea: climate change has created a growing problem of catastrophic wildfires in the western U.S. , and simultaneously, the supply of airworthy former military bombers and cargo planes is dwindling, and many airlines are hinting that they will retire their unprofitable A380s early. The U.S. Forest Service should fund a program to buy A380s and convert them into giant firebombers. Think of how much fire retardant one of these behemoths could carry. They could provide a invaluable service for many years to come.
3
@C Walton At $445,000,000 a plane? I don't think that will work.
4
@C Walton
Given the nature of the maneuvering required of fire bombers, it’s quite possible that an aircraft the size of the A380 would not be suitable in that role.
6
@Roger
The plane will not cost $445M when it is built for dropping fire suppression materials on a wildfire, or freight hauling for FedEx. No showers, bars, gourmet kitchens, leather seats, entertainment systems, carpets, sleeping quarters for anyone but a skeleton crew, and other hotel-like accommodations. When you don't need the Las Vegas strip amenities, a couple of restrooms and a microwave oven will do just fine for those long-haul flights.
1
There's an interesting article, in one of the industry publications I think, suggesting that Boeing goaded Airbus into developing the A380 knowing, based on their research which was even shared with Airbus, that the current situation would occur. Airbus developed the A380 in large part out of ego; to have the world's largest passenger plane. They got what they deserved. The "queen of the skies" (the 747) will always be so, because it came at a time when air travel was still glamorous. Unfortunately, those days are gone, and ironically, it's due in part to the 747.
10
@alocksley
It was a case of "mine's bigger than yours."
1
The A380 is an anachronism. But a magnificent one.
9
The agony of long distance flights (US anywhere to Australia/New Zealand) or over the Arctic to China/Singapore) would seem to be a selling point for these larger and repeatedly mentioned in the comments, as more comfortable. Since a commuter jet would not ever be able to carry enough fuel to do these runs, I'd think that these would be able to carry the extra long flight, without all the claptrap of bars and showers eating up weight and room, efficient enough to be able to charge a premium to have those who travel those distances enjoy the experience rather than dread it.
And, you can't deny the front-on view of the one in the background of the accompanying picture sure is cool looking.
4
@reid. The 380 is not more comfortable than any other plane for most passengers on board - it's simply a bigger cattle car.
2
@reid
I was able to fly Qantas First between London and Sydney and Qantas Business on the return from Melbourne.
In First, the 14 of us had two bathrooms to choose from. In Business, the 66 of us had four.
Meanwhile, the 371 Economy passengers had just eight.
Are you sure you want to be in a huge plane in Economy on a long haul flight with so few bathrooms?
1
I just can't figure out progress in air travel. When I was a boy, I correctly predicted that in the future we would not be flying en mass on giant dirigibles, and that jets would replace ocean liners for traveling to Europe. BUt I thought planes would get faster and larger until we would travel on jets that were either regular size and hypersonic, or enormous but merely supersonic. We were moving in that direction with the Concorde and the 747.
Using the present logic of airlines, are we to expect them to bring back the DC-3 and land them on dirt strips real close to the destination?
4
@thucydides. Not so much a joke, bringing back the evergreen DC-3. Like very slow drones and passenger light rail, energy costs and infrastructure limitations may point toward some seemingly retrograde solutions for moving people. Just after the Civil War, a pneumatic tube subway (partly actualized!!) was one way forward in New York City, and now reappears as a possible solution in California. Block-long blimps (unmanned) patrol that contentious Mexican border. Things with propellers still work, even in stratospheric solar-powered endurance craft. Tiny airports, now unused or frequented only by private planes, pepper the world. Given the awful hub airport experience today, only likely to get worse, half the airspeed in a small, efficient plane flying shorter distances would be an acceptable solution, at least to me. Do you think that, after the 90 years of DC-3, engineers might be able to actually build something similar, and better? I do.
6
@Marat1784
They already did.
They are the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320 series. They have the same basic concept that you find so attractive in the DC-3.
These are the two most popular airliners flying today.
We have a DC-3 that was built in 1944 and it is still going strong today.
3
I am an Australian expat living on the east coast. For the long leg (14h -17h) flying back to Melbourne, I have very much enjoyed the A380 ever since it appeared. I am not looking forward to returning back to smaller airplanes.
21
@Frozy
I would expect Qantas to put 777s on that route once they retire their A380s in how many years in the future.
It is anything but a small plane.
3
I’ve worked in and close to the airline industry for 50 years. Airline economics are at once complex and straightforward. Yes, as planes got bigger, costs per seat dropped. Controlling expenses has always been important (more so
after governments allowed the industry to run like others, by selling state-owned lines and ending silly economic rules that prevented
competition).
So the A380, with very low per-seat costs, looked like a winner. That said, revenues matter more, and real airlines - ones owned by
investors, not fat-cat Emirati sheiks - came to understand that big airplanes are narrowly suited to big routes. Fly them on smaller routes and you lose big money.
Real and smart airlines understand something else: on dense, big routes, you earn more flying two smaller jets than one jumbo. In jargon, these are economies of scope. Yes, two planes cost more than one bigone, but you gain more revenue by offering choice - two departures, not one. And every flyer likes choice.
American Airlines (where I worked 22 years)
learned this 40 years ago with 747s - great planes, but not suited to AA routes. So when Airbus tried to sell us A380s, we said "no thanks." We knew two 767s - or better yet, newer 787s - would work better on, say, a London route than would the huge jet.
42
I don’t care how great your former employer considers their fleet. I stopped flying American years ago as the planes were dirty and the staff rude. I pay more to fly Lufthansa, El Al and British Airways when traveling abroad. Within the states I stick to Jet Blue and Virgin. The big American Airlines have to improve their service before I would fly with them again.
5
@Robert Britton
AA flies 777s between London and US exclusively. I've never seen a different model available when buying tickets.
And you are absolutely correct about the frequency. Having only flight a day on a big plane means passengers even have really long layovers or even overnight stays depending on where they are flying from.
5
I saw the process of orders placed for A380s in late nineties as a finance professional. What I liked most was the encompassing cooperation between Airbus and Emirates that made a fresh flying experience for its passengers financially possible. The relationship went through its test when delivery of A380 was delayed partly because numerous design changes by client were carried out. Close to half a billion dollars may be a lot to pay for an aircraft but having a fleet of 100 aircraft is a tribute to a robust client-vendor engagement.
4
I think it was a major oversight to not include the fact that Singapore airlines, the machine's "first to fly" airline, had no desire to keep their first two delivered machines after their lease ran out. They were so painfully overweight no price could make a case to keep them flying. So these 15 year old airliners (half of their planned life spans) will be cut up for scrap.
The bottom line is the 787 and A350 "plastic twins" are lighter and thus more fuel efficient per seat mile.
Airbus made the same mistake with their previous four holer the A340 (which tried unsuccessfully to compete with the 777, also to my knowledge no US carrier purchased).
The A350 is a competitive machine. Its unfortunate that it took so much European taxpayer funded development to make that happen. Developing two machines for each successful one (330 v 340, 350 v 380) is rather wasteful.
5
@Paul Lindblad
I could be mistaken but I think that Delta had some A340s in their lineup. I believe they used if for their Atlanta-Johannesburg flights.
I flew Cathay Pacific on A340s and was very unimpressed. The fuselage was way too small for a 4 engine airplane. It was a very claustrophobic experience.
2
@Roger Binion Besides anything related to President Trump, I can think of nothing more depressing than flying from Atlanta to Joburg on Delta, regardless of the aircraft.
2
It is very unfortunate to see this. I miss those 747s and not this. Instead of fixing the high cost, like moving manufacturing to US or somewhere else from high price Europe, they decided to that lose. Not sure why put more people in the plane and reduce the cost of tickets instead of bars!.
1
@Arni
It's not the cost of manufacture - it's the operational cost, the fuel, the staffing, the airport fees (based on weight), etc. The A380 could have held almost 800 people though no one ever choose to use that high a density. The amenities, like the bars and showers, were in first class with astronomical air fares to go with it, which had little to do with the ticket price in steerage.
4
A one airline aircraft. Like others in history-- the Concorde, the never produced US SST-- who thought that had legs?
The 380 is the Rolls Royce of the skies. Not affordable to most airlines, just for a few. However, the Boeing 787 is the Mercedes of the skies. It's great and affordable to most.
@Templer
I think you're living in a bubble if you think Mercedes is affordable to most. Maybe Honda. But not Mercedes.
7
Please don’t degrade Mercedes. Flying coach in a 787 is a torturous experience, nothing great about it.
3
@Daniel B
People often forget that it’s not th fault of the airplane manufacturer...the airline is the one who decides how many seats to cram in, the legroom, buying the cheapest, thinnest coach seats, etc. - don’t blame Boeing for that.
17
Boeing had it right all along. When Boeing decided not to create a competitor to the 380, the press thought that Boeing was going to ultimately loose to Airbus. But Boeing's reasons were exactly what this article points out were the reasons for the 380's failure. As a result, Boeing is in a much better strategic place today.
15
@Tone Kelly
Absolutely right. The dread liner 787 is a great success, but in the initial steps it had some problems.
2
@Tone Kelly
No offense, but Boeing dumped a ton fo money into the wing redesign of the 747-800 which will also cease production in the same timeframe. Maybe not 10B EUR, but a lot.
3
@Paul Lindblad
The 747 will live on as a freighter for years to come. UPS just recently ordered a number of new 747-8F planes.
And the only reason Boeing agreed to do the wing and engine upgrade was because Lufthansa wanted something like 20 or so of the planes.
While the 747-8 passenger plane has not been a success, Boeing still made over 1,500 747s to date. They have more than recouped any investments into the plane.
6
Hmm. Wonder if I might pick one up cheap on eBay?
2
@Me
The first two which were delivered to SQ are sitting on the ground in Toulouse waiting to be sold for scrap.
3
How ironic that the 380’s muse was clearly the 747. Airbus will always be Pepsi to Boeing’s Coke.
40
@Hollis Absolutely correct. The 380 was born of pure hubris...Airbus desire to steal some crown from Boeing.
13
With 500+ passengers on board, I doubt that those of us in steerage class would get to visit the bar or take a shower.
58
@Chasseur Americain
Passengers in first and business class have access to the bar and shower areas.
Those travelling in first and business class have paid for the exclusive privilege to use those facilities.
6
@Jordan Ah, No. It's an open secret that 70-80% of all First Class airline seats are filled by upgrades and non-revs and full fare paying passengers.
5
@Charlie
Charlie,
Outside of North America airlines typically do not do the American-style automatic upgrades.
The airline featured, Emirates, does not upgrade economy passengers unless there is an overbooking.
It appears you are writing about the US airline policy, in which case would not apply to the A380.
6
It is a shame Rolls Royce wouldn't work to modernize the engines to keep this plane competitive. I do so enjoy flying the A380, its roomy, boards in minutes and is ever so quiet. Such a far cry from flying cross country (USA) in 30 years old 737's making stops at every other airport squashed into ever tinier planes. Yuk!
82
@John Edelmann Rolls Royce would have had to invest millions for an engine for a plane nobody wants. In the end there was no business case for that investment.
2
For clarity:
Connecting flights: You change planes and flight numbers* to complete your journey.
Direct flights: You stop along the way, you stay on the same plane. The flight number remains the same. (sometimes they let you visit the gift shop)
Non-stop: Universally understood.
*and sometimes airlines
14
@Mike B
But even with many direct flights, you have to deplane.
I flew Qantas A380 London to Sydney and Melbourne to London for the return and we made a 90 minute stopover in Dubai where everyone had to leave the aircraft, and take all personal belongings as well.
Granted it was direct but, honestly, changing planes would have been no big deal all things considered.
1
@Mike B
There are still other varients, such as the famous "change of gauge" direct flight where you change to another usually smaller aircraft but stay with the same flight number.
But most importantly, as you say direct means same aircraft and flight number but with a stop along the way. Many/most people do confuse this by referring to a non-stop as a direct" flight, so you can't really say non-stop is universally understood.
1
Boeing figured out what the Europeans did not.
In the ‘60s, a big plane that connected hubs would be more profitable for operators than a small supersonic plane. The 747 beat out the fuel guzzling Concorde.
In the 2000s, a smaller, twin engine, very efficient plane that could open new city pairs to non-stop flights beat out the four engine behemoth A380 (which I think is a real plane that came a decade or more too late)
Now, Airbus is trying to fill a gap left behind by the retirements of 757s with the A321LR (long range) and Boeing will probably announce its new mid-size airplane, a twin aisle, potentially unconventional design, and it will probably win again.
That’s why 80% of backlog at Airbus is made up of single aisle planes while Boeing’s smaller, but more valuable backlog has a better balance of single and twin aisle models.
Just wait until the new subsidy battles begin since A380 hasn’t repaid all of its government funded development loans.
22
@Steve Ell
I agree Boeing will probably win with its new mid-size plane. Who wants to fly across the Atlantic in a single aisle sardine can? Not me.
That being said, the A350 appears to be successful for Airbus, but again, they had to play catch up to the beyond-evolutionary 787.
1
How much money was spent by how many airports to construct new double-decker boarding ramps to accommodate this double-decker jet that they assumed would be around forever? Makes the US airlines and many US airports look rather prescient, though I expect their good fortune results from inertia and not foresight.
10
Let's not forget about other infrastructure costs. Airport bridges at JFK, ORD and DFW have/are being modified for the A380. I am not sure if it was for weight or evacuation reasons. Costs included not only financial reasons but years long projects that hinder regular traffic patterns while aircraft taxi. So many passengers are quick to complain about airline XYZ took so long to get to the gate that I missed my connection. Well if the bridge is out and two direction taxiways are now one way at a time then all bets are off. Our tax dollars going out of their way to pay for subsidized airlines to fly an albatross to our airports has never made sense to me. You want to bring that behemoth to my airport? You pay for the infrastructure.
5
@DA agree 100% (though the A380 was a total pleasure to fly in, THB)
2
Propelled by the ego of Icarus, airplane manufacturers also know to expect and accept the financial risks of flying. American deserts are loaded with examples of the mothball effect.
4
It is certainly a shame but the A380 was doomed from the start. Its fuel hungry 4 massive jet engines burned too much fuel. It's too big to land at many airports. The designers thought airports would expand as they did for the 747 but that didn't happen. I think the A380 was either too late or too early.
2
I remember the near vitriolic debate over which plane was gong to succeed - the 380 or the 787. So many “experts” said Boeing had made a fatal flaw and oiled crater ocer their decision. But even then, the plane seemed to big to me to thrive whereas the fuel efficiency and speed of the 787 seemed exactly where the market would go in 20 years. As a 100,000-mile traveler a year, the largest jets I fly routinely are the 350 and the 767. Never saw the need for much larger.
Once again, Boeing gets it right on the future of air travel.
2
The 21st century Concorde. Technological marvel that unfortunately never found its place in the world. I always enjoyed flying this plane, sad to see that its days are now numbered.
11
@MPD A380's is the closest a long-haul flight can get to being serene.
Big, roomy, quiet, clean - turbulence was someone else's problem. Just utterly impressive that it could effortlessly mosey about in the sky like a whale doing ballet.
Enough whimsy - Boeing nailed the economics 20 years ago, but all other planes seem a bit vulnerable and flimsy now.
3
@tbgb303
Clean? The A350 is more efficient on the seat mile in the configuration that airlines currently fly.
2
I wonder if there's any strategy for the air freight companies to start picking these up at a discount from airlines who want to unload them.
They may not fit the passenger airline market anymore, but for international air freight they seem like a pretty interesting strategy if you can buy them on the cheap, and enough of them to have a longer term supply of spare planes that can be cannibalized for parts.
9
@Mobocracy
Airbus Wingbox is too bulky to effectively use the under deck storage for cargo. That is essentially why the cargo model was cancelled.
With only 300 units built, it will be a similar production run to the L1011 Tristar (which granted, some were used for cargo, but not as many as the DC10/MD11)
1
FedEx initially had it ordered but realized when it breaks they would have to have three spare MD11s fly in to pick up the cargo. Still does not make economical sense. Economies of scale. You need to many of them to be efficient.
3
@Mobocracy
The Boeing 747 is inherently a better freighter than the Airbus A380 because it has a better ratio of cabin volume to weight capacity. The A380 was designed to provide cabin volume for passengers rather than the necessary load-carrying capacity for freight. This design compromise largely explains why Airbus never sold a single A380 freighter.
Cargo airlines will likely prefer converted passenger 747s over A380s. A historical irony is that when the 747 was designed, industry observers were expecting supersonic airliners to take over the intercontinental travel market, so Boeing designed the aircraft to be easily converted into a freighter. This design decision is now proving valuable, albeit for a different reason than originally predicted.
Of course, one never knows. Example: the well-publicized safety problems with the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 prompted passenger airlines to dump them in the 1980s and 1990s. Even though the DC-10 is not the greatest cargo aircraft either, FedEx bought dozens of them, spent millions of dollars on upgrades, and still flies many of them, some of which are almost 50 years old—and they have an excellent safety record.
Perhaps the growing problem of western U.S. wildfires will prompt the creation of an A380 firebomber, as has been done with both the 747 and DC-10!
6
I remember watching the test flights land and take off from the Frankfurt, Germany airport from my balcony. Landing seemed normal, but takeoffs were nerve racking to watch as it looked like they really needed another 1000ft of runway. Nice concept in theory, but my colleagues and I knew it had a very limited market.
1
There is a small irony here--this jet, which is described as reflecting an earlier era's view of air travel as "luxury", was named Air-BUS (as in Greyhound). For me today's air travel is indeed reminiscent of mid 20th C. bus travel and I for one, avoid it whenever a trip is under 1000 miles. But, I do live in the West, where car travel in an exercise in existential and aesthetic pleasure.
Today's air travel makes me sad and anxious. Anyone remember the fun of Braniff or the professionalism of Pan Am?
35
@rodo
But things are so much better now than they were in the 50's right?
4
@rodo This is not the name of the aircraft, but the name of the company.
2
@rodo
Ah, Pan Am - on one of their 747 flights, I did not realise we were on the ground already: the pilot had put it down like a feather.
12