Why I really like this channel: short and tightly edited content delivered in less than 5 minutes. No ads interrupting and NO begging for money! Subscribed and always pleased to watch a new released video.
The Final A-380 and 747 are going away around a similar time, except 747 has been around since 1969 and A380 since early 2007. Really shows how airlines needs have changed and how the end of super jumbos is over. The 747 and A-380 will live in our hearts forever.
I flew on the A380 once! Smooth as silk! Very gentle take-off, spacious business class seats, lots of bathroom space, space to get up and stretch your legs, visit the snack bar, and the landing was barely perceptible! Quite the experience! Cheers from California!
Oh yes, it's a great plane. I love that A380 Emirates from LAX to Dubai. But as a machine it's a beast, hard on runways, costly to fly, and requires special airport modifications. So it has limited applicability compared to the 7-series wide bodies.
The A380 is by far the quietest bird up there, and I’ve flown in them all in over the past 50 years. Since Air France got rid of theirs, I’ve missed them sorely.
The A380 uses a higher proportion of its fuel on take off than any other make of airline. So, because the three major American Airlines do such a higher percentage of short - haul routes between American cities than the Asian carriers, it is not viable for them to fly A380's. Delta, for example, fly about 85% of their routes between San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. These routes are their bread and butter. However, an airline such as Qantas fly a much lower percentage of these kinds of flights as there are only two cities in Australia with anywhere near this kind of domestic traffic, Sydney and Melbourne. And any long haul flight to large centres from Sydney, for example, is seven hours or more (Dubai and Los Angeles are 14 hours, even Hong Kong is 10) because Australia is such a long way from anywhere else! So it makes much more sense for Qantas to fly A380's. And also, once an A380 takes off or lands other aircraft, even B777, cannot land or take off for another three minutes due to the air displacement by the huge A380. It is not possible to have this kind of delay at Atlanta, Dallas or Chicago where craft take off and land every 45 seconds.
I have flown on an A380 from Melbourne to Dubai. What a beautiful smooth flight it was. It will probably be the last time i get a chance to fly in one.After covid there probably wont be many flying again.
Remember, most US airports are not slot-restricted like other airports around the world. As such, the need for a plane as big as the A380 by US based airlines is essentially zero. That's why US based airlines fly large fleets of widebody two-engined jets instead.
@RandomDefaultGamer United needed them because they had a lot of busy intercontinental routes, especially after they bought Pan American's Pacific operations in 1985. That's why United was one of the first airlines to buy the 747-400 and ended up with a fleet for 44 planes at its peak.
.....That and the fact that it is quite difficult, even internationally, to find 500-700 people who want to travel from one airport to another airport at one particular time. This drastically cuts down on the ability for this airplane to stay in the air the requisite number of hours per day to have its inherently high fixed costs make any fiscal sense.
@RandomDefaultGamer So getting rid of 4 engined planes means they should buy more? Is it opposite day? You might have an actual argument if they kept their 747s and were buying more.
@@Flies2FLL There was an era when there was a hub system, you fly international and there were select few airports in every country to which international flights would go and their their codeshare with domestic or other airlines would drop passengers to their desired airports and this was the era when A-380 was envisioned. Now as air travel has become more common and more people are flying internationally, its easy for airlines to fill up small planes to different airports in the country. So now filling up A-380 gets difficult, but as the pandemic starts to subside in a year or 2, passengers will still be less and flying them to smaller airports will become costly and there might be a chance that A-380s might still have a use for some time to come. BA does so well with large planes is because its in the center of two huge landmasses. It can collect passengers from one side gather them all at one spot(Heathrow) and then have them take their destination flights(collect passengers from different flight to one). This makes their operations cost effective for them and then there is always British hospitality.
In the US, it’s not the number of passengers on a flight, but the number of flights a passenger can choose. Multiple frequencies to a destination drives traffic.
The number of flights and the number of airports. Americans in many US cities can choose from THREE airports (the Bay Area has SFO, OAK, and SJO; LA has LAX, Long Beach, and SNA; New York has JFK, La Guardia, and Newark). I can think of no other country where more than one city offers such a choice.
@@malvoliosf , in fact, LA has LAX, Long Beach, SNA, Ontario, and Burbank. Everyone I know who's gone through Burbank loves it compared to LAX. That's 5 airports not even counting if you expand all the way down to San Diego and Palm Springs.
@@genkibob Yup, and NYC has Teterboro and Republic Airport in addition to the Big 3. Only London has anything comparable (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Louton, City, and Southend). Paris has three (Orly, CDG, and Disneyland); Bangkok and Tokyo have 2 each; Rome only has 1, I think...
The best flight I have ever been on was a Qantas A380 Melbourne to Singapore. So comfortable and new with a great entertainment system. 8 hours flew by
I still miss the good ole 747s ….I recall being on one of its first maiden voyage from SF to HK on a Pan Am 747..when air travel was more comfortable than now.
In America i heard that frequency is more ideal so that passengers have more flexibility on when they want to travel. That's why smaller jets are operated in those popular domestic routes
Frequency, and, as the video said, less hub and spoke and more point-to-point non-stop operations. The French were betting on having the bragging rights of building the biggest airliner ever, and thus they bet against the market. They lost.
The US doesn't have a highly developed high speed passenger rail service. The US elected to build highways in the 1950s and focus on automobile travel and later on, air travel. The US had a couple key factors which made this the reality we see today. One is fuel cost. Gasoline and Diesel are cheap in the US compared to Europe. The other is public transit. European cities, even those rebuilt after WW2) were not designed with cars in mind. Sure they can accommodate them to some extent but you'd be nuts to fly to London or Berlin and rent a car to drive around town. American cities, even those predating WW2, found themselves surrounded by car-centric suburbs. Couple that with lower taxes on things like cars and you quickly get a recipe for not needing trains. Cheap fuel, cheap cars and nice highways between cities. Today, you can fly between most American cities fairly cheaply and rent a car (or if you're in the few US cities with good public transit, use that) to get around. Or, load everyone in the car for the great American road trip. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, a fuel tank of fuel was $25 and that would get you 300ish miles. You're not going to fly 4 people from Phoenix to Los Angeles for that. There is no train between the two that comes close to the travel time you get by flying or driving (PHX to LAX is less than 2 hours and driving from Phoenix to Los Angeles is ~5hrs) between the two. It's just a different market.
The A380 was designed for classic wheel-and-spoke style operations; carrying passengers from hub to hub: passngers would then fly from hub to final destination on smaller planes. The A380 was introduced, just as airlines began operating point to point, using smaller; more economical aircraft (767 and 777) flying direct from one airport to another.
I think you mean hub and spoke. Unless you are departing from a major airport, nearly every option you will have is hub and spoke. How many people on any given day are flying from Kalamazoo to Topeka? Unless it is a large group traveling, not enough to justify even one point to point flight between the two. Or imagine if people from 100 different cities need to fly to Little Rock on the same day. No way LIT could handle that amount of point to point traffic. People want to fly from the nearest airport. And most of the time, those are smaller airports which necessitates the need for connections at hubs like ATL and ORD
@@kristopherloviska9042 Oh there are plenty of point-to-point flights to/from secondary airports in cities like San Antonio. Hub and Spoke still exists - don't get me wrong. But we are in an era where there is a blend of hub and spoke and point to point. Southwest Airlines has mastered and spearheaded the shift toward point to point operations even as they do hub and spoke. They are so successful that other airlines are forced to do the same in order to compete.
That’s obviously because you can’t fly on an Emirates 787. It’s the airline not the plan. Try an A380 on a European carrier and you’ll know how awful it can be.
@@Perejil1319 I flew on a Lufthansa A380 from Frankfurt to Delhi and it was the best flight ever. I was fortunate to have my employer pay for business class though. I can't speak for the experience of those who flew coach.
When Qantas say that they can operate TWO 787s going to the same place at the same time cheaper than one A-380 kind of says something about the economics of the plane.
Flown three times on a long haul A380 from Heathrow to Kuala lumpar twice with Malaysian Airlines and both times the aircraft was full. Next time was with Quantas Heathrow to Singapore to Melbourne and plane was half empty. Had the row of seats to myself. Got plenty of sleep on that trip lol
I worked at the Denver airport for a short time, I asked one of the operations people if an A380 could land there/ He said yes, but it couldn't use any of the gates, because they didn't have anything powerful enough to push an A380 away from a gate.
@@TurboSpeedWiFi I know powerbacks are not allowed, I meant is it physically capable of a powerback? (Also I know they were never really done with underwing engines, because of debris).
And you could schedule the Dreamliners several hours apart to make it convenient for people who want to leave or arrive at different times. For example, and early morning departure for one of the planes and an afternoon departure for the other.
@@garrett69 I believe Simple Flying or one of the airline channels mentioned it as a one liner but they have this on their site: simpleflying.com/airlines-are-grounding-their-a380s/ However this site did a really detailed cost analysis of a number of aircrafts: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936119301244
A380 is from approx $22000 an hour to run, 787 is approx $9000.. this is coming from Qantas.. so flying 2 nose to tail would be cheaper and for Aussies.. 1/2 can go to lax and 1/2 to sfo 😄
I remember when the A380 was being developed, Boeing was placing it's bet on airlines needing a smaller more fuel efficient plane instead which was the goal of the 787 program. This was before the A350 was being developed.
The real reason? The A380 does not have a cargo modification. Its always going to haul people, where as the 747 can be refitted for cargo once it stops being useful for passengers, or divided to haul both.
It's amazing to me how many people that are apparently fans of aviation seem to think that US based airlines only buy American built airplanes. Have any of those people ever been to an airport?
Even the 747 wound up being used in the US only on international flights. When the 747 was at its height, there were much fewer international hubs for American domestic airlines to fly into. When the 767, 777, and the 787 came online, there were many more international airports for the Americans to fly into, thus the need even for the 747 started to dry up.
You hit the nail on the head. The huge capacity of the A380 (and even the 747) makes no sense between US routes. In fact, more airlines are going to smaller jets (CRJs, EMBs, etc.) because, even though it is more expensive, it is more convenient for the traveler. There's a fine balance between convenience and cost, but the A380 tipped the scales way out of balance.
It’s just a different time in the US. When I was a kid in the 80s, every flight between big hubs were DC10s, 767s, L1011s, etc. Eventually the airlines realized those big airplanes were almost never full so they weren’t making money.
One need only look at the horrible day of 9/11 to see how underused large airliners were on an average weekday morning. Of the four planes that were destroyed, only 232 passenger seats were occupied out of a combined total of approximately 900 seats.
We also forget about the time it takes to load and unload these huge aircrafts. Imagine over 600 passengers running down the halls all trying to get to customs first….and the line ups when they got there.
I used A380 to arrive in Paris, Sydney, and Singapore. I had no problems with customsc queue as they have well designed customs. I used B787 to arrive in LAX one time. I waited close to two hours just to pass customs, manned by only two elderly gents as two other airlines arrived at the same time. So it’s a matter of whether airports are willing to service passengers or not.
Exactly like what happens when three international flights land within 10 minutes which happens almost every day at the big airports. Having 600 people in the LAX customs hall is situation normal. I have done it around 15 times.
@@awonoto Us Customs give foreign travellers a raw deal every single day. The foreign people might outnumber the Americans three to one especially on flights from Korea, Japan or China. Despite those numbers more than half of the customs agents will be assigned to clearing the US citizens. Once all US citizens are gone the supervisor will leave one on duty and tell all the others from the US section to take a break. There might be 500 foreigners still waiting but that's just too bad. I have seen this happen many times.
The first and last time I sat on a 747 was before 2000. My first & last flight on A380 was in 2017. Flying abroad on a 737 or A320 doesn't feel like a vacation.
Really it wasn't the size of the plane...it was the huge amount of upgrading the jet required. Everything in the airport needed upgrading to fit the new plane including larger taxiways. The cost was too high.
@@ameerali.ouarda No one is gonna upgrade their airports for A380 when it isn't even being made anymore. And no, many airports still don't support it. And many of the airports that "support" the A380 only do so at 1, maybe 2 gates. Hence the multi hour delays for HiFly when they tried to fly into an airport that "supports" the A380, JFK.
My theory: Back in 1970, when the 747 and Lockheed and Douglas' trijet wide bodies started servicing the U.S., they founf that they could not fill these larger planes. Besides, U.S.. passengers want infinite choices of departure points, and departure and arrival times. This model was served more flexibly by smaller planes of that time(737, 727, DC-9), and of current times(A319, 320, 737, etc).
It could make sense to have a few Airbus A380s for a smaller number of routes (especially international), but aside from the lower fuel costs to operate other jets, carriers try to stick with a smaller variety of planes. Fewer certifications for pilots and for those who service the fleet. Also a smaller range of tools needed as well.
The problem is that a new 747 is more economical than an A380, so the the 380 is actually a failed design from the very start. Of course, even the latest 747 can't compete with the newest twin engine long haul aircraft so even it is reaching the end of it's lifespan as a people transport.
I work at the DFW airport and like mentioned in the video it is to large, there is one gate we have for holding such a large aircraft such as the 747 series at gate D16x (we have terminal F being built that will hold more international flights). One day i hope to see the 380 pull in.
@@Peter-vn8ue Yep. And I saw it parked at D terminal a few times while transiting thru to wherever I was going. They ran the 747-400 on that route as well. BTW, that DFW-SYD route was the longest in the world at the time - and I think holds the record. 18+ hours
McCarran Intl. here in Las Vegas added one larger gate to Terminal 3 (D gates) in order to accommodate the A380 and didn't do so until 2017. The demand just wasn't there considering most international flights prior were all 747s, planes which can use other terminals. And it looks like it may never be there. Interestingly enough, LAS did play host to an Antonov AN-225 once, but just for cargo when it delivered a huge transformer for a solar power plant.
@@DriveCarToBar It's not just the gates, there are some airports where there are taxiway restrictions on A380s (and some other jumbos), because there just isn't enough room for them to taxi safely.
US airlines would only buy the A380 if they could find a way to double the seating capacity. American Airlines is trying to find a way to reduce the legroom to 4.2” and convert the cargo hold to accommodate another 400 passengers.
The A-380 was designed for long-haul, mass transport and with no exceptions, the US airlines didn't have that model, so this aircraft didn't fit. As the video said, the 777-200ER/300ER provided all the seating required for US airlines, even flying overseas. I flew the 777-300ER from SFO-ACK and it was very comfortable and efficient for passengers. Since the unveiling of the 787 however, some of those airlines are dropping the 777 and picking up the 787 instead. Now that Airbus has released the A-350-900/1000, I foresee some competition with the 787.
WHY buy something where the profits all go to an overseas country, or two, when by staying with Boeing, you are keeping more American dollars IN America? I understand that we do have an Airbus factory or two in the US but the profits, like those of the damnable Toyota, all go back to a foreign country.
@@richardcline1337 This has nothing to do with WHY THE A-380 was not used by American carriers. This sounds more like a personal rant about foreign companies taking money from American businesses. Not relevant.
@@richardcline1337 Hey, so we Europeans should only buy Airbus planes then huh? To prevent our hard earned euros going to a foreign country like the US? Come on that’s international business. Americans buy Airbus planes and Europeans buy Boeing planes and vice versa.
American is the biggest operator of the A321, the A350 is Delta's flagship and they also have 100 A321neos on order. They definitely do not overlook Airbus.
If Trudeau and Trump allow more Visa, Green Card and Citizenship to Indian, then Indian carriers may buy all the A380s in the world in the first phase. In the second phase, we will convert all of them into cargo carriers so that mommy can send all the pickles and raw jackfruits. (Surely for fun only) But we have one fundamental question. Kitna deti hai ? (Means "how much does it give?" direct reference to mileage.)
I flew on it once between Paris and Atlanta and the flight was so empty honestly I don’t know why AirFrance used it for that flight but at least I can say I have flown on one
In April 1967 I was active duty Navy and took a TWA Boeing 707 from JFK to Rome, Italy in an all nighter. That airplane only had about 40 passengers. After an hour or two I just about had the Stewardesses all to my self. I got the phone number of two of them (all Americans) based in Rome and in September 1968 called the number and got one of the girls on the phone. I was going to be in Rome that week and asked if I could get together with her. She could and I saw Rome unlike most tourists don't. Bottom line of my little story--- that airplane was less than 20% full. At the time, the 707 was as big as they get.
@@iceman1125 Not a bit. I'm just saying that if a US airline couldn't at least half fill an international flight with around 80 people, why would they want a much bigger plane with over twice the capacity of a 707 and still only have 40 people
@@johnemerson1363 every Flight I usually catch to from Europe to the US is overbooked, regardless which Airline.... terrible. You are talking about long times ago....
The best explanation of the A380 usage and the way US airlines operate that make it a non viable aircraft. Europe and Asia operate very differently, and Middle Eastern countries different again. Most of it is down to geography, but the US has been operating frequent low volume routes for decades, and there never was any plan to change that.
Hawaiian and probably UAL could have used the A380 on their longest hauls. But engines have become so efficient and reliable nowadays that it's routine for a stock B737 or A320 to fly between LAX-HNL or slightly further. Not having A380s on hand actually allows a carrier to match equipment with demand more nimbly.
Unless there’s a catastrophic pandemic US Airlines don’t usually get subsidies - thus in normal times we have to actually show a profit. Hard to do in a four engine aircraft.
The A380 would have been a financial disaster for US based airlines, it would have been a 4 engine white elephant. The US has 7 major hub airports, but the vast majority of airports, in which there are many operate with Boeing 737 size jets, the 767's & 777's serviced the the 7 hub's vary efficiently and a lot less expensive then a A380. Also note that the vast majority of US airports are set up to use boarding and unboarding gateways, the A380 is just too large, even at most of the major hub airports, those airports would have had to make major expensive modifications just to accommodate that aircraft. A lot of airlines around the world have taken a big financial loss operating the A380 and then to retire the jet after only 10 years, that jet is like new because it never accumulated many take off's and landings like smaller jets do, that is where all your wear and tear is done to modern jet aircraft, a 737 might have 6-8 take off and landing cycles a day, a A380 only one. There are a lot of airlines around the world who's balance sheets are bleeding red because of the A380, the US airline can all sit back knowing they safely dodged that bullet.
Expensive enough that McCarran Intl. (LAS) here in Las Vegas added one gate that could service an A380. The 747s on the other hand, can go to other terminals. Looks like they made a good choice in not spending all that much to handle the big fat airbus.
I think the US carriers got it right and passed on the A380. 2007 was hell for the airlines and by 2008 many airlines ceased operations, the A380 was just not feasible.
When the air traffic control system is fully updated, there will be more "free flight' off the major air routes and that will make the smaller and mid size airports more profitable and with it smaller jets more profitable as well. keep one more thing in mind: The Boeing 747 was originally conceived as a pure freighter. The passenger version was dreamed up only once the American SST was cancelled. The thinking was, long haul passengers on the SST. long haul freight on the cargo-only 747 One reason the American SST WAS cancelled was that it was going to be the biggest as well as the fastest plane ever built, and that was just such an unreachable goal, at least for the first SST. While Concorde had trans-Atlantic range that Washington Dulles to Paris run was about it's limit, especially since it had to slow down to subsonic speed once over land. And outgoing from Dulles, it could not go supersonic until it got offshore
I love big jets like the A380 & 747, but they're more of halo projects now. I think the A380 could've proved to be a formidable freighter, but that was never factored into its original development like it was for the 747.
I have flown on an A380 five times and have almost no complaints. The only negative is that you have to be patient when getting off because it can take 20 minutes. It doesn't bother me but some do complain. For a regular economy class passenger the plane is a great experience.
At end of the day B777, B787, A330 & A350 are the best in all accounts for any airlines around the world. Yes.. Both B747 & A380 are incredible aircrafts but not suitable for 21st century market.
And Juan Trippe backed the 747 not as a luxurious method of transport (that went the way of the flying boats) but as a way of cramming as many livestock, er, passengers into each flight, thus lowering the ticket price.
There's another reason I missed in your video: Airbus is European Boeing is American. Thus leads to PR, Patriotic and even political reasons why us airlines will choose Boeing over Airbus. I know there are a few Airlines that have Airbus but mostly A320/321 and not that much in their fleet.
@@mbspoobah Well I'm not familiar in depth about US airlines. On a side note both Airbus and Boeing have their own great features. Unfortunately the A380 has the same fate as the Concord. By the time it got released the aviation changed so much it was unnecessary. Still the queen of the sky is B747, the King is the A380 and the princess is the Concord if you ask me.
There is some truth in that, however US airlines didn't purchase too many 747 either. Airbus aircraft are well represented in a number of US airlines, just as Boeing has a large market share in Europe.
I remember when 744s flew between JFK and SFO. That hasn't been the case for 30 years now. It's all about economics. I do hope that I get onto an A380 before they're gone - I just love the idea of the upper deck 2x2 sitting configuration - so awesome
American carriers have largely dropped the hub-and-spoke system that made large craft like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 useful. They now try very hard to have direct flights between city pairs, and smaller, more fuel-efficient twin jets handle that nicely.
Been on one once, a BA flight into Heathrow. It's HUGE to the point where it doesn't sound or move like any other plane when you're on board, which I liked.
I love it. What a lot of people don't realise is that the A380 is far superior in many ways. For a start, it's not built on a 50 year old airframe that has been self certified since inception. Secondly it is more fuel efficient than the 747. Thirdly, it has much better build quality and much more up to date tech. And it looks so much better than the 747, more streamlined. Also worth noting, the decision to pull the plug on the A380 may be a little premature since fuel costs are currently much lower now than 5 years ago.
Steve Wood Don’t you think that’s a moot point? Both the A380 and the 747 are being discontinued, and like it was stated in the video, the reason behind the A380’s failure isn’t just because of fuel costs, but also they’re much harder to fill than smaller aircraft.
Doge Bomber Steve literally copypasted the description of the 737 max from some Boeing hater but replaced it with 747. Notice how he said ‘50 year old air frame’ as if the 747 airframe is outdated or problematic or unnecessary to improve just cause it has been around for 50 years. Also notice the use of ‘self certified’.
One of the other things not mentioned in this video is the sheer size of the A380 requires airports with longer runways and jet ways that are modified to allow such a large plane park at the gate. All of these require the airports to spend money for upgrades to accommodate only one type of airplane. This means that there are relatively few airports in the world, let alone in just the United States, that are set up for the A380 to fly into and out of.
A380 wing was designed too big - it was meant to accommodate a future stretch variant of the A380 without having to re-design the wing, hence all A380's are lugging around tons of extra metal they don't really need.
The A380 was obsolete the day the first one was delivered to its buyer. While Airbus was building a massive point-to-point people mover, the airline industry was shifting to more fuel efficient aircraft with an emphasis on flexible route scheduling and less reliance on central hubs to move people to their destination.
Trijetz Yeah, British Airways did have their cargo Boeing 747-800 but not anymore but since their Boeing 747-400s retired they shouldn’t have been using Boeing 747-800s to replace it but they don’t have their passenger Boeing 747-800
The problem was that Airbus thought with their hearts and not their minds. They wanted to build the biggest jet at the time no matter what. Boeing listened to their analysts who said the market wasn't there for the big jets and that the airlines wanted smaller fuel efficient jets which could fly into more hubs. They came up with the 787 to do just that.
As an American who has traveled a lot I personally don’t think the a380 could have worked in America because it’s JUST TOO BIG and expensive to operate
The A380 was the answer to a question nobody asked. While Airbus squandered resources into building an airplane for an outmoded transportation model, Boeing developed the 787, which Airbus had to scramble to counter with the A350.
Logistically a A380 would not work in the US because people here expect to have choices. Airlines started hub operations with large planes and many people were upset that they all had fewer choices. For instance back in the 90s Delta flew three flights from Jackson MS to ATL. There was a lot of grips about having only three departures a day for the one-hour flight, meaning many times long layovers in ATL. In the 2000s Delta reduced the size of the planes to the route and increased the frequency with a lot of customers liking it more. In other words, a 380 is good for carrying lots of people, but I don't think it would help with impatient and dissatisfied customers.
I have flown on an A380. It is a big plane. The bigger the plane, the smoother the ride is what I have experienced. I think this plane is just a little before the market demand. When the planet earth gets to 10 billion people, I think people are going to wonder how we even traveled around on smaller planes. The 747 is still my favorite big plane; the 757 is my favorite luxury sport plane, and the MD-80 is the quietest plane in first class that I have ever flown.
I’m an American living in Europe, and have flown the A380 on occasion. Great aircraft, super smooth, quiet and a lot more leg room. But with COVID, air travel won’t recover anytime soon. Having said that, it might be a good time to acquire them super cheap.
Pre Pandemic, Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS) handled 40 million passengers a year but wasn't represented on your little U.S.A. map. I'd wager McCarran is in the top five U.S. airports for departing passengers. Other airports may handle more passengers overall but a lot are transfers which are easier to process. Former TSA TSO.
Another issue with the A-380 was that a number of smaller hub airports were unwilling to completely refit for A-380's need for wider runway and taxiways, larger gate and ground handling space....and deal with the wake vortex separation issues....
Only been on a couple of Airbuses, but never the 380. I absolutely love the 777, though. Not many frills, but a comfortable, spacious, and extremely safe craft.
What really doomed the A380, compared to the 747, is that the A380 could not easily be converted into a cargo aircraft. Cargo 747s are still flying around the world.
I believe that your comments about the A380 were spot on. No US airline would support the A380. If they were going again with a four engine it would have been the B747.
No, because the short turn around time required for the LCC model to work is impossible to do in a large wide body. That’s why the overwhelming majority of low cost flying is done by 737/A320.
I find that when I board larger flights like 747’s then there is more bottlenecks and waiting at check in, security, boarding and baggage pick up. Although the Airlines and Airport can technically control this and increase the capacity, in reality most don’t. So when you fly small all the lines just move faster and when you fly big everyone ends up waiting longer multiple times which just increases the stress of flying..
Besides the fact that the A380 was unviable on most routes, US airlines didn't want to antagonize Boeing that played a major part in the non orders. Having said that the aircraft would have served well on trans Atlantic routes like NY-London, NY-Paris etc.
That's an excellent point. The Boeing Company has influence over US government regulators, the aviation industry, and their airliner customers. During the 80s, I have no doubt that The Boeing Company used it lobbying power to make regulations hostile to the Concorde and too expensive to become profitable.
Some people have asserted that the last version of the Boeing 747 was introduced primarily because Boeing could produce it with built-in freight sales for far less money than Airbus could complete the A380, so the last 747 was essentially designed/built to stall Airbus’s response to the 787 by convincing Airbus to spend time and resources on a plane type that Boeing had already determined was not the future of aviation.
The A380 always looked to me like a European ego trip. If it had been more successful I would have had to take that back, but events seem to confirm that view.
If there was any real need for a superjumbo in American fleets, the 747-8 is more economical to operate per passenger mile than the A380. (Assuming both aircraft are flying at full capacity.) American fleets would have taken the 747-8 which would have required no infrastructure upgrades in order to accomodate it. Being able to handle the A380 requires substantial infrastructure upgrades at airports and maintenance facilities, all of which cost money.
Delta will probably buy some used ones in 20 years to ensure that they keep their fleet old.
John P lmao
@@Penske_Penguin It was a joke dood
Next Trump personal jet
@@calidude1114 YUUUGE
As someone who’s flown a lot of Delta, I can confirm they’ll use only the oldest of old planes.
Why I really like this channel: short and tightly edited content delivered in less than 5 minutes. No ads interrupting and NO begging for money! Subscribed and always pleased to watch a new released video.
Totally agree. Every word adds value, contrary to many other sites where people just spend too much time talking without adding any real information.
Yes I totally agree
The Final A-380 and 747 are going away around a similar time, except 747 has been around since 1969 and A380 since early 2007. Really shows how airlines needs have changed and how the end of super jumbos is over. The 747 and A-380 will live in our hearts forever.
I flew on the A380 once! Smooth as silk! Very gentle take-off, spacious business class seats, lots of bathroom space, space to get up and stretch your legs, visit the snack bar, and the landing was barely perceptible! Quite the experience!
Cheers from California!
Oh yes, it's a great plane. I love that A380 Emirates from LAX to Dubai. But as a machine it's a beast, hard on runways, costly to fly, and requires special airport modifications. So it has limited applicability compared to the 7-series wide bodies.
@@genkibob A tough business model!
The A380 is by far the quietest bird up there, and I’ve flown in them all in over the past 50 years. Since Air France got rid of theirs, I’ve missed them sorely.
That one time bigger wasn't better for the USA
Actually it wasn’t a new trend. US carriers have long preferred frequency over consolidation of traffic onto a huge aircraft
When it was to BIG and POWERFUL for USA
Oh yeah yeah
No doubt that there is something bigger in Texas anyway since they claim "Everything is bigger in Texas!"
KAOS especially the asylums.
Emirates: *ILL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK.*
your*
I Said it right
@@literalyou104 not before you edited your comment lmaoo
@@ChrisGugliuzza ik lmao
Emirates can’t even operate them for profit. They’re constantly getting money funneled into them by the government. Just like Qatar
The A380 uses a higher proportion of its fuel on take off than any other make of airline. So, because the three major American Airlines do such a higher percentage of short - haul routes between American cities than the Asian carriers, it is not viable for them to fly A380's. Delta, for example, fly about 85% of their routes between San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. These routes are their bread and butter. However, an airline such as Qantas fly a much lower percentage of these kinds of flights as there are only two cities in Australia with anywhere near this kind of domestic traffic, Sydney and Melbourne. And any long haul flight to large centres from Sydney, for example, is seven hours or more (Dubai and Los Angeles are 14 hours, even Hong Kong is 10) because Australia is such a long way from anywhere else! So it makes much more sense for Qantas to fly A380's. And also, once an A380 takes off or lands other aircraft, even B777, cannot land or take off for another three minutes due to the air displacement by the huge A380. It is not possible to have this kind of delay at Atlanta, Dallas or Chicago where craft take off and land every 45 seconds.
I rather read comment than watch the video. 👏
The A380 is an aircraft or airplane not an airline.
Adieu Nightmare, If you'd rather read it, you can find all of our videos published as articles at simpleflying.com - TB
@riff maka or unless people are fine with the restrictions or are scared from this pandemic.
@riff maka like north korea yeah i agree.
I have flown on an A380 from Melbourne to Dubai. What a beautiful smooth flight it was. It will probably be the last time i get a chance to fly in one.After covid there probably wont be many flying again.
Remember, most US airports are not slot-restricted like other airports around the world. As such, the need for a plane as big as the A380 by US based airlines is essentially zero. That's why US based airlines fly large fleets of widebody two-engined jets instead.
@RandomDefaultGamer United needed them because they had a lot of busy intercontinental routes, especially after they bought Pan American's Pacific operations in 1985. That's why United was one of the first airlines to buy the 747-400 and ended up with a fleet for 44 planes at its peak.
@RandomDefaultGamer Delta inherited the 747-400 fleet from Northwest Airlines when they merged with that airline in 2005.
.....That and the fact that it is quite difficult, even internationally, to find 500-700 people who want to travel from one airport to another airport at one particular time. This drastically cuts down on the ability for this airplane to stay in the air the requisite number of hours per day to have its inherently high fixed costs make any fiscal sense.
@RandomDefaultGamer So getting rid of 4 engined planes means they should buy more? Is it opposite day? You might have an actual argument if they kept their 747s and were buying more.
@@Flies2FLL There was an era when there was a hub system, you fly international and there were select few airports in every country to which international flights would go and their their codeshare with domestic or other airlines would drop passengers to their desired airports and this was the era when A-380 was envisioned.
Now as air travel has become more common and more people are flying internationally, its easy for airlines to fill up small planes to different airports in the country. So now filling up A-380 gets difficult, but as the pandemic starts to subside in a year or 2, passengers will still be less and flying them to smaller airports will become costly and there might be a chance that A-380s might still have a use for some time to come.
BA does so well with large planes is because its in the center of two huge landmasses. It can collect passengers from one side gather them all at one spot(Heathrow) and then have them take their destination flights(collect passengers from different flight to one). This makes their operations cost effective for them and then there is always British hospitality.
In the US, it’s not the number of passengers on a flight, but the number of flights a passenger can choose. Multiple frequencies to a destination drives traffic.
The number of flights and the number of airports. Americans in many US cities can choose from THREE airports (the Bay Area has SFO, OAK, and SJO; LA has LAX, Long Beach, and SNA; New York has JFK, La Guardia, and Newark). I can think of no other country where more than one city offers such a choice.
@@malvoliosf , in fact, LA has LAX, Long Beach, SNA, Ontario, and Burbank. Everyone I know who's gone through Burbank loves it compared to LAX. That's 5 airports not even counting if you expand all the way down to San Diego and Palm Springs.
@@genkibob Yup, and NYC has Teterboro and Republic Airport in addition to the Big 3. Only London has anything comparable (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Louton, City, and Southend). Paris has three (Orly, CDG, and Disneyland); Bangkok and Tokyo have 2 each; Rome only has 1, I think...
@@genkibob Absolutely. I avoid LAX any time I can when Burbank is an option.
The best flight I have ever been on was a Qantas A380 Melbourne to Singapore. So comfortable and new with a great entertainment system. 8 hours flew by
totally right, I enjoyed my flights Frankfurt - NY and SanFr - Frankfurt, also.
Love the pun, Ivor!
I still miss the good ole 747s ….I recall being on one of its first maiden voyage from SF to HK on a Pan Am 747..when air travel was more comfortable than now.
Ever since the FAA certified twin engine aircraft on long oversea routes, this spelled the demise of 4 engine airplanes.
What did it do to the tri-jet?
@@toemblem Killed it.
@@toemblem It's also difficult to access the 3rd engine for maintenance.
I was joking
777 is noting but a 737 scaled up. A cattle car. I’d take A380 business class all day over any Boeing product 1st class.
In America i heard that frequency is more ideal so that passengers have more flexibility on when they want to travel. That's why smaller jets are operated in those popular domestic routes
That is how it is in every airline though.
Frequency, and, as the video said, less hub and spoke and more point-to-point non-stop operations. The French were betting on having the bragging rights of building the biggest airliner ever, and thus they bet against the market.
They lost.
yeah sure - and THEN wasting hours for check in and TSA check.... wow - simple math would help ;-)
The US doesn't have a highly developed high speed passenger rail service. The US elected to build highways in the 1950s and focus on automobile travel and later on, air travel. The US had a couple key factors which made this the reality we see today. One is fuel cost. Gasoline and Diesel are cheap in the US compared to Europe. The other is public transit. European cities, even those rebuilt after WW2) were not designed with cars in mind. Sure they can accommodate them to some extent but you'd be nuts to fly to London or Berlin and rent a car to drive around town. American cities, even those predating WW2, found themselves surrounded by car-centric suburbs. Couple that with lower taxes on things like cars and you quickly get a recipe for not needing trains. Cheap fuel, cheap cars and nice highways between cities.
Today, you can fly between most American cities fairly cheaply and rent a car (or if you're in the few US cities with good public transit, use that) to get around. Or, load everyone in the car for the great American road trip. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, a fuel tank of fuel was $25 and that would get you 300ish miles. You're not going to fly 4 people from Phoenix to Los Angeles for that. There is no train between the two that comes close to the travel time you get by flying or driving (PHX to LAX is less than 2 hours and driving from Phoenix to Los Angeles is ~5hrs) between the two.
It's just a different market.
thats why america shouldve purchased like 3500 concordes and used federal subsidies to operate them on short-haul routes like billings to topkea
The A380 was designed for classic wheel-and-spoke style operations; carrying passengers from hub to hub: passngers would then fly from hub to final destination on smaller planes. The A380 was introduced, just as airlines began operating point to point, using smaller; more economical aircraft (767 and 777) flying direct from one airport to another.
I think you mean hub and spoke. Unless you are departing from a major airport, nearly every option you will have is hub and spoke. How many people on any given day are flying from Kalamazoo to Topeka? Unless it is a large group traveling, not enough to justify even one point to point flight between the two. Or imagine if people from 100 different cities need to fly to Little Rock on the same day. No way LIT could handle that amount of point to point traffic. People want to fly from the nearest airport. And most of the time, those are smaller airports which necessitates the need for connections at hubs like ATL and ORD
@@kristopherloviska9042 Oh there are plenty of point-to-point flights to/from secondary airports in cities like San Antonio. Hub and Spoke still exists - don't get me wrong. But we are in an era where there is a blend of hub and spoke and point to point. Southwest Airlines has mastered and spearheaded the shift toward point to point operations even as they do hub and spoke. They are so successful that other airlines are forced to do the same in order to compete.
After around 7 long haul flights in the Emirates A380 I cannot imagine flying without it.
@IbrPlayz same, my flights were 14 hours each and felt no more than 5-6 hours
That’s obviously because you can’t fly on an Emirates 787. It’s the airline not the plan. Try an A380 on a European carrier and you’ll know how awful it can be.
@@Perejil1319 yeah but I’ve also flown same route but on the 77w and A380 is better.
@@Perejil1319 I flew on a Lufthansa A380 from Frankfurt to Delhi and it was the best flight ever. I was fortunate to have my employer pay for business class though. I can't speak for the experience of those who flew coach.
most people that watched this video already knew the answer
Yep
"NOT BOOOORRRNNNN IN THE USAAAAAA"
When Qantas say that they can operate TWO 787s going to the same place at the same time cheaper than one A-380 kind of says something about the economics of the plane.
thebigcnel shawty got a fatty
Because too expensive American can’t afford it.
Boeing to US Airlines : I dare you, I double dare you !!
US airlines didn’t buy the B747-8 either.
Jon Jackson they just aren’t needed anymore. The 777 and 787 changed the game for them.
"I triple dog dare you."
@@mr.mcbeavy1443 Slight breach of etiquette, that...skipping the double-dog and triple dare before going right for the throat.
"I triple Mad Dog dare you"....lol.
Flown three times on a long haul A380 from Heathrow to Kuala lumpar twice with Malaysian Airlines and both times the aircraft was full. Next time was with Quantas Heathrow to Singapore to Melbourne and plane was half empty. Had the row of seats to myself. Got plenty of sleep on that trip lol
I worked at the Denver airport for a short time, I asked one of the operations people if an A380 could land there/ He said yes, but it couldn't use any of the gates, because they didn't have anything powerful enough to push an A380 away from a gate.
it does have thrust reversers
@@nutsackmania Can an A380 do a powerback? That would be something to see :)
@@TurboSpeedWiFi I know powerbacks are not allowed, I meant is it physically capable of a powerback? (Also I know they were never really done with underwing engines, because of debris).
@@TurboSpeedWiFi But in KSP, it reverses ALL of it. Too bad that isn’t true in Real Life, though…
@@wickedmuffin76 plus the a380 only uses 2 engines for reverse thrust I believe
It's still cheaper to fly 2 787 Dreamliners with the same amount of passengers as one A380.
And you could schedule the Dreamliners several hours apart to make it convenient for people who want to leave or arrive at different times. For example, and early morning departure for one of the planes and an afternoon departure for the other.
How do you work that out? Where is your information from?
@@garrett69 I believe Simple Flying or one of the airline channels mentioned it as a one liner but they have this on their site: simpleflying.com/airlines-are-grounding-their-a380s/
However this site did a really detailed cost analysis of a number of aircrafts: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936119301244
@Steve Wood I think it was Qantas’ CEO Alan Joyce who made that statement
A380 is from approx $22000 an hour to run, 787 is approx $9000.. this is coming from Qantas.. so flying 2 nose to tail would be cheaper and for Aussies.. 1/2 can go to lax and 1/2 to sfo 😄
I remember when the A380 was being developed, Boeing was placing it's bet on airlines needing a smaller more fuel efficient plane instead which was the goal of the 787 program. This was before the A350 was being developed.
The real reason? The A380 does not have a cargo modification. Its always going to haul people, where as the 747 can be refitted for cargo once it stops being useful for passengers, or divided to haul both.
It's amazing to me how many people that are apparently fans of aviation seem to think that US based airlines only buy American built airplanes. Have any of those people ever been to an airport?
People that only have flown on Southwest apparently. I’ve been on many smaller Airbus planes flown by Delta and American.
Even the 747 wound up being used in the US only on international flights. When the 747 was at its height, there were much fewer international hubs for American domestic airlines to fly into. When the 767, 777, and the 787 came online, there were many more international airports for the Americans to fly into, thus the need even for the 747 started to dry up.
You hit the nail on the head. The huge capacity of the A380 (and even the 747) makes no sense between US routes. In fact, more airlines are going to smaller jets (CRJs, EMBs, etc.) because, even though it is more expensive, it is more convenient for the traveler. There's a fine balance between convenience and cost, but the A380 tipped the scales way out of balance.
It’s just a different time in the US. When I was a kid in the 80s, every flight between big hubs were DC10s, 767s, L1011s, etc.
Eventually the airlines realized those big airplanes were almost never full so they weren’t making money.
One need only look at the horrible day of 9/11 to see how underused large airliners were on an average weekday morning. Of the four planes that were destroyed, only 232 passenger seats were occupied out of a combined total of approximately 900 seats.
I flew the A380 from Houston to Dubai on Emerates. It was great!
It's the most comfortable pleasant quiet plane ever
We also forget about the time it takes to load and unload these huge aircrafts. Imagine over 600 passengers running down the halls all trying to get to customs first….and the line ups when they got there.
I used A380 to arrive in Paris, Sydney, and Singapore. I had no problems with customsc queue as they have well designed customs. I used B787 to arrive in LAX one time. I waited close to two hours just to pass customs, manned by only two elderly gents as two other airlines arrived at the same time. So it’s a matter of whether airports are willing to service passengers or not.
Exactly like what happens when three international flights land within 10 minutes which happens almost every day at the big airports. Having 600 people in the LAX customs hall is situation normal. I have done it around 15 times.
@@sav7568 are you an American citizen? I came as a foreigner.
@@awonoto Us Customs give foreign travellers a raw deal every single day. The foreign people might outnumber the Americans three to one especially on flights from Korea, Japan or China. Despite those numbers more than half of the customs agents will be assigned to clearing the US citizens. Once all US citizens are gone the supervisor will leave one on duty and tell all the others from the US section to take a break. There might be 500 foreigners still waiting but that's just too bad. I have seen this happen many times.
The first and last time I sat on a 747 was before 2000. My first & last flight on A380 was in 2017. Flying abroad on a 737 or A320 doesn't feel like a vacation.
I took a 747 and an A380 on the same trip in 2009: LAX to AKL for the 747 and SYD to LAX for the A380.
@dangerous at any speed not yet
@@arob79 I'd be looking forward to the flying experience more than the destination 😁
@dangerous at any speed I was on a350. Hated it. Very bad ac
@dangerous at any speed LH
Really it wasn't the size of the plane...it was the huge amount of upgrading the jet required. Everything in the airport needed upgrading to fit the new plane including larger taxiways. The cost was too high.
I disagree. The upgrading has already been done. For example British Airways flies its Airbus A380 Jet to San Francisco, Miami and Los Angeles.
@@ameerali.ouarda No one is gonna upgrade their airports for A380 when it isn't even being made anymore. And no, many airports still don't support it.
And many of the airports that "support" the A380 only do so at 1, maybe 2 gates. Hence the multi hour delays for HiFly when they tried to fly into an airport that "supports" the A380, JFK.
My theory: Back in 1970, when the 747 and Lockheed and Douglas' trijet wide bodies started servicing the U.S., they founf that they could not fill these larger planes.
Besides, U.S.. passengers want infinite choices of departure points, and departure and arrival times. This model was served more flexibly by smaller planes of that time(737, 727, DC-9), and of current times(A319, 320, 737, etc).
I've flown on quite a few A380's and it feels so cool to get on and off it
It could make sense to have a few Airbus A380s for a smaller number of routes (especially international), but aside from the lower fuel costs to operate other jets, carriers try to stick with a smaller variety of planes. Fewer certifications for pilots and for those who service the fleet. Also a smaller range of tools needed as well.
The problem is that a new 747 is more economical than an A380, so the the 380 is actually a failed design from the very start. Of course, even the latest 747 can't compete with the newest twin engine long haul aircraft so even it is reaching the end of it's lifespan as a people transport.
I work at the DFW airport and like mentioned in the video it is to large, there is one gate we have for holding such a large aircraft such as the 747 series at gate D16x (we have terminal F being built that will hold more international flights). One day i hope to see the 380 pull in.
Qantas flew one of their A380's from Sydney to DFW before the pandemic.
@@Peter-vn8ue Yep. And I saw it parked at D terminal a few times while transiting thru to wherever I was going. They ran the 747-400 on that route as well. BTW, that DFW-SYD route was the longest in the world at the time - and I think holds the record. 18+ hours
At some airports I've been at, the plane can't fit at any gate, so they've shuttled passengers from the terminal to the tarmac.
McCarran Intl. here in Las Vegas added one larger gate to Terminal 3 (D gates) in order to accommodate the A380 and didn't do so until 2017. The demand just wasn't there considering most international flights prior were all 747s, planes which can use other terminals. And it looks like it may never be there.
Interestingly enough, LAS did play host to an Antonov AN-225 once, but just for cargo when it delivered a huge transformer for a solar power plant.
@@DriveCarToBar It's not just the gates, there are some airports where there are taxiway restrictions on A380s (and some other jumbos), because there just isn't enough room for them to taxi safely.
US airlines would only buy the A380 if they could find a way to double the seating capacity. American Airlines is trying to find a way to reduce the legroom to 4.2” and convert the cargo hold to accommodate another 400 passengers.
😂 I just flew on American and this is too true.
The A-380 was designed for long-haul, mass transport and with no exceptions, the US airlines didn't have that model, so this aircraft didn't fit. As the video said, the 777-200ER/300ER provided all the seating required for US airlines, even flying overseas. I flew the 777-300ER from SFO-ACK and it was very comfortable and efficient for passengers. Since the unveiling of the 787 however, some of those airlines are dropping the 777 and picking up the 787 instead. Now that Airbus has released the A-350-900/1000, I foresee some competition with the 787.
WHY buy something where the profits all go to an overseas country, or two, when by staying with Boeing, you are keeping more American dollars IN America? I understand that we do have an Airbus factory or two in the US but the profits, like those of the damnable Toyota, all go back to a foreign country.
@@richardcline1337 This has nothing to do with WHY THE A-380 was not used by American carriers. This sounds more like a personal rant about foreign companies taking money from American businesses. Not relevant.
A350 competes directly with the 777 variants. A330 series , epsc the new Neo model competes with the 787.
@@richardcline1337 Hey, so we Europeans should only buy Airbus planes then huh? To prevent our hard earned euros going to a foreign country like the US? Come on that’s international business. Americans buy Airbus planes and Europeans buy Boeing planes and vice versa.
Such a pleasure to fly on this it’s truly beautiful.
Andreas Jacovides I love this gorgeous plane
Il est fabriqué chez moi à Toulouse 🇫🇷
@@alexandrebenoin40 un collègue !!!!!🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
Tristan Helfenbein ouais 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
If the Airbus did come into either American or Delta I’m sure they will find a way to overbook it.
American is the biggest operator of the A321, the A350 is Delta's flagship and they also have 100 A321neos on order. They definitely do not overlook Airbus.
Imagine Southwest trying to fly the A380
Lmao
They’d probably fill it but it still wouldn’t be profitable given the massive costs to operate the damn thing
Would be a disaster🙄😭
Asian airlines be like: I will buy all of your A380’s
**Emirates has joined the chat**
@Cream Michael Asiana Airlines is a Korean airline.
@Cream Michael I'm not rude :D
If Trudeau and Trump allow more Visa, Green Card and Citizenship to Indian, then Indian carriers may buy all the A380s in the world in the first phase.
In the second phase, we will convert all of them into cargo carriers so that mommy can send all the pickles and raw jackfruits.
(Surely for fun only)
But we have one fundamental question.
Kitna deti hai ? (Means "how much does it give?" direct reference to mileage.)
Vijay Kamat no❤️
I flew on it once between Paris and Atlanta and the flight was so empty honestly I don’t know why AirFrance used it for that flight but at least I can say I have flown on one
In April 1967 I was active duty Navy and took a TWA Boeing 707 from JFK to Rome, Italy in an all nighter. That airplane only had about 40 passengers. After an hour or two I just about had the Stewardesses all to my self. I got the phone number of two of them (all Americans) based in Rome and in September 1968 called the number and got one of the girls on the phone. I was going to be in Rome that week and asked if I could get together with her. She could and I saw Rome unlike most tourists don't.
Bottom line of my little story--- that airplane was less than 20% full. At the time, the 707 was as big as they get.
flight was empty and you're complaining.?? do you like crouched with other people in tight spaces?
@@iceman1125 Not a bit. I'm just saying that if a US airline couldn't at least half fill an international flight with around 80 people, why would they want a much bigger plane with over twice the capacity of a 707 and still only have 40 people
@@johnemerson1363 every Flight I usually catch to from Europe to the US is overbooked, regardless which Airline.... terrible. You are talking about long times ago....
@@FRITZI999 Yes, 50 plus years ago. A long time ago.
I just love these little snippets of info 🖤
Have flown in the A380 a few times and loved it. Lots of room . . . nice aircraft.
Ryan air a380 isn’t real, it can’t hurt you
Ryan Air A380:
The best explanation of the A380 usage and the way US airlines operate that make it a non viable aircraft.
Europe and Asia operate very differently, and Middle Eastern countries different again. Most of it is down to geography, but the US has been operating frequent low volume routes for decades, and there never was any plan to change that.
Hawaiian and probably UAL could have used the A380 on their longest hauls. But engines have become so efficient and reliable nowadays that it's routine for a stock B737 or A320 to fly between LAX-HNL or slightly further. Not having A380s on hand actually allows a carrier to match equipment with demand more nimbly.
I've flown JFK-HNL a few times on Hawaiian and they use the A330. Works well.
Unless there’s a catastrophic pandemic US Airlines don’t usually get subsidies - thus in normal times we have to actually show a profit. Hard to do in a four engine aircraft.
The A380 would have been a financial disaster for US based airlines, it would have been a 4 engine white elephant. The US has 7 major hub airports, but the vast majority of airports, in which there are many operate with Boeing 737 size jets, the 767's & 777's serviced the the 7 hub's vary efficiently and a lot less expensive then a A380. Also note that the vast majority of US airports are set up to use boarding and unboarding gateways, the A380 is just too large, even at most of the major hub airports, those airports would have had to make major expensive modifications just to accommodate that aircraft. A lot of airlines around the world have taken a big financial loss operating the A380 and then to retire the jet after only 10 years, that jet is like new because it never accumulated many take off's and landings like smaller jets do, that is where all your wear and tear is done to modern jet aircraft, a 737 might have 6-8 take off and landing cycles a day, a A380 only one. There are a lot of airlines around the world who's balance sheets are bleeding red because of the A380, the US airline can all sit back knowing they safely dodged that bullet.
The plane still operates in American airports… just on foreign airlines is all…
Expensive enough that McCarran Intl. (LAS) here in Las Vegas added one gate that could service an A380. The 747s on the other hand, can go to other terminals. Looks like they made a good choice in not spending all that much to handle the big fat airbus.
Right. Wouldn’t be practical… at all.
@@brilliantlysplendid A very, very limited number of US airports.
I think the US carriers got it right and passed on the A380. 2007 was hell for the airlines and by 2008 many airlines ceased operations, the A380 was just not feasible.
When the air traffic control system is fully updated, there will be more "free flight' off the major air routes and that will make the smaller and mid size airports more profitable and with it smaller jets more profitable as well.
keep one more thing in mind: The Boeing 747 was originally conceived as a pure freighter. The passenger version was dreamed up only once the American SST was cancelled.
The thinking was, long haul passengers on the SST. long haul freight on the cargo-only 747
One reason the American SST WAS cancelled was that it was going to be the biggest as well as the fastest plane ever built, and that was just such an unreachable goal, at least for the first SST.
While Concorde had trans-Atlantic range that Washington Dulles to Paris run was about it's limit, especially since it had to slow down to subsonic speed once over land. And outgoing from Dulles, it could not go supersonic until it got offshore
The A380 looks so beautiful with the AA Livery!😍
Singapore airlines is the first one to retire the very first A380.
I love big jets like the A380 & 747, but they're more of halo projects now. I think the A380 could've proved to be a formidable freighter, but that was never factored into its original development like it was for the 747.
One simple reason, cant fill the seats , so there is no money and cannot land in most airports, expensive to operate
Cesar Abraham thanks for explaining what the video already explained
That’s like 4 reasons.
the shiehks got this dont worry
@bojo perez IKR Lmao,I was mentioning the rich emirates and other arab people tho, they got no problemo lol
WasReloading called a summary
I live in Japan and have flown the A380 to Hawaii several times. It is a very smooth aircraft and has a lot of room.
I have flown on an A380 five times and have almost no complaints. The only negative is that you have to be patient when getting off because it can take 20 minutes. It doesn't bother me but some do complain. For a regular economy class passenger the plane is a great experience.
I worked in Hamburg and Toulouse building the first batch of aircraft for Singapore Airlines, good times.
At end of the day B777, B787, A330 & A350 are the best in all accounts for any airlines around the world. Yes.. Both B747 & A380 are incredible aircrafts but not suitable for 21st century market.
In some way
The logical American purchaser would have been Pan Am, but that airline has been gone for many years.
And Juan Trippe backed the 747 not as a luxurious method of transport (that went the way of the flying boats) but as a way of cramming as many livestock, er, passengers into each flight, thus lowering the ticket price.
Another would have been Braniff. The even flew a concord at one point.
Boeing could have designed an A380 but over 2.5 decades ago Boeing predicted that the market will demand smaller jets.
it could only in routes like lax to jfk or heathrow to jfk
What about something like SIN-LAX? Or is that too populated with options as well and not long haul enough?
There's another reason I missed in your video:
Airbus is European
Boeing is American.
Thus leads to PR, Patriotic and even political reasons why us airlines will choose Boeing over Airbus. I know there are a few Airlines that have Airbus but mostly A320/321 and not that much in their fleet.
airbus is well represented in the AA fleet.
@@mbspoobah Well I'm not familiar in depth about US airlines.
On a side note both Airbus and Boeing have their own great features.
Unfortunately the A380 has the same fate as the Concord. By the time it got released the aviation changed so much it was unnecessary.
Still the queen of the sky is B747,
the King is the A380 and the princess is the Concord if you ask me.
There is some truth in that, however US airlines didn't purchase too many 747 either. Airbus aircraft are well represented in a number of US airlines, just as Boeing has a large market share in Europe.
I remember when 744s flew between JFK and SFO. That hasn't been the case for 30 years now. It's all about economics. I do hope that I get onto an A380 before they're gone - I just love the idea of the upper deck 2x2 sitting configuration - so awesome
American carriers have largely dropped the hub-and-spoke system that made large craft like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 useful. They now try very hard to have direct flights between city pairs, and smaller, more fuel-efficient twin jets handle that nicely.
Been on one once, a BA flight into Heathrow. It's HUGE to the point where it doesn't sound or move like any other plane when you're on board, which I liked.
Am i the only people here that likes the A380?
I mean, it’s a cool aircraft, but it’s the wrong aircraft for the time.
I love it. What a lot of people don't realise is that the A380 is far superior in many ways. For a start, it's not built on a 50 year old airframe that has been self certified since inception. Secondly it is more fuel efficient than the 747. Thirdly, it has much better build quality and much more up to date tech. And it looks so much better than the 747, more streamlined.
Also worth noting, the decision to pull the plug on the A380 may be a little premature since fuel costs are currently much lower now than 5 years ago.
Steve Wood Don’t you think that’s a moot point? Both the A380 and the 747 are being discontinued, and like it was stated in the video, the reason behind the A380’s failure isn’t just because of fuel costs, but also they’re much harder to fill than smaller aircraft.
Doge Bomber Steve literally copypasted the description of the 737 max from some Boeing hater but replaced it with 747. Notice how he said ‘50 year old air frame’ as if the 747 airframe is outdated or problematic or unnecessary to improve just cause it has been around for 50 years. Also notice the use of ‘self certified’.
Nope, I love them as well.
It would have been a very different story had Boeing been able to come up with an equivalent.
One of the other things not mentioned in this video is the sheer size of the A380 requires airports with longer runways and jet ways that are modified to allow such a large plane park at the gate. All of these require the airports to spend money for upgrades to accommodate only one type of airplane. This means that there are relatively few airports in the world, let alone in just the United States, that are set up for the A380 to fly into and out of.
A380 wing was designed too big - it was meant to accommodate a future stretch variant of the A380 without having to re-design the wing, hence all A380's are lugging around tons of extra metal they don't really need.
3:05 YES ECAir!
Rare
That is so iconic that today was the LAST a380 test flight around Germany skies. And this video popped to mine recommented page.
The A380 was obsolete the day the first one was delivered to its buyer. While Airbus was building a massive point-to-point people mover, the airline industry was shifting to more fuel efficient aircraft with an emphasis on flexible route scheduling and less reliance on central hubs to move people to their destination.
Most comfortable plane I ever flew on.
I wish they did lol, I would love Delta to have the A380 since they had their Boeing 747s
No
Trijetz Everyone has different opinions, and I edited the comment
@@stevensaviationspotting I was sharing mine, I just believe that the 747-8I would be a better pick.
Nope I wish AA had the 747-8
Trijetz Yeah, British Airways did have their cargo Boeing 747-800 but not anymore but since their Boeing 747-400s retired they shouldn’t have been using Boeing 747-800s to replace it but they don’t have their passenger Boeing 747-800
The problem was that Airbus thought with their hearts and not their minds. They wanted to build the biggest jet at the time no matter what. Boeing listened to their analysts who said the market wasn't there for the big jets and that the airlines wanted smaller fuel efficient jets which could fly into more hubs. They came up with the 787 to do just that.
I just feel lucky to have flown on this beauty from Italy to Japan in my lifetime, it's sad that we will se less double deck planes in the future.
As an American who has traveled a lot I personally don’t think the a380 could have worked in America because it’s JUST TOO BIG and expensive to operate
It would fit the culture though
@Francis With 6 engines? how in the world would you get this plane off the ground with worse than 2005 engines? You A380 fanbois are so funny.
So that means american airlines is not the biggest airline
I was in the a380 factory last year. You should see one of those wings resting on the floor!
In some ways this proves the old adage - "Just because you CAN do something it doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD". Just sayin'.
The A380 was the answer to a question nobody asked. While Airbus squandered resources into building an airplane for an outmoded transportation model, Boeing developed the 787, which Airbus had to scramble to counter with the A350.
The A380 is the answer to a question posted decades before it arrived. By the time it arrived, only Emirates could make it work.
For many 777-300 ER is a far better option over A380-800
@asdf is it as fuel efficient as 777 or 350 or even 787
@asdf Moot point, go back to your cave you troll.
After flying with an A380 I despise all 2 engine long haul planes.
It’s so sad that none of the U.S. airlines ordered the a380
Except Fedex and UPS but those are cargo
But it turned out that they are correct
@@77l96 we have UPS
Why would they when so few US airports support this way oversized plane?
Logistically a A380 would not work in the US because people here expect to have choices. Airlines started hub operations with large planes and many people were upset that they all had fewer choices. For instance back in the 90s Delta flew three flights from Jackson MS to ATL. There was a lot of grips about having only three departures a day for the one-hour flight, meaning many times long layovers in ATL. In the 2000s Delta reduced the size of the planes to the route and increased the frequency with a lot of customers liking it more. In other words, a 380 is good for carrying lots of people, but I don't think it would help with impatient and dissatisfied customers.
I have flown on an A380. It is a big plane. The bigger the plane, the smoother the ride is what I have experienced. I think this plane is just a little before the market demand. When the planet earth gets to 10 billion people, I think people are going to wonder how we even traveled around on smaller planes. The 747 is still my favorite big plane; the 757 is my favorite luxury sport plane, and the MD-80 is the quietest plane in first class that I have ever flown.
I’m an American living in Europe, and have flown the A380 on occasion. Great aircraft, super smooth, quiet and a lot more leg room. But with COVID, air travel won’t recover anytime soon. Having said that, it might be a good time to acquire them super cheap.
Airbus isn't accepting new orders, so you would be better off buying second-hand from airlines like Air France, Qatar or Lufthansa.
It's a lovely plane in many respects, it's just that the 4 engine model of planes got outdated.
Pre Pandemic, Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS) handled 40 million passengers a year but wasn't represented on your little U.S.A. map. I'd wager McCarran is in the top five U.S. airports for departing passengers. Other airports may handle more passengers overall but a lot are transfers which are easier to process. Former TSA TSO.
Another issue with the A-380 was that a number of smaller hub airports were unwilling to completely refit for A-380's need for wider runway and taxiways, larger gate and ground handling space....and deal with the wake vortex separation issues....
Only been on a couple of Airbuses, but never the 380. I absolutely love the 777, though. Not many frills, but a comfortable, spacious, and extremely safe craft.
What really doomed the A380, compared to the 747, is that the A380 could not easily be converted into a cargo aircraft. Cargo 747s are still flying around the world.
Yeah, the lack of Cargo adaptiveness for the A380 contributes to its underutilization and ultimate demise. Sad but true.
I believe that your comments about the A380 were spot on. No US airline would support the A380. If they were going again with a four engine it would have been the B747.
I still have to fly in one! I am going from SFO to Heathrow hopefuly next month before the New Year.
what if...what if LCC operated A380??..can they make it work for them.....
No, because the short turn around time required for the LCC model to work is impossible to do in a large wide body. That’s why the overwhelming majority of low cost flying is done by 737/A320.
@@nightflyer3242 Except Jetstar and Norwegian
@@sarthsingh3271 They don't fly A380's or any VLA's. Both fly the 787 which is a medium widebody.
They will become a High Cost Carrier.
@@sarthsingh3271 even scoot, cebu pacific,kuwait,serene and airasia
I find that when I board larger flights like 747’s then there is more bottlenecks and waiting at check in, security, boarding and baggage pick up. Although the Airlines and Airport can technically control this and increase the capacity, in reality most don’t. So when you fly small all the lines just move faster and when you fly big everyone ends up waiting longer multiple times which just increases the stress of flying..
Besides the fact that the A380 was unviable on most routes, US airlines didn't want to antagonize Boeing that played a major part in the non orders. Having said that the aircraft would have served well on trans Atlantic routes like NY-London, NY-Paris etc.
That's an excellent point. The Boeing Company has influence over US government regulators, the aviation industry, and their airliner customers. During the 80s, I have no doubt that The Boeing Company used it lobbying power to make regulations hostile to the Concorde and too expensive to become profitable.
Some people have asserted that the last version of the Boeing 747 was introduced primarily because Boeing could produce it with built-in freight sales for far less money than Airbus could complete the A380, so the last 747 was essentially designed/built to stall Airbus’s response to the 787 by convincing Airbus to spend time and resources on a plane type that Boeing had already determined was not the future of aviation.
The A380 always looked to me like a European ego trip. If it had been more successful I would have had to take that back, but events seem to confirm that view.
We salute you A380 for serving us for that very short time
Too late in the game...
I think the Boeing 787 was the nail in the coffin with United being the US launch customer.
If there was any real need for a superjumbo in American fleets, the 747-8 is more economical to operate per passenger mile than the A380. (Assuming both aircraft are flying at full capacity.) American fleets would have taken the 747-8 which would have required no infrastructure upgrades in order to accomodate it. Being able to handle the A380 requires substantial infrastructure upgrades at airports and maintenance facilities, all of which cost money.