Ryanair proposed doing away with seats some time ago so they could squeeze more meat in their aluminum tubes. So yes they could fit 2000 pax in a A380 if the authorities would allow that.
Is the A380 a failure? That depends on what you define as "failure". As a former airline EVP in charge of the fleet, perhaps I am more qualified than most to discuss this specific topic. Years ago, Boeing determined the market potential for the A380 was rather limited. They projected the break-even for Airbus to be around 250 aircraft. If it had not been for Emirates, accounting for about half of total orders, the program would have been doomed long ago. The fact remains that no American carrier has placed an order hasn't helped EADS or Airbus. It is clear the trend has been toward twin-jets, not quad jets due to economics and flexibility with various city pairs domestically. Like Concorde, the A380 was driven by national pride, not airline economics. In the US, airlines are owned and operated by private companies that must make a profit! The majority of A380 operators are government owned carriers in which profit is a secondary concern. Yes, EADS built the A380, and it has been a tremendous achievement on many levels in terms of engineering and manufacturing prowess. However, I must add that there are far too many problems in terms of built-in production efficiencies that drive costs up far more than necessary. This is primarily due to logistics issues from contributing nations. In contrast, the 747 was built originally as an airplane that could be easily converted to cargo transport. This was in the era of the US SST program that never materialized. As such, older 747s can continue to generate revenue with freight while the A380 cannot do so nearly as easily. In short, the used market for an A380 may be pretty challenging for an airline's balance sheet. In my view, the residual value of the A380 is increasingly in question. Once production stops Airbus can keep those already in service flying for several years, but its long-term airworthiness will be a question depending on structural issues found in service. Will suppliers be willing to make parts for an aircraft that may be likely out of production in a few short years? As an aircraft buyer, that would worry me to no end! The aircraft is exceedingly heavy and challenging to service. This poses extra costs and ground support equipment not required for smaller airframes. Due to its enormous weight, landing fees will continue to be high and affects the use of such aircraft on given missions. Not many airports can effectively handle such a large aircraft and this makes its flexibility increasingly in question. Was the A380 a failure? In my professional opinion, not at all in terms of technical accomplishment. However, in terms of pure economics, long-term, it's a dead duck! Kudos to Airbus, EADS and their people to build such an aircraft, But much like Concorde, economics rule the day in the commerical aviaiton business.
Thank you for your analysis! Great post!! and I also remember boeing predicting that fuel costs soaring would also drive more need towards twin/etops rated plane categories rather than the double decker and not all airports wanting to invest in the additional accommodation needed for the plane ... one day i would love to know what you do as evp!
Alex P I agree completely with your analysis and cringe at the posts describing the project as an outright failure. The technological brilliance has to be considered a huge success. I’m wondering if there is any way that an all economy layout with very competitive fares could be profitable for an airline as well as attractive to passengers like myself who require a low fare. Also is there no possibility of making it a two engine plane. I guess at the moment that sounds ridiculous but look how far we have come since the Wright Brothers. I don’t think the A380 is ugly as many do and I marvel at watching it effortlessly glide off the runway. I hope that there is a future for it.
I hear all you say, Alex. But I wonder if you aren't leaving some key issues out of your analysis?. Maybe you are writing off the A380 just a little too soon?. Let us revisit this question in 2028.
Compare A380 order dynamics and engine issues to the early seventies events around first 747s. Personally I believe best years of A380 business are still to come.
With only 331 orders it is not a business success but it took 50 years to sell 1,544 747's. Sadly to many people only think of one or two airplanes (747 & A380) when the skies are full of beautiful machines. The 787 has almost out sold the 747 and the A 350 has close to three times the A380 orders. Giant planes are awesome but smaller planes are the real workhorses.
That's not a valid comparison because over most of the history of the 747, the airline industry was a lot smaller. If demand for airliners in 1970 was what it is today, and stayed constant, a lot more than 1,500 747's would have been sold.
People don't forget them, but the problem is that the 787 are not very popular with people travelling on long-haul routes. This is not the fault of the plane, but the fact that most carriers with very few exceptions are going for the cramped 3-3-3 seating arrangement for Economy, which is absolute torture on a 10+ hour flight. The 747 and the A380 are so far the only planes (with a very few exceptions) that have been allowed to keep the cabin layout that was intended for them, and that is why many travellers love these birds.
Marc; Since airfares are so cheap flying today is roughly the same as riding a bus back in the 60's. There was a time when only wealthy people traveled by air and the torture you speak of was weeks at sea in tiny cabins if you could afford it at all, which few people could. Economy Plus if you can afford it makes for a pleasant trip on any long haul or a sleeping pill if you're stuck in Economy.
Thank you very much for an excellent analysis. To give you some background I am now retied but was in the aircraft business both civil and military for most of my working life. Now to the subject in question. I personally think the A-380 has been a technical masterpiece, but at the same time a commercial disaster. Away back in the aircraft's developing period Airbus announced they would need to sell at least 400 aircraft to just break even. Well as of 2018 they have sold 331, but only delivered 223. Of which Emirates has ordered almost half. Now if anyone thinks Emirates have paid anything like list price for these aircraft must be living an a different planet from most of us. I have said my working life was spent in the aircraft business, maintenance actually, and I happen to have a good friend who works for Airbus. He must remain nameless of course but he has assured me that Emirates more stole their aircraft rather than but them from Airbus. Something your excellent video did not mention was the numbers of A-380s that have been cancelled, including all the cargo orders. There was to be two versions of the passenger airliner, a 550 seat version, and a 650 seat version. The 650 seater has been dropped, quietly, never to be mentioned again. No when both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas dropped their planned VLA ( very large aircraft ) programmes the writing was on the wall for the A-380. Sadly they must be slow learner at Airbus.
I think it's not a failure for multiple reasons: - it's obvious such a big plane will not have as many orders as smaller ones, as it's a hub based plane, not for small city airports - it's the first product to rival the 747 and replace it as an airline flagship - flagships rarely are self-sufficient (the 747 was and is not cheap to operate either), but they lift the airlines value through special products and prestige, which is an economic factor - on some select routes, it seems to be the only real alternative (see ANAs orders) - it's a technology carrier which has heavily transformed Airbus, bringing such a monster to the skies has finally enabled them to be eye-to-eye with Boeing, and I'm sure they learned a lot for all future projects - passenger comfort is a selling point, whenever I can choose on a route, I'll defininetly pick the A380 flight, I e.g. try to avoid 777s, they are efficient workhorses, but passenger comfort is usuallly nowhere near an A380 (not only from a space, but also noise-level). Screaming GE90s are nice during takeoff, but after that...
Markus Krause but the 747 made profit alot of profit the 747-8 has not but the a380 has not so in a business since it's a failure and to be fair the middle East carers receive lodes of money from there government's that try to Deni that but emrits pus a380 on in profile roots and those caerres corn for more than 50% of the orders
while that is partially true (I'm sure emirates has a lot of profitable routes with the A380, but the absurd short hops are certainly not among them), I doubt that other carriers like SIA would still take delivery of new A380s if they would harm their business. It's not relevant for all Airlines if a certain plane is creating a lot of profit, if it helps the overall business and reputation. No doubt the overall numbers are not was Airbus was hoping for, but if the program would be that helpless it would've been cancelled years ago. The first generation 747 also nearly brougth down Boeing (similar to Airbus) but eventually became a huge success. Strictly speaking only in it's 3rd (or 4th, depending how you count) Generation with the 747-400 really brought up the numbers. I'm certain Airbus is looking into ways of how to 'salvage' the project, and I think we'll be surprised. Maybe they turn it into a 3-engine or even 2-engine plane and apply A350 composite technology to the wings or fuselage. Nothing that we'll see before 2030, but I'm sure they're considering it. Because quite honestly...no 777x, no A350-1000, no 787-10 will ever replace a 747 or A380, unless they totally dissolve hubs like Heathrow, Hongkong, Haneda, Singapore, whatever. There will never be a demand for 2000 of such planes, but they will have their space in certain areas.
1.) But why do only EK shows interest with A380? Big plane has many orders just look at A350, 787, 777 (wide bodies, they are considered as "big plane"). 2.) It rivals 747 but it came a decade late when Boeing is experiencing the decline of 747 orders and deliveries. But Boeing did a terrible mistake to make another variant of the 747. 3.) Airlines operates to be profitable. Why would they buy a less "self-sufficient"? Flagships of majority of airlines in the world are either 777, 787, A330 or A350. 4.) Only EK can maximize the potential of the A380 due to their location. 5.) It's not a technology carrier because the world is now transitioning to the more efficient twin engines. A350 would be the better example if you are talking about the technology carrier. 6.) I agree that comfort is a selling point but as a passenger can you really choose an A380 flight? Only a little percentage of airliners in the world use the A380.
Once again a great and informative video from DJ’s Aviation. Personally I feel that the A380 isn’t necessarily a failure but it’s far from being a commercial success for Airbus. When Airbus and Boeing were looking at developing an aircraft such as this Boeing came to the conclusion that the market just wasn’t there and that airlines would prefer twin engined wide bodied airliners over a very large double deck airliner with 4 engines, Airbus went ahead and built the A380 anyway. The A380 does work for a few carriers but if it isn’t full it isn’t making money. It is also limited to around 60 airports that can support A380 operations further limiting its usefulness and appeal to the airlines. Other negatives for most airlines are additional maintenance costs over a twin engined airliner, the overall weight of the airliner, it’s heavy and is somewhat restricted on hauling belly cargo (very profitable for airlines). It’s doubtful that we will ever see an A380F because of the difficulties in loading (similar to the DC-10F and MD-11F) and the specialized loading equipment that would be needed for the upper deck, we might see a A380 freighter conversion but it really cannot compete with the B747-400 Freighter Conversions or the B747-8F not to mention the big twin freighters that are available. The A380 is a good airliner it was just built at the wrong time.
Thank you. I've been saying pretty much the same thing. But I thought Airbus had to sell at least 400 planes just to break even on the A380 program. A beautiful, comfortable plane, but the market just isn't there.
WARNING: VERY LONG COMMENT, but also good I think. As far as breaking barriers in commercial aviation, the A380 has certainly done that. It has brought back some of the romance and luxury of flying that was commonplace prior to the 1980's. However, it is a commercial failure for a few reasons. One, the size makes it impractical to operate for many airlines as the demand is not present, or because it costs too much to upgrade airports to fit such a massive jet. The A380 is very commonly compared to the 747 because of the size of the aircraft. However, what made the 747 so very successful for so many years is not entirely it's size. Yes, Pan Am wanted a massive jet back in 1969 because demand for air travel was booming, but multiple other airlines ordered it too, and for different reasons. The 747 offered great range at great efficiency for the time, and that was enough for airlines to order droves of them to operate their signature, long haul routes, even if they could only fill the jumbo a third of the way. Over time, however, competition came from more and more jets, namely the 767 and A330 on transatlantic routing, and the 777 and A340 on transpacific routing. By the time 747-400 production came to a close in 2009, the 787 had replaced the last little bits of the need for 747s, and the A380 killed off it's attractiveness capacity wise. So, by the time the 747-8I went into service, it was just another airliner. Many people say that the A380 replaced the 747 as far as ground breaking jets go, but in reality it did not. The A380 did not allow airlines to open up any new routes, it did not add greater speed or efficiency to route networks, and the benefits it's increased capacity is negligible. This is because airlines added greater luxury to their interiors over greater capacity. And while this happened to the 747 for a time, airlines began to realize that it was more profitable to cram more seats in, not to make it more luxurious. This is not happening with the A380, and that is because it is simply too big for today's international route network. Airlines are shifting away from the traditional hub and spoke network, and going to a point to point system. This means that having large jets running between hubs will not be filled, thereby causing the A380 to live in a world where it doesn't quite fit in anywhere. Had the A380 come along in 1985 with similar efficiency to the 747-400, it would have sold twice or three times as many jets that it has today. However, Airbus was too late with the A380, and Boeing even more so with the 747-8. Those two are almost like the MD-11 of the present day in that they came along just a bit too late. It is a true shame about what happened to such a marvel of engineering. I am not a fan of the A380 (very ugly nose, sorry A380 fans), but I do recognize what it had the ability to do had it come sooner. I only hope that the good people at Boeing and Airbus realize their mistake (Airbus isn't catching on as can be seen by the A380 plus idea), and can move past the glamor of such massive jets, and move into the future with the 787 and A350.
You’re a bit off on a few points. First off, without the A380, Emirates and Etihad would have never become what they are now. Furthermore, ultra-long-haul operators like Qantas do love their A380s due to their range, which is greater than the 744 and hub-to-hub capacity such as SYD-LAX and SYD-DFW. In fact, if it had not been for the A350-900 and 787-9, which are far more fuel economical, you’d see the A380 in production for far longer. Another issue that does not fare well for the 380 is its limited cargo capacity compared to the 77W. Cargo plays a big role in financial success of airlines.
I think you've been very generous in your evaluation. From a business perspective, I cant see the A380 as a success. At the time, Boeing could have competed by coming out with another huge plane, but instead saw the writing on the wall. Boeing correctly predicted that the industry would tilt toward smaller planes going longer distances directly rather than by the hub system. The 787 was their gamble, and they are doing well with it. Overall, Boeing is still losing market share, but at least avoided this large scalle blunder.
I guess it depends on your time reference. Im old enough to remember Airbus as an also ran. Now Airbus has overall 50% market share. This is a real threat. Ford is discontinuing car production. Boeing could be next.
You have missed my point entirely. American manufacturers losing market share is an issue. Boeing once dominated the airliner sector. Now it is hovering at half.
Also, you cant dismiss narrowbody sales as they are the vast majority of sales. All told, Airbus has a backlog of orders that is 25% greater than Boeing's.
Competition has made Ford so much better at making cars that they won't make them anymore. If you understand American manufacturing history, Boeing's decline is worrying.
Joey Suggs but if you look at the amount of sales, Boeing is clearly dominating Airbus. Yes, Airbus is dominating the narrow body, but narrow body is cheap compared to wide bodies, which Boeing is currently dominating.
I dunno. When I have to pick somebody up at the airport, I'm happy to do it if it's an airport that handles the A380s so I can check them out. Only other plane that can claim that is the Concorde.
As an Ex long term aircraft engineer with one of the worlds best I simply compliment you on your presentation and factual knowledge. You do a good job.. Keep it up
Definitely not a fail, they're probably the most infamous passenger jet in the skies. However, I do think that they won't become a 'staple' in the sky and their production will be small but long lived. The likes of Emirates and a few other carriers are what has kept them going. I think it has a future, but not a massive one (like the 747 series has had). It is definitely more successful than the 747-8. Also, I do believe they're going to be used for holidays in the future, even if production and fleet sizes fall. Many Asian migrations require large jets to transport the high volume of travellers at peak times.
Yes, at peak times during the travel season they may be able to sell those seats. But what about the rest of the year? Flying half empty planes means a financial loss for the airlines. The airlines would prefer to fly smaller planes that can fly into any airport in the world, while still being able to sell most of the seats during the year. Full, or nearly full planes are more profitable for the airlines.
A fair assessment. And like you said, much of the technology R&D is already being recouped & applied on the A350 & whatever comes next. It reminds me a lot of the Bristol Britannia, which was a massive, state of the art, ultra impressive & high prestige value aircraft for the early 1950's. Unfortunately, as with any new big & bold aircraft, there were development problems & delays of several years. By the time they sorted the issues & got the aircraft to market, the B707 was on the scene & suddenly the "4-turning" was made obsolete by the "4-burning". The A380 suffered similar setbacks, while the new generation of long range twins, starting with the B787, made big ground from the get-go. With the impact on airlines around the world post-9/11 & then the GFC, the A380 was just too expensive for many airlines to contemplate, whilst the 787 was the better fit. If neither of those events occurred, I think the market would have been very different. No one in the aviation world, at Boeing, or Airbus, saw either of those events coming. If the 300 or so sales of the A380 represents a failure, what does that say for the Concorde? They only built a dozen or so examples of the most beautiful, most technologically advanced aircraft of it's time, to ever grace the skies, but no one, NO ONE would ever call the aircraft a failure. Success is more than just sales.
Not a failure, but more like *"Not Required"* nowadays. Same goes with the *747--8*. *787's* & *A350's* or the upcoming *777X* are hot and trending in the market as they are more efficient, seat a generous amount of passengers & can travel all the possible long haul routes without stopping over. And the airports can handle them easily without ground power or any other issues. Thanks for the video Dj :) I really appericiate you talking on these topics.
The A380 is a wonderful lady of the sky it's a great shame that more haven't sold I hope long term its survives I love flying on them 1st is just the best way to travel but Emirates economy is good The quants lay out of economy on the upper deck is a great lace to be absolutely no aircraft noise at all
toom2141 - There was never really much of a business case for the A380, but Airbus knew the European governments were going to foot the bill whether or not it succeeded.
It has to fly at 85% capacity for any airline to make a profit However for those three Middle East carrier profit is not important. They were seeking status symbols LH,BA,FR,SQ,MH, and all other Asian carriers including Air China routes are chosen by capacity and congestive airport operation like Haneda and PVG and PEK and ICN So ANA plans for Haneda to HNL is logical in terms of demand and capacity
Excellent video, and this is one of my favorites that you’ve ever done! The A380 is a technological marvel, but it ended up being the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. Had this aircraft come out say 10-20 years earlier it would have been a huge success sales wise. Keep up the great work!
I cancelled a London to Los Angeles 787 flight and will rebook on the A380. A twelve hour flight is considerably longer than the 3 hours I'm used to. Need to arrive somewhat more than zombified.
I would say the A380 is not really a commercial failure because it did receive around 300 orders, which is actually not bad for a jumbo jet like this and because so many people admire the A380 and think it is amazing :)
Calling it a failure is a bit far but its certainly not that successful. The Concorde can be called a failure but I wouldn't say the same for the A380.
A success. It is part of the mix, the fact that it doesn't reach the same numbers as smaller planes, that should not surprise for a flagship. It's all about proportion.
I say yes it's a failure if it wasn't for Emirates ordering a massive bach of A380s it would have been dead many years ago. Take EK out of the question not many orders
MG AviationNZ Emirates Qatar etihad is keeping 777x program alive too.. especially Emirates.. airlines aren't going to be ordering aircrafts every 3yrs.. It's always all about arab gulf oil goverment runed airlines,take away Qatar etihad Emirates orders and it's down to 91 depending what the UAE goverment will decide what to do with etihad.
I don't think so. I believe that EK is harming the A380 more than it is doing it good. Without EK flooding the market with their super capacity, many more A380s would be sold to other airlines (especially European/Asian airlines). People see EK as the saviour of the A380, when it is actually killing it.
Olives Alail... Oh...My...(Insert word here, don't want to offend anyone.) You've just made me change my entire perspective of Emirates and A380s...I'm going to be thinking about this for a long time.
That is rather like saying, "if all those rich people didn't buy a Rolls Royce it would have been dead many years ago. Take rich people out of the equation and not many orders." The fact is that Emirates DID order loads, they DO operate it successfully and passengers love it. I've just been to New Zealand and back from Dubai - it was sensational! The trip from Dubai to home in a 777-300 (again Emirates) was nowhere near as good. If they (Airbus) make money on it then it is a success... There is no other measure.
One of the factors you should consider, is freight/cargo capacity. consider that a 747 freighter pays for itself inside a year and air freight is more of a profit center than passenger service.
Very nice evaluation of the a380. It's honestly a two sided coin as to whether or not it was a failure. As you mentioned, there have been so many advances made with the a380, but it wasn't as popular with airlines. Maybe next would be a look at the a340 series,??
Yes, most orders cancelled, not a good fit for most airlines. Some cancelled orders have caused there to be surplus inventory, that AB can't sell. AND, the 747, while smaller, is WAY more efficient.
NO! while it is no means a success it serves its purpose on high demand routes, the only route it doesnt fly on that it should realisticly fly on is of course the good ol london new york service
Certainly very comfortable in the BA Club Class. I can sleep through flights anyway, but the flat bed was a real bonus. Regarding being a commercial success, if the figures don't add up they don't add up.
Absolutely an amazing piece of engineering. There is no comparison to this aircraft. I personally worked on the power system for this aircraft and there is no comparison for that technology in aerospace today due to the physical size and power demands of the aircraft. Definitely a career highlight.
Amazing aircraft. I still hope that A380 line has chances of survival, considering the increasing congestion and limited slots at the major airports in the world. With the "plus" and "neo" versions these chances are even higher. Fingers crossed big beauty!!!
To make it worthwhile for airlines, the minimum that needs to be done is a re-engine with foldable carbon wings, like the 777X got. Ideally, the re-engine would make the plane two-engined, and the fuselage would be redesigned to have a lot of carbon components, but that would probably require a clean-sheet design.
Airbus would have to go back to the drawing board to come up with your ideas which are very good. Problem is , will the public go for it. Bums on seats can either make or break an aircraft such as Mcdonnel Douglas.
Airbus wouldn't have to go back to the drawing board for carbon composite wings and a four-engine re-engine; look to Boeing's 777X for how it can be done on an old chassis. Over the coming decades, I can see the need for bigger and bigger planes to cover trunk routes in Asia, such as Beijing-Shanghai, Hong Kong-Singapore, and Delhi-Mumbai. The only concern is realistic turnover times, but if that can be figured out with an A380neo, this is worth the investment in R&D.
Airlines must first show interest for the plus/neo version of the A380 before Airbus invest a lot of money for the R&D. As of now only EK shows interest with the upgrade.
We (the UK) bailed out as an Airbus partner early in the 380 project because I think we had reservations about it & the plane was suffering technical difficulties during development. We still make the wings for the entire Airbus fleet though.
Hi DJ, what makes the A380 my favourite (Qantas) plane and a winner is the fact that it is soo comfortable, silent and stable in all kinds of weather. We have been lucky enough to have flown it to various parts of the globe, with a number of companies and it has been great. From a very selfish perspective, I have found it easier to seek and be awarded an upgrade from Premium to Business on an A 380 because of the plane’s s large number of business class seats. Regrettably, with either the B 787 or the A 350, a reduced business class seats will not enamour a lot of people with plenty points seeking an upgrade from Premium to Business, but that is just a first world problem, isn’t it, but a reality with commitments to fly to the USA on a twice a year basis. Keep exploring the ever fascinating world of aviation; it is a great read!
The a380 is maybe not the best airplane for the airlines, but every big airline in the world should have 1 or 2 a380, because they are so beautiful and they are also very good for marketing.
When compared to the 747-8I orders it’s a bit chunk of a success but NOT totally successful, in General it’s Indeed a failure, Yea it hurts but it’s the truth. It’s only economical on certain routes, has not made any money for airbus. Thank God Emirates for keeping the program going. It’s Too big, And cannot land in 90% airports around the world and where the Queen can, Killing the Freighter made it worse. Airbus should of listened to Boeing on the VLA’s poor market, where Boeing clearly told them that it won’t sell the way airbus believe it to. And with the new 777X on it’s way with roughly the same amount of orders is it the a380 with or without Emirates is just a disaster waiting to happen. Just like the a380Plus
As an economy class passenger, who took 5-6 trips on A380(ek,sq,cz) I couldn’t say that I’m a satisfied A380 passenger. 3 main reasons are: 1) larger cabin means babies crying and other noises get amplified. With more passengers onboard you have more infants. 2) boarding process is separated because of so many people. Many passengers get confused whether its time for my group (myself) start queueing, and I often see people waiting in incorrect waiting groups get frustrated. 3) more passengers on one single larger plane means high chance of delay waiting for someone, medical in air emergency, and the worst case 2 daily flights become 1 daily then passenger has one less choice of departure time. I don’t think there are too many reasons eco passengers will prefer A380.
I see your point but you could end up on a 737 and be next to an infant, then your trips gonna be worse than an A380 trip. It's kinda luck whether there are infants near you and whilst, yes more seats means that there's more possibility, but it's also completely random as to whether you get an infant nearby.
The boarding procedures have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some airlines at better at it than others, the same for delays re missing pax etc, once again that is down to the particular airlines procedures for missing pax and local laws. Go back 40 approx years ago and if you took your reasons to dislike the aircraft then the B747 would never have been built
The boarding process is entirely the airline's responsibility. I've seen total chaos boarding single aisle planes. Humans are idiots who cannot follow simple instructions but it's the boarding agents who won't enforce their own damn procedures and announcements.
G'day DJ, Outstanding, balanced and informative video. Just before QANTAS took delivery of its first A380 (well before that potentially catastrophic engine malfunction) a friend of mine, who was not a QANTAS employee, was involved in independently assessing every aspect of the A380; safety and reliability being highest on the list. An old Boeing and Lockheed fan from way back, I asked him, privately, how the three manufacturers stacked up. I kind of asked; 'Which one should I fly in?" He said to me. "Boeing." It's a truly impressive airframe but the bigger a plane the more components and the greater the potential for tiny, unseen and unplanned for malfunctions. In aircraft disasters it is often a confluence of several small malfunctions that combine, unexpectedly, that result in fatalities. Ten years into the A380 program I reckon it should have made a bigger splash than it has. I can recall 10 years into the 747 program and that aircraft, by then, had effectively taken over the long haul routes all around the world. That hasn't happened with the A380 so, I would, humbly, judge it to be a failure. N.B. I I won Tatts I'd be into a 1st Class 'apartment' like a shot! Ha Ha! So, DJ, I'll stick with the old, old saying: "If it's not Boeing; I'm not going!" Cheers, BH
I agree 100 %. Even flying economic class the A380 is awesome ! In comparison, flying the 747 or even the newer 787 is like riding in a pickup truck where each bump on the road is felt by your rear... Too bad they couldn't sell more A380s !
Didier deNice obviously you’re not a business major, all planes experience turbulence, true the 380 has better sound reduction, but the fuel mileage is bad, it can’t compete with 787, or 777
Living in Seattle, even done some work on aviation biofuels with Boeing and Etihad. Was amused on a trip to Abu Dhabi when my Boeing guy couldn't help going on to the Etihad person about A-380 cracked wings and vibrations in the cabin. But it does sound like there were some problems. At the same time, I've heard delays on the 787 cost late fees that make the plane a money loser until something like 1,500 sell. Which would be close. What about that?
If you would just answer out of a business perspective the answer is Yes but many people do not recognice the image and reputation win of Airbus with the release of that plane, and that was worth Millions even Billions, so yes the A380 Ptogrammm itselve might lose millions but with other products Airbus gets millions and some of that come with the A380, at that point Airbus was truly established as the Aircraftmanufacture it is today.
Depends if you're an Engineer or a bean counter I guess. I love the fact that it pushes lots of boundaries and not just regurgitating more of the same. Well done Airbus for leading the way....
Can you do a video on Qantas......how successful it is in regards to the commercial aspect ..... and in regards to the passengers point of view....... I would love to see where is Qantas standing in the international market , in today’s times .
Good topic Dj, and good job looking at the issue from all sides. I have to agree with you that unless things change drastically, the A380 must be considered a failure since it will not make money for Airbus. If an aircraft company does not make money, it goes out of business, regardless the excellence of certain aspects of its designs. I'd also agree that some of the spin-off technology could mitigate the losses, but those spin-offs could just as well been had from a project which turned a profit. The failure was avoidable. Out of a fascination with the 747, Airbus management convinced themselves, in the face of adequate contrary evidence, that the bulk of future air travel growth would be along a relative few major trunk routes, while Boeing's careful attention to customer desires led it to conclude the "point-to-point" model was the future, and to design the 787. You make some good points about design. I guess I'd reply by saying "sort of": Good design actually consists of two distinct parts: the technical competence in the implementation, and the appropriateness of the design to the end-use. It is very telling that the updated 747 has garnered the same number of orders, is cheaper to operate on both a trip and seat-mile basis, has a higher speed and greater versatility. I would argue that the excellence of the A380's design is mainly in ergonomics: when a 30+ year-old 747 can be modernized to greater efficiency than a new A380, the new design can hardly be first-rate, despite some bright spots. You have offered first-hand views of the A380 cargo-bay, with its inefficient, cut-up shape, and Airbus went for the low flight deck - to facilitate cross-training of pilots rated for other types - eliminating a nose door and assuring the A380 would never be a first-class freighter. Clearly then, the A380 is a failure. If Airbus had consistently employed the faulty decision-making process that produced the A380, they would have gone bankrupt long ago, even if they had some bits of spiffy technology left over to put on the auction block.
I fully agree with you, the A380 is a great aircraft but it failed financially it wasn't a technological breakthrough and it didn't bring anything new to AB. The worst thing about the A380 is that it delayed the A350, it's good for AB that they have the backing the A320 else they would end up like Lockheed after the 1011
I worked in Marketing/Support for a major supplier on the A380. Early on, Airbus revealed that, due to structural limitations, A380's could not be converted to freighters after retiring from passenger service. With no secondary market, their residual value was basically scrap metal. We knew their would be few customers beyond Emirates, which wanted the aircraft for "bragging rights". Being state sponsored, they don't have the same market pressures to deal with.
It cost Airbus close to 30 billion dollars to develop the A380, they thought it was going to revolutionise passenger aviation. Meanwhile Boeing was working on their Dreamliner project, they saw that the era of super size 4 engine jets was over. Even their own 747-8i wasn't a great success. At the end of the day Airbus made a big gamble and it didn't pay off. I love the A380 as a passenger, when I'm choosing my flights if it's a choice between A330, B777 or A380 then I'll choose the A380 every time. But if it wasn't for Emirates the A380 project would have been a complete disaster for Airbus. Boeing 747 was first delivered in 1970 and 11 years later there were already 540 deliveries, and orders continued to grow. Now 11 years after the first A380 was delivered they have delivered 223 with not many future orders. It's a great plane but it didn't revolutionise passenger aviation and it was not a great commercial success for Airbus. We are now living in the last decades of big 4 engine passenger jets, unfortunately for Airbus they spent $30 billion on a white elephant.
Good vid. The a380 to me just came 20 years too late. The 747 just never had a serious competitor for so many years given its massive size. That's why it's so iconic. When Airbus introduced the 380 Boeing were seeing sales for the 747 decline. So they went with smaller aircraft that could travel long distances such as the 787 and they kept stretching the 777.
If you calculate success by number of sales emirates has 105 of them and all of them are not flying . The bye n keep. Standing in anchor . And total production is 300 195 in all over the world . With rolls Royce engine . Most of them engine failure . In this way it's a failure . I like a380 but I Am telling u truth
The most interesting stat was comparing the first 10 years with the 747. Almost identical. And Boing went on to “stretch” it 2 more times. A 700 seat 3 class variant would make economic sense
Ryanair's CEO Michael O' Leary has actually mentioned in an interview recently, that an Airbus fleet is something they had looked into in the past. With Ryanair's invest in Laudomotion they are already starting that but I personally think they use that argument with Boeing to get an even better price for their 737's. Ryanair is the world's largest operator of 737's so it is of course a very important customer. I don't think Ryanair would ever operate wide bodies though. Turn around times are much longer and they are more expensive to fly. Also EU - US is already a highly competitive market and prices are very cheap with return flights starting from as low around 250€ so I see no point for Ryanair at that market. They've corporated with Air Europe last year though so you can in fact buy tickets for overseas destinations from the Ryanair website.
the airports and pax handling for one aircraft with 853 on board is yet not capable.. safety aspect also a challenge. So its not in the hand of just airlines desire
Here's one you could do a "was the ________ a failure?" on: the "Boeing" 717 didn't sell very well but it's become increasingly sought after since production ended.
Pongamorn Tuankaow Yes, however, without Emirates, the a380 would likely be in the same boat. If the 747-8 had a carrier like Emirates it would've been slightly more successful but the closest they've got is UPS and their order numbers are nowhere near that of Emirates'.
Oh! look a big plane! nobody wants to buy a big plane!! So I'm going to make two videos discussing the same topic over and over again !!! We get it, okay!
I’m an engineer working at London Heathrow and it is always amazing to stand next to a380 and just be blown away by how big the big bird is.i would have to agree that the a380 is not a complete commercial success, in my opinion a lot of thing changed while the aircraft was in development. Fuel,the financial crisis, more efficient 2 engined aircraft that could do the better for less. If the aircraft was introduced 5 years earlier it might have been a different story, adding to the a380 woes British airways have publicly stated that they would only buy second hand a380 as new is too expensive and Singapore airlines giving up the first 5 a380 does not fill other airlines with confidence in the product
Airbus, The A380 and its Airplane lineup can't be seen as a failure. I would rather say it is a successful model for Airbus. Where Airlines don't appreciate much because of its cost, flying range and will be suitable in few use case scenarios. Like ANA they ordered the A380 and prioritize it on on-demand flight destinations, which it is very clever.
To me the A 380 was not a failure.. rather a victim of a rapidly changing market place... The A380 is truly a modern marvel. Such a beautiful looking design and an outstanding pleasure to fly in . It has to be said that the competitions configurations most likely do suit the present and future demands of the airline's but l feel that this does not mean that the A 380 is a failure. I'm glad they built it. I love to see it in the sky's I love to fly in it. It's a great success. Let's see what happens over the next 5 years.. Thanks for your up load A 380 fan
It is by far my favorite jet liner. I have flown it both in Coach and Business. Love business space and quite. But 4 engine liners are becoming history. Will we get 2 engine liners to this level?
I fly Emirates Ho Chi Minh Vietnam to Birmingham UK, via Dubai route. They use the Boeing 777 on the Ho Chi Minh leg and the A 380 Dubai to Birmingham leg. I travel business class as I have a back problem and prefer the lay flat seats to try and get some sleep. The A380 hearing bone seat lay out is great for easy ingress and egress without being disturbed or disturbing and other passenger. As has to be done on the B 777 seat layout. the a 380s seat appears a bit wider but that might just be just a bit more space at the side of the seats. The other plus for me is the bar area at the rear of the cabin its great to stroll down to to stretch my legs and have some standing time, without having to do it in the isles. If the A 380s are faced out I hope the airlines will adopt the hearing bone seat lay out. On my last fight into Birmingham airport 3 other aircraft landed in quick succession to the A 380, immigration and customs were totally swamped. The timing of large aircraft landing at smaller reginal airports need to be carefully planned, I travel to the west country and Birmingham is about the same distance as Heathrow and the choice between them is a no brainer. I hate Heathrow with it's long walks to distant gates and they even have chicanes to negotiate when you do finally reach them.
I would say, engineering wise, it has been a massive success. Commercial wise maybe somewhat a failure because many airlines have opted for smaller planes like the Dreamliner.
I am surprised that you did not consider that the A 380 was built to support a hub and spoke model which I think is now totally out of favour. I think limited landing slots at some airports was also a factor so you could get more passengers into say LHR with fewer planes. The 787 and A 350 are built for point to point service with thinner traffic. This seems to be the model for most airlines going forward. Air Canada for example has used its 787 on very long haul routes which could not support a larger aircraft (even a 777). Commercially the A 380 is a failure. I flown on A380 a couple of times, its spacious and quiet, but I much prefer the A 350
hello I'm the wife and our journey aboard the a380 was a wonderful one we traveled for 10 hours on the flight and it was a memorable one didn't even feel like I was on a plane. I think in this country we need a fast train like the French fast train. But of course the airlines would go out of business if we were to do that.
The proclivity and longevity of the 747 was the cargo versions, and the ability to convert or use mixed configurations of it for cargo. It was frankly a much more flexible airframe. Airbus would do well to make the 380 a mega freight hauler...
Failure as we have relatives (both of us were in the aviation arena one as an Air Traffic Controller and the other a Senior System Analyst). The systems relative has flown the 380 between Australia and Europe a number of times, and both he and his wife preferred the B-747. We travel between the west of the US to Europe once or twice a year and always avoid any airline using the 380.
Orders and sale , to this date: Orded 332 Delivered 226 average annual orders are around 20 average annual deliveries are around 25 at this pace A380 could be produced for next 20 years
Boeing's sales tactics in the 80s and 90s paid off huge. They only gave a discount on 747s to airlines that also purchased their entire or almost entire lineup. They pushed Airbus to the point where they felt obligated to top the 747 400 even if they were developing a plane that was not economically viable and would never sell enough units to pay for itself. So now as a result of Airbus appropriating so much money to develop the A380 they will not be ready to launch a plane to effectively counter the 777X and actually not even the Dreamliner in terms of fuel economy. And a replacement for the A320 series designed in 1980 to counter the 797 is not even on the drawing board.
Love the A380 - I flew in an Emirates A380-800 BUSINESS Class just to try it out - and i fell in love with it ( Spent half the trip at the Bar drinking Woodford reserve on the rocks - LOL ) Technically its a beast of a plane and a joy to fly in.
The A380s allow to carry more passengers for the best departure time slots or best arrival time slots in busy airports. That's one of the intial objectives. Prime time slots are very limited and competitive, some airports even not allow airlines to increase frequency. The only way to increase capacity is to use A380.
A technological success, prestige gained too but economically not really a failure nor success. The real benefits are yet to come, the experience gained is hard to quantify. Same could be said of the space program.
It's very simple, smaller size and fewer engines means lower operating costs. The advanced technology in engines and materials has allowed airplanes to do more with less.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Ryanair could fit 2000 seats in an A380 tbh
Weight. No way you could seat 2000 pax + luggage etc.
Ryanair proposed doing away with seats some time ago so they could squeeze more meat in their aluminum tubes. So yes they could fit 2000 pax in a A380 if the authorities would allow that.
That’s a Fact😂
They's fly them from London Stansted to anywhere in Spain LOL
Lardy Yes and have emergency landing every day because they don't fill enough petrol.
Is the A380 a failure?
That depends on what you define as "failure". As a former airline EVP in charge of the fleet, perhaps I am more qualified than most to discuss this specific topic.
Years ago, Boeing determined the market potential for the A380 was rather limited. They projected the break-even for Airbus to be around 250 aircraft. If it had not been for Emirates, accounting for about half of total orders, the program would have been doomed long ago.
The fact remains that no American carrier has placed an order hasn't helped EADS or Airbus. It is clear the trend has been toward twin-jets, not quad jets due to economics and flexibility with various city pairs domestically.
Like Concorde, the A380 was driven by national pride, not airline economics. In the US, airlines are owned and operated by private companies that must make a profit! The majority of A380 operators are government owned carriers in which profit is a secondary concern. Yes, EADS built the A380, and it has been a tremendous achievement on many levels in terms of engineering and manufacturing prowess. However, I must add that there are far too many problems in terms of built-in production efficiencies that drive costs up far more than necessary. This is primarily due to logistics issues from contributing nations.
In contrast, the 747 was built originally as an airplane that could be easily converted to cargo transport. This was in the era of the US SST program that never materialized. As such, older 747s can continue to generate revenue with freight while the A380 cannot do so nearly as easily. In short, the used market for an A380 may be pretty challenging for an airline's balance sheet.
In my view, the residual value of the A380 is increasingly in question. Once production stops Airbus can keep those already in service flying for several years, but its long-term airworthiness will be a question depending on structural issues found in service. Will suppliers be willing to make parts for an aircraft that may be likely out of production in a few short years? As an aircraft buyer, that would worry me to no end!
The aircraft is exceedingly heavy and challenging to service. This poses extra costs and ground support equipment not required for smaller airframes. Due to its enormous weight, landing fees will continue to be high and affects the use of such aircraft on given missions. Not many airports can effectively handle such a large aircraft and this makes its flexibility increasingly in question.
Was the A380 a failure? In my professional opinion, not at all in terms of technical accomplishment. However, in terms of pure economics, long-term, it's a dead duck! Kudos to Airbus, EADS and their people to build such an aircraft, But much like Concorde, economics rule the day in the commerical aviaiton business.
Great post
Great analysis and devoid of bias!! Thanks!
Thank you for your analysis! Great post!! and I also remember boeing predicting that fuel costs soaring would also drive more need towards twin/etops rated plane categories rather than the double decker and not all airports wanting to invest in the additional accommodation needed for the plane ... one day i would love to know what you do as evp!
Alex P I agree completely with your analysis and cringe at the posts describing the project as an outright failure. The technological brilliance has to be considered a huge success. I’m wondering if there is any way that an all economy layout with very competitive fares could be profitable for an airline as well as attractive to passengers like myself who require a low fare. Also is there no possibility of making it a two engine plane. I guess at the moment that sounds ridiculous but look how far we have come since the Wright Brothers. I don’t think the A380 is ugly as many do and I marvel at watching it effortlessly glide off the runway. I hope that there is a future for it.
I hear all you say, Alex. But I wonder if you aren't leaving some key issues out of your analysis?. Maybe you are writing off the A380 just a little too soon?. Let us revisit this question in 2028.
If u ask me the a380 would not be alive if not for emirates
sanjay krishna true
Truw
Exactly!
It was a complete misreading of the market.
No sense it sold out more than Boeing
Compare A380 order dynamics and engine issues to the early seventies events around first 747s. Personally I believe best years of A380 business are still to come.
@@77l96 still waiting
It’s the best aircraft I’ve travelled on
It was a commercial failure but its a huge win for the customer as it has the quietest cabin in the sky.
I wouldn't say the A380 is a "fail", but it definitely tried. Still my favourite plane!
From the point of view of the passenger, it's a great success because of it's comfort. Not so much for the operators and Airbus itself.
Thank you. As a passenger, I want the most comfortable plane possible, but unfortunately, the airlines need to make a profit to stay in business.
Excellent analysis. It's truly an amazing plane but it's sad that it never gained as much orders as Airbus envisioned.
They wished for 1,200+ when 400 never came in their eyes just to break even
With only 331 orders it is not a business success but it took 50 years to sell 1,544 747's. Sadly to many people only think of one or two airplanes (747 & A380) when the skies are full of beautiful machines. The 787 has almost out sold the 747 and the A 350 has close to three times the A380 orders. Giant planes are awesome but smaller planes are the real workhorses.
That's not a valid comparison because over most of the history of the 747, the airline industry was a lot smaller. If demand for airliners in 1970 was what it is today, and stayed constant, a lot more than 1,500 747's would have been sold.
Occhamite. Yeah about 331 the market for giant planes is very small!
People don't forget them, but the problem is that the 787 are not very popular with people travelling on long-haul routes. This is not the fault of the plane, but the fact that most carriers with very few exceptions are going for the cramped 3-3-3 seating arrangement for Economy, which is absolute torture on a 10+ hour flight. The 747 and the A380 are so far the only planes (with a very few exceptions) that have been allowed to keep the cabin layout that was intended for them, and that is why many travellers love these birds.
Marc; Since airfares are so cheap flying today is roughly the same as riding a bus back in the 60's. There was a time when only wealthy people traveled by air and the torture you speak of was weeks at sea in tiny cabins if you could afford it at all, which few people could. Economy Plus if you can afford it makes for a pleasant trip on any long haul or a sleeping pill if you're stuck in Economy.
Agreed. Comparing the first 10 years of the 747 with the first 10 of the A380 makes no sense.
Thank you very much for an excellent analysis. To give you some background I am now retied but was in the aircraft business both civil and military for most of my working life. Now to the subject in question. I personally think the A-380 has been a technical masterpiece, but at the same time a commercial disaster. Away back in the aircraft's developing period Airbus announced they would need to sell at least 400 aircraft to just break even. Well as of 2018 they have sold 331, but only delivered 223. Of which Emirates has ordered almost half. Now if anyone thinks Emirates have paid anything like list price for these aircraft must be living an a different planet from most of us. I have said my working life was spent in the aircraft business, maintenance actually, and I happen to have a good friend who works for Airbus. He must remain nameless of course but he has assured me that Emirates more stole their aircraft rather than but them from Airbus. Something your excellent video did not mention was the numbers of A-380s that have been cancelled, including all the cargo orders. There was to be two versions of the passenger airliner, a 550 seat version, and a 650 seat version. The 650 seater has been dropped, quietly, never to be mentioned again. No when both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas dropped their planned VLA ( very large aircraft ) programmes the writing was on the wall for the A-380. Sadly they must be slow learner at Airbus.
Emirates is the heart of the A380 program...nice video DJ!
I only Fly A380 when its possible i love that plane best ever
enjoy walking
@@johnnyllooddte3415 ,
I think it's not a failure for multiple reasons:
- it's obvious such a big plane will not have as many orders as smaller ones, as it's a hub based plane, not for small city airports
- it's the first product to rival the 747 and replace it as an airline flagship
- flagships rarely are self-sufficient (the 747 was and is not cheap to operate either), but they lift the airlines value through special products and prestige, which is an economic factor
- on some select routes, it seems to be the only real alternative (see ANAs orders)
- it's a technology carrier which has heavily transformed Airbus, bringing such a monster to the skies has finally enabled them to be eye-to-eye with Boeing, and I'm sure they learned a lot for all future projects
- passenger comfort is a selling point, whenever I can choose on a route, I'll defininetly pick the A380 flight, I e.g. try to avoid 777s, they are efficient workhorses, but passenger comfort is usuallly nowhere near an A380 (not only from a space, but also noise-level). Screaming GE90s are nice during takeoff, but after that...
Markus Krause but the 747 made profit alot of profit the 747-8 has not but the a380 has not so in a business since it's a failure and to be fair the middle East carers receive lodes of money from there government's that try to Deni that but emrits pus a380 on in profile roots and those caerres corn for more than 50% of the orders
while that is partially true (I'm sure emirates has a lot of profitable routes with the A380, but the absurd short hops are certainly not among them), I doubt that other carriers like SIA would still take delivery of new A380s if they would harm their business. It's not relevant for all Airlines if a certain plane is creating a lot of profit, if it helps the overall business and reputation. No doubt the overall numbers are not was Airbus was hoping for, but if the program would be that helpless it would've been cancelled years ago.
The first generation 747 also nearly brougth down Boeing (similar to Airbus) but eventually became a huge success. Strictly speaking only in it's 3rd (or 4th, depending how you count) Generation with the 747-400 really brought up the numbers.
I'm certain Airbus is looking into ways of how to 'salvage' the project, and I think we'll be surprised.
Maybe they turn it into a 3-engine or even 2-engine plane and apply A350 composite technology to the wings or fuselage. Nothing that we'll see before 2030, but I'm sure they're considering it.
Because quite honestly...no 777x, no A350-1000, no 787-10 will ever replace a 747 or A380, unless they totally dissolve hubs like Heathrow, Hongkong, Haneda, Singapore, whatever. There will never be a demand for 2000 of such planes, but they will have their space in certain areas.
Markus Krause why the long replies it's a failure simple
lunt banzi, we won't blame you if you aren't capable of deeper analysis.
1.) But why do only EK shows interest with A380? Big plane has many orders just look at A350, 787, 777 (wide bodies, they are considered as "big plane").
2.) It rivals 747 but it came a decade late when Boeing is experiencing the decline of 747 orders and deliveries. But Boeing did a terrible mistake to make another variant of the 747.
3.) Airlines operates to be profitable. Why would they buy a less "self-sufficient"? Flagships of majority of airlines in the world are either 777, 787, A330 or A350.
4.) Only EK can maximize the potential of the A380 due to their location.
5.) It's not a technology carrier because the world is now transitioning to the more efficient twin engines. A350 would be the better example if you are talking about the technology carrier.
6.) I agree that comfort is a selling point but as a passenger can you really choose an A380 flight? Only a little percentage of airliners in the world use the A380.
Once again a great and informative video from DJ’s Aviation.
Personally I feel that the A380 isn’t necessarily a failure but it’s far from being a commercial success for Airbus.
When Airbus and Boeing were looking at developing an aircraft such as this Boeing came to the conclusion that the market just wasn’t there and that airlines would prefer twin engined wide bodied airliners over a very large double deck airliner with 4 engines, Airbus went ahead and built the A380 anyway.
The A380 does work for a few carriers but if it isn’t full it isn’t making money.
It is also limited to around 60 airports that can support A380 operations further limiting its usefulness and appeal to the airlines.
Other negatives for most airlines are additional maintenance costs over a twin engined airliner, the overall weight of the airliner, it’s heavy and is somewhat restricted on hauling belly cargo (very profitable for airlines).
It’s doubtful that we will ever see an A380F because of the difficulties in loading (similar to the DC-10F and MD-11F) and the specialized loading equipment that would be needed for the upper deck, we might see a A380 freighter conversion but it really cannot compete with the B747-400 Freighter Conversions or the B747-8F not to mention the big twin freighters that are available.
The A380 is a good airliner it was just built at the wrong time.
Thank you. I've been saying pretty much the same thing. But I thought Airbus had to sell at least 400 planes just to break even on the A380 program. A beautiful, comfortable plane, but the market just isn't there.
WARNING: VERY LONG COMMENT, but also good I think.
As far as breaking barriers in commercial aviation, the A380 has certainly done that. It has brought back some of the romance and luxury of flying that was commonplace prior to the 1980's. However, it is a commercial failure for a few reasons. One, the size makes it impractical to operate for many airlines as the demand is not present, or because it costs too much to upgrade airports to fit such a massive jet. The A380 is very commonly compared to the 747 because of the size of the aircraft. However, what made the 747 so very successful for so many years is not entirely it's size. Yes, Pan Am wanted a massive jet back in 1969 because demand for air travel was booming, but multiple other airlines ordered it too, and for different reasons. The 747 offered great range at great efficiency for the time, and that was enough for airlines to order droves of them to operate their signature, long haul routes, even if they could only fill the jumbo a third of the way. Over time, however, competition came from more and more jets, namely the 767 and A330 on transatlantic routing, and the 777 and A340 on transpacific routing. By the time 747-400 production came to a close in 2009, the 787 had replaced the last little bits of the need for 747s, and the A380 killed off it's attractiveness capacity wise. So, by the time the 747-8I went into service, it was just another airliner. Many people say that the A380 replaced the 747 as far as ground breaking jets go, but in reality it did not. The A380 did not allow airlines to open up any new routes, it did not add greater speed or efficiency to route networks, and the benefits it's increased capacity is negligible. This is because airlines added greater luxury to their interiors over greater capacity. And while this happened to the 747 for a time, airlines began to realize that it was more profitable to cram more seats in, not to make it more luxurious. This is not happening with the A380, and that is because it is simply too big for today's international route network. Airlines are shifting away from the traditional hub and spoke network, and going to a point to point system. This means that having large jets running between hubs will not be filled, thereby causing the A380 to live in a world where it doesn't quite fit in anywhere. Had the A380 come along in 1985 with similar efficiency to the 747-400, it would have sold twice or three times as many jets that it has today. However, Airbus was too late with the A380, and Boeing even more so with the 747-8. Those two are almost like the MD-11 of the present day in that they came along just a bit too late. It is a true shame about what happened to such a marvel of engineering. I am not a fan of the A380 (very ugly nose, sorry A380 fans), but I do recognize what it had the ability to do had it come sooner. I only hope that the good people at Boeing and Airbus realize their mistake (Airbus isn't catching on as can be seen by the A380 plus idea), and can move past the glamor of such massive jets, and move into the future with the 787 and A350.
I agree, Airbus is refusing to admit it. Well written.
You’re a bit off on a few points. First off, without the A380, Emirates and Etihad would have never become what they are now. Furthermore, ultra-long-haul operators like Qantas do love their A380s due to their range, which is greater than the 744 and hub-to-hub capacity such as SYD-LAX and SYD-DFW. In fact, if it had not been for the A350-900 and 787-9, which are far more fuel economical, you’d see the A380 in production for far longer. Another issue that does not fare well for the 380 is its limited cargo capacity compared to the 77W. Cargo plays a big role in financial success of airlines.
I think you've been very generous in your evaluation. From a business perspective, I cant see the A380 as a success. At the time, Boeing could have competed by coming out with another huge plane, but instead saw the writing on the wall. Boeing correctly predicted that the industry would tilt toward smaller planes going longer distances directly rather than by the hub system. The 787 was their gamble, and they are doing well with it. Overall, Boeing is still losing market share, but at least avoided this large scalle blunder.
I guess it depends on your time reference. Im old enough to remember Airbus as an also ran. Now Airbus has overall 50% market share. This is a real threat. Ford is discontinuing car production. Boeing could be next.
You have missed my point entirely. American manufacturers losing market share is an issue. Boeing once dominated the airliner sector. Now it is hovering at half.
Also, you cant dismiss narrowbody sales as they are the vast majority of sales. All told, Airbus has a backlog of orders that is 25% greater than Boeing's.
Competition has made Ford so much better at making cars that they won't make them anymore. If you understand American manufacturing history, Boeing's decline is worrying.
Joey Suggs but if you look at the amount of sales, Boeing is clearly dominating Airbus. Yes, Airbus is dominating the narrow body, but narrow body is cheap compared to wide bodies, which Boeing is currently dominating.
Wow awesome topic . A lot of very knowledgeable commentators too. Extremely worthwhile. Keep up with latest aviation news with DJ's aviation!
I dunno. When I have to pick somebody up at the airport, I'm happy to do it if it's an airport that handles the A380s so I can check them out. Only other plane that can claim that is the Concorde.
As an Ex long term aircraft engineer with one of the worlds best I simply compliment you on your presentation and factual knowledge. You do a good job.. Keep it up
Definitely not a fail, they're probably the most infamous passenger jet in the skies. However, I do think that they won't become a 'staple' in the sky and their production will be small but long lived. The likes of Emirates and a few other carriers are what has kept them going. I think it has a future, but not a massive one (like the 747 series has had).
It is definitely more successful than the 747-8.
Also, I do believe they're going to be used for holidays in the future, even if production and fleet sizes fall. Many Asian migrations require large jets to transport the high volume of travellers at peak times.
Yes, at peak times during the travel season they may be able to sell those seats. But what about the rest of the year? Flying half empty planes means a financial loss for the airlines. The airlines would prefer to fly smaller planes that can fly into any airport in the world, while still being able to sell most of the seats during the year. Full, or nearly full planes are more profitable for the airlines.
A fair assessment. And like you said, much of the technology R&D is already being recouped & applied on the A350 & whatever comes next.
It reminds me a lot of the Bristol Britannia, which was a massive, state of the art, ultra impressive & high prestige value aircraft for the early 1950's. Unfortunately, as with any new big & bold aircraft, there were development problems & delays of several years. By the time they sorted the issues & got the aircraft to market, the B707 was on the scene & suddenly the "4-turning" was made obsolete by the "4-burning". The A380 suffered similar setbacks, while the new generation of long range twins, starting with the B787, made big ground from the get-go. With the impact on airlines around the world post-9/11 & then the GFC, the A380 was just too expensive for many airlines to contemplate, whilst the 787 was the better fit. If neither of those events occurred, I think the market would have been very different. No one in the aviation world, at Boeing, or Airbus, saw either of those events coming.
If the 300 or so sales of the A380 represents a failure, what does that say for the Concorde? They only built a dozen or so examples of the most beautiful, most technologically advanced aircraft of it's time, to ever grace the skies, but no one, NO ONE would ever call the aircraft a failure. Success is more than just sales.
I think it is. I don’t like the a380 but you’ve got to give it credit for how big it is. I always stop to have a look when I see them.
Not a failure, but more like *"Not Required"* nowadays. Same goes with the *747--8*. *787's* & *A350's* or the upcoming *777X* are hot and trending in the market as they are more efficient, seat a generous amount of passengers & can travel all the possible long haul routes without stopping over. And the airports can handle them easily without ground power or any other issues.
Thanks for the video Dj :) I really appericiate you talking on these topics.
You were spot on in your summary.
Technically and passenger wise it is a success. Commercially, it doesn't look like it is.
Thanks man :)
Aircraft should've been launched in the 2050's, when the human population is like ~20 billion~
The business of EK would be much different without the a380, they would not be as popular or make as much profit as they have without it
the A380 will have been upgraded by then, plus they can learn from this and use that knowledge elsewhere in the range.
I suppose so too. But he’s right, EK’s strategy would of been so much different
The UN expects the world's population to only reach 9.8 billion by 2050.
Won't have to worry about aircraft then. People would be far more concerned with food, drink and medicine to survive than airplane rides.
The A380 is a wonderful lady of the sky it's a great shame that more haven't sold I hope long term its survives
I love flying on them
1st is just the best way to travel but Emirates economy is good
The quants lay out of economy on the upper deck is a great lace to be absolutely no aircraft noise at all
No, it is not a failure! But definitely not very successful!
toom2141 - There was never really much of a business case for the A380, but Airbus knew the European governments were going to foot the bill whether or not it succeeded.
It has to fly at 85% capacity for any airline to make a profit
However for those three Middle East carrier profit is not important. They were seeking status symbols
LH,BA,FR,SQ,MH, and all other Asian carriers including Air China routes are chosen by capacity and congestive airport operation like Haneda and PVG and PEK and ICN
So ANA plans for Haneda to HNL is logical in terms of demand and capacity
Excellent video, and this is one of my favorites that you’ve ever done! The A380 is a technological marvel, but it ended up being the wrong aircraft at the wrong time. Had this aircraft come out say 10-20 years earlier it would have been a huge success sales wise. Keep up the great work!
Still the best plane to fly on. The difference is staggering. I look for airlines that have A 380s in their fleet and book accordingly.
I cancelled a London to Los Angeles 787 flight and will rebook on the A380. A twelve hour flight is considerably longer than the 3 hours I'm used to. Need to arrive somewhat more than zombified.
It is a great aeroplane. I used internet for the first time on it. What a feeling, at 11km above ground, over Iran
Lol... I work on aircrafts for a living, and the A380 is a fantastic failure. Bigger doesn't always equate to better...
@@PARABOLA1966 explain how being smoother, quieter, more comfortable and much roomier than the competition makes it a "fantastic failure" to work on
I
I would say the A380 is not really a commercial failure because it did receive around 300 orders, which is actually not bad for a jumbo jet like this and because so many people admire the A380 and think it is amazing :)
Well done DJ 65k subs !
I would love a video comparing the "proposed" layout to the most common, or maybe compare layouts in different airlines and the reasoning behind them.
Calling it a failure is a bit far but its certainly not that successful. The Concorde can be called a failure but I wouldn't say the same for the A380.
A success. It is part of the mix, the fact that it doesn't reach the same numbers as smaller planes, that should not surprise for a flagship. It's all about proportion.
I say yes it's a failure if it wasn't for Emirates ordering a massive bach of A380s it would have been dead many years ago. Take EK out of the question not many orders
MG AviationNZ Emirates Qatar etihad is keeping 777x program alive too.. especially Emirates.. airlines aren't going to be ordering aircrafts every 3yrs.. It's always all about arab gulf oil goverment runed airlines,take away Qatar etihad Emirates orders and it's down to 91 depending what the UAE goverment will decide what to do with etihad.
I don't think so. I believe that EK is harming the A380 more than it is doing it good. Without EK flooding the market with their super capacity, many more A380s would be sold to other airlines (especially European/Asian airlines). People see EK as the saviour of the A380, when it is actually killing it.
Olives Alail... Oh...My...(Insert word here, don't want to offend anyone.) You've just made me change my entire perspective of Emirates and A380s...I'm going to be thinking about this for a long time.
That is rather like saying, "if all those rich people didn't buy a Rolls Royce it would have been dead many years ago. Take rich people out of the equation and not many orders."
The fact is that Emirates DID order loads, they DO operate it successfully and passengers love it. I've just been to New Zealand and back from Dubai - it was sensational! The trip from Dubai to home in a 777-300 (again Emirates) was nowhere near as good.
If they (Airbus) make money on it then it is a success... There is no other measure.
all aircraft would be failures if you ....removed the orders.
One of the factors you should consider, is freight/cargo capacity. consider that a 747 freighter pays for itself inside a year and air freight is more of a profit center than passenger service.
Love your videos. Would love to see a video about the cseries. thank you
Very nice evaluation of the a380. It's honestly a two sided coin as to whether or not it was a failure. As you mentioned, there have been so many advances made with the a380, but it wasn't as popular with airlines. Maybe next would be a look at the a340 series,??
Awesome video mate 👍
Yes, most orders cancelled, not a good fit for most airlines. Some cancelled orders have caused there to be surplus inventory, that AB can't sell. AND, the 747, while smaller, is WAY more efficient.
NO! while it is no means a success it serves its purpose on high demand routes, the only route it doesnt fly on that it should realisticly fly on is of course the good ol london new york service
Certainly very comfortable in the BA Club Class. I can sleep through flights anyway, but the flat bed was a real bonus. Regarding being a commercial success, if the figures don't add up they don't add up.
The A380's tail isn't ridiculously tall to me.
Absolutely an amazing piece of engineering. There is no comparison to this aircraft. I personally worked on the power system for this aircraft and there is no comparison for that technology in aerospace today due to the physical size and power demands of the aircraft. Definitely a career highlight.
Amazing aircraft. I still hope that A380 line has chances of survival, considering the increasing congestion and limited slots at the major airports in the world. With the "plus" and "neo" versions these chances are even higher. Fingers crossed big beauty!!!
I have to agree. Hopefully if they can drive down operating costs even further then perhaps it can see some new interest
To make it worthwhile for airlines, the minimum that needs to be done is a re-engine with foldable carbon wings, like the 777X got. Ideally, the re-engine would make the plane two-engined, and the fuselage would be redesigned to have a lot of carbon components, but that would probably require a clean-sheet design.
Airbus would have to go back to the drawing board to come up with your ideas which are very good. Problem is , will the public go for it. Bums on seats can either make or break an aircraft such as Mcdonnel Douglas.
Airbus wouldn't have to go back to the drawing board for carbon composite wings and a four-engine re-engine; look to Boeing's 777X for how it can be done on an old chassis. Over the coming decades, I can see the need for bigger and bigger planes to cover trunk routes in Asia, such as Beijing-Shanghai, Hong Kong-Singapore, and Delhi-Mumbai. The only concern is realistic turnover times, but if that can be figured out with an A380neo, this is worth the investment in R&D.
Airlines must first show interest for the plus/neo version of the A380 before Airbus invest a lot of money for the R&D. As of now only EK shows interest with the upgrade.
We (the UK) bailed out as an Airbus partner early in the 380 project because I think we had reservations about it & the plane was suffering technical difficulties during development. We still make the wings for the entire Airbus fleet though.
Definitely yes make more videos like this one
Great video
Hi DJ, what makes the A380 my favourite (Qantas) plane and a winner is the fact that it is soo comfortable, silent and stable in all kinds of weather. We have been lucky enough to have flown it to various parts of the globe, with a number of companies and it has been great. From a very selfish perspective, I have found it easier to seek and be awarded an upgrade from Premium to Business on an A 380 because of the plane’s s large number of business class seats. Regrettably, with either the B 787 or the A 350, a reduced business class seats will not enamour a lot of people with plenty points seeking an upgrade from Premium to Business, but that is just a first world problem, isn’t it, but a reality with commitments to fly to the USA on a twice a year basis. Keep exploring the ever fascinating world of aviation; it is a great read!
The a380 is maybe not the best airplane for the airlines, but every big airline in the world should have 1 or 2 a380, because they are so beautiful and they are also very good for marketing.
Robin Operating only one or two of an aircraft type is incredibly expensive though!
When compared to the 747-8I orders it’s a bit chunk of a success but NOT totally successful, in General it’s Indeed a failure, Yea it hurts but it’s the truth. It’s only economical on certain routes, has not made any money for airbus. Thank God Emirates for keeping the program going. It’s Too big, And cannot land in 90% airports around the world and where the Queen can, Killing the Freighter made it worse. Airbus should of listened to Boeing on the VLA’s poor market, where Boeing clearly told them that it won’t sell the way airbus believe it to. And with the new 777X on it’s way with roughly the same amount of orders is it the a380 with or without Emirates is just a disaster waiting to happen. Just like the a380Plus
Could you give us an update on the engine delivery problem, and also the mechanical failures on the engines.
As an economy class passenger, who took 5-6 trips on A380(ek,sq,cz) I couldn’t say that I’m a satisfied A380 passenger. 3 main reasons are: 1) larger cabin means babies crying and other noises get amplified. With more passengers onboard you have more infants. 2) boarding process is separated because of so many people. Many passengers get confused whether its time for my group (myself) start queueing, and I often see people waiting in incorrect waiting groups get frustrated. 3) more passengers on one single larger plane means high chance of delay waiting for someone, medical in air emergency, and the worst case 2 daily flights become 1 daily then passenger has one less choice of departure time. I don’t think there are too many reasons eco passengers will prefer A380.
I've traveled in emirates economy on a380 and 777 on the same day and hands down a380 was much better.
I see your point but you could end up on a 737 and be next to an infant, then your trips gonna be worse than an A380 trip. It's kinda luck whether there are infants near you and whilst, yes more seats means that there's more possibility, but it's also completely random as to whether you get an infant nearby.
What about more seats for you to stay away from infant crying? You can always switch seats on plane once airborne.
The boarding procedures have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some airlines at better at it than others, the same for delays re missing pax etc, once again that is down to the particular airlines procedures for missing pax and local laws.
Go back 40 approx years ago and if you took your reasons to dislike the aircraft then the B747 would never have been built
The boarding process is entirely the airline's responsibility. I've seen total chaos boarding single aisle planes. Humans are idiots who cannot follow simple instructions but it's the boarding agents who won't enforce their own damn procedures and announcements.
G'day DJ,
Outstanding, balanced and informative video. Just before QANTAS took delivery of its first A380 (well before that potentially catastrophic engine malfunction) a friend of mine, who was not a QANTAS employee, was involved in independently assessing every aspect of the A380; safety and reliability being highest on the list. An old Boeing and Lockheed fan from way back, I asked him, privately, how the three manufacturers stacked up. I kind of asked; 'Which one should I fly in?" He said to me. "Boeing." It's a truly impressive airframe but the bigger a plane the more components and the greater the potential for tiny, unseen and unplanned for malfunctions. In aircraft disasters it is often a confluence of several small malfunctions that combine, unexpectedly, that result in fatalities. Ten years into the A380 program I reckon it should have made a bigger splash than it has. I can recall 10 years into the 747 program and that aircraft, by then, had effectively taken over the long haul routes all around the world. That hasn't happened with the A380 so, I would, humbly, judge it to be a failure. N.B. I I won Tatts I'd be into a 1st Class 'apartment' like a shot! Ha Ha! So, DJ, I'll stick with the old, old saying: "If it's not Boeing; I'm not going!" Cheers, BH
I agree 100 %. Even flying economic class the A380 is awesome ! In comparison, flying the 747 or even the newer 787 is like riding in a pickup truck where each bump on the road is felt by your rear... Too bad they couldn't sell more A380s !
Didier deNice obviously you’re not a business major, all planes experience turbulence, true the 380 has better sound reduction, but the fuel mileage is bad, it can’t compete with 787, or 777
Living in Seattle, even done some work on aviation biofuels with Boeing and Etihad. Was amused on a trip to Abu Dhabi when my Boeing guy couldn't help going on to the Etihad person about A-380 cracked wings and vibrations in the cabin. But it does sound like there were some problems. At the same time, I've heard delays on the 787 cost late fees that make the plane a money loser until something like 1,500 sell. Which would be close. What about that?
If you would just answer out of a business perspective the answer is Yes but many people do not recognice the image and reputation win of Airbus with the release of that plane, and that was worth Millions even Billions, so yes the A380 Ptogrammm itselve might lose millions but with other products Airbus gets millions and some of that come with the A380, at that point Airbus was truly established as the Aircraftmanufacture it is today.
Depends if you're an Engineer or a bean counter I guess. I love the fact that it pushes lots of boundaries and not just regurgitating more of the same. Well done Airbus for leading the way....
Im boeing fan but @380 is not a failure ✌
Can you do a video on Qantas......how successful it is in regards to the commercial aspect ..... and in regards to the passengers point of view....... I would love to see where is Qantas standing in the international market , in today’s times .
Good topic Dj, and good job looking at the issue from all sides.
I have to agree with you that unless things change drastically, the A380 must be considered a failure since it will not make money for Airbus. If an aircraft company does not make money, it goes out of business, regardless the excellence of certain aspects of its designs.
I'd also agree that some of the spin-off technology could mitigate the losses, but those spin-offs could just as well been had from a project which turned a profit.
The failure was avoidable. Out of a fascination with the 747, Airbus management convinced themselves, in the face of adequate contrary evidence, that the bulk of future air travel growth would be along a relative few major trunk routes, while Boeing's careful attention to customer desires led it to conclude the "point-to-point" model was the future, and to design the 787.
You make some good points about design. I guess I'd reply by saying "sort of": Good design actually consists of two distinct parts: the technical competence in the implementation, and the appropriateness of the design to the end-use. It is very telling that the updated 747 has garnered the same number of orders, is cheaper to operate on both a trip and seat-mile basis, has a higher speed and greater versatility.
I would argue that the excellence of the A380's design is mainly in ergonomics: when a 30+ year-old 747 can be modernized to greater efficiency than a new A380, the new design can hardly be first-rate, despite some bright spots. You have offered first-hand views of the A380 cargo-bay, with its inefficient, cut-up shape, and Airbus went for the low flight deck - to facilitate cross-training of pilots rated for other types - eliminating a nose door and assuring the A380 would never be a first-class freighter.
Clearly then, the A380 is a failure. If Airbus had consistently employed the faulty decision-making process that produced the A380, they would have gone bankrupt long ago, even if they had some bits of spiffy technology left over to put on the auction block.
I fully agree with you, the A380 is a great aircraft but it failed financially it wasn't a technological breakthrough and it didn't bring anything new to AB. The worst thing about the A380 is that it delayed the A350, it's good for AB that they have the backing the A320 else they would end up like Lockheed after the 1011
I worked in Marketing/Support for a major supplier on the A380. Early on, Airbus revealed that, due to structural limitations, A380's could not be converted to freighters after retiring from passenger service. With no secondary market, their residual value was basically scrap metal. We knew their would be few customers beyond Emirates, which wanted the aircraft for "bragging rights". Being state sponsored, they don't have the same market pressures to deal with.
It cost Airbus close to 30 billion dollars to develop the A380, they thought it was going to revolutionise passenger aviation. Meanwhile Boeing was working on their Dreamliner project, they saw that the era of super size 4 engine jets was over. Even their own 747-8i wasn't a great success. At the end of the day Airbus made a big gamble and it didn't pay off. I love the A380 as a passenger, when I'm choosing my flights if it's a choice between A330, B777 or A380 then I'll choose the A380 every time. But if it wasn't for Emirates the A380 project would have been a complete disaster for Airbus. Boeing 747 was first delivered in 1970 and 11 years later there were already 540 deliveries, and orders continued to grow. Now 11 years after the first A380 was delivered they have delivered 223 with not many future orders. It's a great plane but it didn't revolutionise passenger aviation and it was not a great commercial success for Airbus. We are now living in the last decades of big 4 engine passenger jets, unfortunately for Airbus they spent $30 billion on a white elephant.
Good vid. The a380 to me just came 20 years too late. The 747 just never had a serious competitor for so many years given its massive size. That's why it's so iconic. When Airbus introduced the 380 Boeing were seeing sales for the 747 decline. So they went with smaller aircraft that could travel long distances such as the 787 and they kept stretching the 777.
If you calculate success by number of sales emirates has 105 of them and all of them are not flying . The bye n keep. Standing in anchor . And total production is 300 195 in all over the world . With rolls Royce engine . Most of them engine failure . In this way it's a failure . I like a380 but I Am telling u truth
I would hate to see the A-380 go as I think its an awesome engineering feat and love watching it fly and come in to land .What an awesome sight.
nO A380 is too beautiful to retire/stop producing
Airplane Engine Beauty doesn’t make money in aviation.
Dyno Don I am makin money tf
The most interesting stat was comparing the first 10 years with the 747. Almost identical. And Boing went on to “stretch” it 2 more times. A 700 seat 3 class variant would make economic sense
Ryan Air or Spirit will do an 853 config on something like the JFK-LAX route. Just watch.
Ryanair LAX to JFK? You sure?
LOL
Sheeps Wool Someday. It is a very busy route.
Ryanair's CEO Michael O' Leary has actually mentioned in an interview recently, that an Airbus fleet is something they had looked into in the past. With Ryanair's invest in Laudomotion they are already starting that but I personally think they use that argument with Boeing to get an even better price for their 737's. Ryanair is the world's largest operator of 737's so it is of course a very important customer. I don't think Ryanair would ever operate wide bodies though. Turn around times are much longer and they are more expensive to fly. Also EU - US is already a highly competitive market and prices are very cheap with return flights starting from as low around 250€ so I see no point for Ryanair at that market. They've corporated with Air Europe last year though so you can in fact buy tickets for overseas destinations from the Ryanair website.
the airports and pax handling for one aircraft with 853 on board is yet not capable.. safety aspect also a challenge. So its not in the hand of just airlines desire
Here's one you could do a "was the ________ a failure?" on: the "Boeing" 717 didn't sell very well but it's become increasingly sought after since production ended.
747-8 is far worse in number of orders
Pongamorn Tuankaow Yes, however, without Emirates, the a380 would likely be in the same boat. If the 747-8 had a carrier like Emirates it would've been slightly more successful but the closest they've got is UPS and their order numbers are nowhere near that of Emirates'.
How is 787-8 far worse? 787-8 entered service 7 years ago 441 orders to date. A380 entered service 11 years ago 331 orders to date.
Are you sure man?
Father Bertolucci Read the comment again 🙄
Father Bertolucci please read my comment again. I said "747-8" not 787-8.
Thanks Alex P great info from inside about the process.
Oh! look a big plane! nobody wants to buy a big plane!! So I'm going to make two videos discussing the same topic over and over again !!! We get it, okay!
I’m an engineer working at London Heathrow and it is always amazing to stand next to a380 and just be blown away by how big the big bird is.i would have to agree that the a380 is not a complete commercial success, in my opinion a lot of thing changed while the aircraft was in development. Fuel,the financial crisis, more efficient 2 engined aircraft that could do the better for less. If the aircraft was introduced 5 years earlier it might have been a different story,
adding to the a380 woes British airways have publicly stated that they would only buy second hand a380 as new is too expensive and Singapore airlines giving up the first 5 a380 does not fill other airlines with confidence in the product
Airbus, The A380 and its Airplane lineup can't be seen as a failure. I would rather say it is a successful model for Airbus. Where Airlines don't appreciate much because of its cost, flying range and will be suitable in few use case scenarios. Like ANA they ordered the A380 and prioritize it on on-demand flight destinations, which it is very clever.
Frank Vincent Tolores Gesmundo but it's not made a profit for Airbus so it's in a business since it's a failure
Were the L-1011 and 717 failures?
Love the plane. I have just flown London to Dubai on one. I hope this aircraft does have a long future.
To me the A 380 was not a failure.. rather a victim of a rapidly changing market place...
The A380 is truly a modern marvel. Such a beautiful looking design and an outstanding pleasure to fly in . It has to be said that the competitions configurations most likely do suit the present and future demands of the airline's but l feel that this does not mean that the A 380 is a failure.
I'm glad they built it.
I love to see it in the sky's
I love to fly in it.
It's a great success.
Let's see what happens over the next 5 years..
Thanks for your up load
A 380 fan
I gonna say it is. I mean how many airlines have ordered/operate the A380 as opposed to 787 or even the Bombardier C series?
It is by far my favorite jet liner. I have flown it both in Coach and Business. Love business space and quite. But 4 engine liners are becoming history. Will we get 2 engine liners to this level?
Are four engined aircraft's safer than two engines?? Just thinking out loud with regards to engine failures.
An engineering success, difficult to evaluate if a commercial success as expertise gained can be used elsewhere.
I fly Emirates Ho Chi Minh Vietnam to Birmingham UK, via Dubai route. They use the Boeing 777 on the Ho Chi Minh leg and the A 380 Dubai to Birmingham leg. I travel business class as I have a back problem and prefer the lay flat seats to try and get some sleep. The A380 hearing bone seat lay out is great for easy ingress and egress without being disturbed or disturbing and other passenger. As has to be done on the B 777 seat layout. the a 380s seat appears a bit wider but that might just be just a bit more space at the side of the seats. The other plus for me is the bar area at the rear of the cabin its great to stroll down to to stretch my legs and have some standing time, without having to do it in the isles. If the A 380s are faced out I hope the airlines will adopt the hearing bone seat lay out.
On my last fight into Birmingham airport 3 other aircraft landed in quick succession to the A 380, immigration and customs were totally swamped. The timing of large aircraft landing at smaller reginal airports need to be carefully planned, I travel to the west country and Birmingham is about the same distance as Heathrow and the choice between them is a no brainer. I hate Heathrow with it's long walks to distant gates and they even have chicanes to negotiate when you do finally reach them.
I would say, engineering wise, it has been a massive success. Commercial wise maybe somewhat a failure because many airlines have opted for smaller planes like the Dreamliner.
I am surprised that you did not consider that the A 380 was built to support a hub and spoke model which I think is now totally out of favour. I think limited landing slots at some airports was also a factor so you could get more passengers into say LHR with fewer planes.
The 787 and A 350 are built for point to point service with thinner traffic. This seems to be the model for most airlines going forward. Air Canada for example has used its 787 on very long haul routes which could not support a larger aircraft (even a 777).
Commercially the A 380 is a failure. I flown on A380 a couple of times, its spacious and quiet, but I much prefer the A 350
Awesome video dude
hello I'm the wife and our journey aboard the a380 was a wonderful one we traveled for 10 hours on the flight and it was a memorable one didn't even feel like I was on a plane. I think in this country we need a fast train like the French fast train. But of course the airlines would go out of business if we were to do that.
The proclivity and longevity of the 747 was the cargo versions, and the ability to convert or use mixed configurations of it for cargo. It was frankly a much more flexible airframe. Airbus would do well to make the 380 a mega freight hauler...
Amazing that it is smaller than the BFR pressurized volume.
1:40 yeah. Finally, someone understands my mistakes on my English tests.
Great video, Would be interesting to a Concorde success or failure video!
Failure as we have relatives (both of us were in the aviation arena one as an Air Traffic Controller and the other a Senior System Analyst). The systems relative has flown the 380 between Australia and Europe a number of times, and both he and his wife preferred the B-747. We travel between the west of the US to Europe once or twice a year and always avoid any airline using the 380.
I'd love to fly in A-380 some day and hope it stays operational for many more years to come.
Orders and sale , to this date:
Orded 332
Delivered 226
average annual orders are around 20
average annual deliveries are around 25
at this pace A380 could be produced for next 20 years
Boeing's sales tactics in the 80s and 90s paid off huge. They only gave a discount on 747s to airlines that also purchased their entire or almost entire lineup. They pushed Airbus to the point where they felt obligated to top the 747 400 even if they were developing a plane that was not economically viable and would never sell enough units to pay for itself. So now as a result of Airbus appropriating so much money to develop the A380 they will not be ready to launch a plane to effectively counter the 777X and actually not even the Dreamliner in terms of fuel economy. And a replacement for the A320 series designed in 1980 to counter the 797 is not even on the drawing board.
Love the A380 - I flew in an Emirates A380-800 BUSINESS Class just to try it out - and i fell in love with it ( Spent half the trip at the Bar drinking Woodford reserve on the rocks - LOL )
Technically its a beast of a plane and a joy to fly in.
The A380s allow to carry more passengers for the best departure time slots or best arrival time slots in busy airports. That's one of the intial objectives. Prime time slots are very limited and competitive, some airports even not allow airlines to increase frequency. The only way to increase capacity is to use A380.
A technological success, prestige gained too but economically not really a failure nor success. The real benefits are yet to come, the experience gained is hard to quantify. Same could be said of the space program.
Thank you Emirates for all the orders you placed for the A380!
It's very simple, smaller size and fewer engines means lower operating costs. The advanced technology in engines and materials has allowed airplanes to do more with less.