20 ms·

Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

294 points by tiff 9y ago

namdnay 9y ago
I fly Emirates A380 from time to time, I have to say the business class is better than the first class of most carriers. Very quiet, masses of space, and the bar is not bad at all when you want to stretch your legs. And when you get bumped up to first... having a shower on a flight is very nice :) The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Sometimes I'll fly on BA, which is far inferior on every point, just to have a bit of uninterrupted sleep.
- vinay427 9y ago
  This makes sense about the stopover, but is why these airlines have gained a lot of traction with travelers from the Americas to Asia. Particularly from the eastern part of the Americas to non-eastern Asia, an approximately 10-15h flight followed by a 0-8h is relatively nice for getting sleep. However, I am definitely not a fan of the DXB terminal that Emirates flies into with its dim lighting and incredibly high number of very expensive shops. A high-end mall is not what I am looking for after hours of sitting on a plane.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Emirates does offer at least one of these flights (NYC to Milan). Though I'm not sure if it's an A380 - I suspect it's not. I wish I had the spare cash to fly their business class on the A380 before it gets discontinued!
  - namdnay 9y ago
    Apparently it is: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE206 https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE206 I did not know about this flight, very interesting!
  - mapgrep 9y ago
    It is indeed a 380. Even in economy, the Italian food (and wine) was very respectable.
  - kylehotchkiss 9y ago
    They'll "offer" it to coach passengers for $1000 during check in sometimes. It's worth the splurge just once.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai This is why the A380 has been a failure. It is only economical when it is full. Airlines must cram demand into a few routes, e.g. London --> Dubai, to ensure they fill their planes. That's fine if you're flying from London to Dubai. But if you're flying to Asia, a competing flight going directly to your destination is preferable. That route has too little demand to profitably fill an A380. It might be just right, though, for a 787.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    With the time difference I prefer two 8ish hour trips from Manchester to singapore than a 1 hour flight to London and 14 to singapore. I find the stopover in the Middle East really helps with the time difference
- l8again 9y ago
  >> If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. The only place it would be medium + medium/long going to Asia on a gulf airlines is if you are going to far east. In which case, european airlines wouldn't fare any better, and the best route would be to go pacific with Singapore Airlines. For me, gulf carriers always seem better route going to India as it translates to one long and one short (4 hours at most) flight.
dfine 9y ago
Can't help but think that this vindicates Boeing's bet on the smaller 787.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus’s bet at the time raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing’s didn’t. The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly Selling planes is complicated. For the same reason the F-35 sources random things from practically everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous to have suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers. [1] https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada
    - kss238 9y ago
      The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every state in the US is a political one, not from a logistics issue. Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut Just as Boeing might find it easier to convince Singapore Airlines to buy its planes if its government knows jobs would be lost if demand for the plane is insufficient.
      - kalleboo 9y ago
        The comment you're replying to is saying Selling planes is complicated. Not building them. Convincing congress to continue the program falls under selling.
perl4ever 9y ago
If customers believe this, is it self-fulfilling?
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  Or could it be a ploy to scare Emirates into making a big purchase, because they don't want to be the only company shouldering the support costs for a class of airplane?
brndnmtthws 9y ago
When it comes to airplanes, bigger isn't necessarily better. I guess the novelty value has worn off and giant jets like this have limited appeal. If there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of course it would make sense, but due to the limited number of airports that can service these planes and the high cost, I don't see much future in them. The efficiency just isn't there.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  They do pay off for large congested airports with limited landing slots (e.g. Beijing between Guangzhou, which is the only 380 I’ve flown on). But this isn’t as much of a problem as we thought it would be 20 years ago. Incidentally, this used to be why Japan flew so many 747s on domestic routes.
  - brndnmtthws 9y ago
    Right, but in order for that to work you need to be able to consistently fill the planes to capacity. That's not as easy as it sounds. There's a limited number of routes where it makes sense, so that means you don't really have an economy of scale opportunity.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Yes, for sure. It makes sense on a few routes in china ATM but as airport infrastructure and high speed rail are built out, airbus is surely in trouble (same reason japan no longer uses any 747s domestically, and Boeing has basically relegated the 747 to a freighter, albeit a very successful one).
      - snowwrestler 9y ago
        Funny thing is that the 747 was originally designed as an airframe that could convert to a freighter. That's why the cockpit is in a bubble above the main cylinder of the fuselage--to get out of the way of the cargo. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that eventually all passenger travel would be supersonic. Boeing put their best folks on the SST project, and the 747 was a stopgap afterthought. Turned out that fuel efficiency was way more important than speed.
code4tee 9y ago
Boeing played the market correctly here. When everyone was oohing over the A380 Boeing said super jumbos were on their way out and focused on the 787. If it hadn’t been for Emirates buying so many A380s to begin with it would have been a flop from the start (Emirates alone operates almost half of the A380s ever built). The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin engine jets and here Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing in both sales and design.
- zerkten 9y ago
  It seems like a company can only make one successful move at a time (in what I find a very ugly) industry. At the lower end Boeing struggles with the 737 being too large for a lot of markets. There Embraer, Bombardier (now part of Airbus), and a bunch of other companies seem to have an opportunity, if they can execute. It'll be interesting to see what Boeing does there given the cozy relationship with Embraer.
  - rchowe 9y ago
    Bombardier is not a part of Airbus now, they just sold 50.01% of the C-series program to Airbus so that they could manufacture them in Alabama and dodge the 300% tariff imposed on them by the US government. It is unclear where the C-series airplanes for non-US markets will be made, but it's suspected to still be by Bombardier in Canada.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      > It is unclear where the C-series airplanes for non-US markets will be made, but it's suspected to still be by Bombardier in Canada. It's pretty clear—Canada. That said, there's a significant change: sales, and post-sales work, will mostly be handled by Airbus, who already have much more contact with many more airlines and leasing companies than Bombardier.
- pmcollins 9y ago
  Boeing's market analysis said that the market could barely support one super-jumbo, let alone two, so they opted for the much cheaper 747 upgrade and we got the 747-8 (which is also headed for extinction). I heard an analyst say that you have to carry a lot of fuel to carry a lot of fuel. The optimal size from an efficiency perspective is the much smaller 737 -- the more you deviate from that, the larger the efficiency penalty.
danmaz74 9y ago
> Emirates, however, has been a strong believer in the A380 and is easily the largest customer with total orders of 142 aircraft, of which it has taken just over 100. ... > Emirates, for its part, wants a guarantee that Airbus will keep production going for a decade to protect its investment. Closing the A380 production line isn't going to happen for years anyway, considering the backlog they have, so, this leak looks a lot like a tactical one to put pressure on Emirates.
- vladd 9y ago
  >> Closing A380 isn't going to happen for years considering the backlog they have The article mentions: "96 unfilled orders -- But based on airlines’ intentions or finances, 47 of those are unlikely to be delivered, which halves the number of jets in play." So the actual backlog stands at 96 - 47 = 49 planes. This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries#By_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and... - shows that they've been delivering between 20 and 30 airplanes per year in the last years, which would allow a backlog depletion within 2 years. Even if they slow down, it still doesn't cover the decade gap requested by Emirates.
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    The article says that for this year they would produce 6 or 7 planes, so, the backlog would last much longer...
    - vladd 9y ago
      49 / 7 = 7 years (a gap of 3 years until they can commit for a decade)
stergios 9y ago
Boeing most likely has already delivered the last passenger 747 ever to be built [1]. Cargo demand will keep the line alive, but at greatly reduced numbers, which in total have been 1536 units since it's commercial introduction in 1970 [2]. IMHO, the A380 was not created to meet market demand, but instead was conceived to meet the national interests of England and France's own military industrial complex, and in that regard it was a success. 1. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747-jumbo-jetliner/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 edit: format fix.
- jmnicolas 9y ago
  The A380 is used as a military plane ?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    It’s the commercial product of Airbus, an EU defense contractor. http://www.airbus.com/defence.html http://www.airbus.com/defence.html
    - masklinn 9y ago
      Both Boeing and Airbus have defence contracting arms, that doesn't mean all of their platforms have defence purposes. AFAIK there is no military variant of the A380, Airbus's current civilian platforms with military variants are the A310[0] and A330[1] and their own derivatives (KC-45 which derives from the A330 MRTT). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  Shouldn't that be France and Germany? From the top of my head the largest production facilities with most employees are in those countries.
empressplay 9y ago
I hate that plane, I flew it from Melbourne to LAX and won't do it again. Weirdly noisy and almost hits the end of the runway on takeoff. No thanks.
- johansch 9y ago
  It's strangely quiet compared to everything except B787 and A350. Are you really sure it was an A380 you flew?
mpweiher 9y ago
I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official backlog for the A380 is ~100 planes (actual may be less), the 747's is 21. "the 747 line could be closed in the third quarter of 2019". And I don't quite get how Boeing somehow played this better, it's not exactly that they decided not to develop a jumbo, they just already had one, whereas Airbus had a bunch of mid-size twins (in fact, the company created and was founded on the mid-size wide-body twin, the A300). Now you can argue that both planes "were"/might be killed by the shift to smaller twins (and the shift in regulations allowing much longer ocean crossings with just two engines, heck, I recently read that they are now doing the Atlantic in 737s!), but I don't think this is necessarily so, at least not by itself. Boeing might have been right that there wasn't space in the market for two such planes, but that's a comfortable position if you have the monopoly in this, the high-end segment of the market. I also am not convinced that the reason given for the A380, constrained slots at major airports serving the major routes, is entirely invalid. With air travel growing the way it does, this problem is not going away, and the shift to more point to point routes may only have been a temporary reprieve. As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Boeing has built and sold over 1,500 747s [1]. It first flew in 1969 and is now being end of lifed. It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetime. The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a commercial disaster. The 747 was a great plane for 1969. Airbus built the finest horse-drawn carriage just as the Model T came out. > constrained slots at major airports serving the major routes Between 30 and 40% of passengers departing from JFK or Newark will go on to a connection [3]. Consider what happens when they start flying directly to their destinations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 [3] https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR_2015.pdf https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR_2015.pdf
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
Upper deck Air France economy A380 is still the best and most quiet economy layout I've ever flown.
- rconti 9y ago
  Lufthansa does this too (but I haven't flown the AF version so I cannot compare)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yason 9y ago
Too bad it's struggling: A380 won't go anywhere overnight but in comparison 747 was in production for decades. Compared to 747 and many other wide-body aircraft it's a wonderful plane. Sitting on the second deck gets you by far the quietest flight even in economy.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
The A380 is too early and fell in a hole created by powerful and efficient new engines. This created the possibility for long point to point destinations. With growing air traffic congestion at airports will increase again and the need for larger planes will increase also.
org3432 9y ago
Naive question, but what routes does Emirates fly that could make an A380 worth it? That's a big plane.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Dubai is slot contained, and they fly to plenty of other slot contained airports. As far as I'm aware, London to Dubai alone has seven daily A380 flights. More generally, Emirates have gone for a single daily A380 flight instead of more frequent flights to many destinations.
  - org3432 9y ago
    Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a population of little more than Austria would have that many travelers.
    - namdnay 9y ago
      It's just a hub at an arbitrary (for travelers) location. People aren't actually going to Dubai. DXB is an extreme of course, but trasnfer passengers represents a huge part of the activity for many hubs: 30% of passengers at LHR are in transfer, and more than 50% at ATL!
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      Obviously, a vast majority of passengers are just changing planes in the hub to go to other destinations.
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        I do wonder how many passengers ex-London are travelling to Australia/New Zealand (which are undoable currently without a stopover).
    - lathiat 9y ago
      They're well positioned as a hub between Europe/USA and Asia+Australia. Emirates as the stopover is literally in the middle (also counts for their ME airline cousins, as they are all next to each other). Plus with current flight lengths, you need a stopover somewhere. That is changing, though.. with Perth-London direct opening soon. That's a long time to be on 1 plane though. And it's only a little shorter (1-2h) than going via DXB. (I'm in Perth)
eccbits 9y ago
Good to see Boeing winning
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Why, do you have a share in the company?
  - rconti 9y ago
    Or a job, or livelihood in the Northwest or Chicagoland, or...
Robotbeat 9y ago
777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply cannot scale because they already have to have short wings to fit in airports. Folding wings (like the 777x) can address this. Longer, higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the march to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow electrification of most air travel. And I do think that supersonic air travel will make a strong comeback. There are technology advances making the energy costs lower and the noise quieter. We're also becoming richer as a species. So I think this will bite into the first/business-class trans-oceanic market segment that the Jumbos previously operated in.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  > We're also becoming richer as a species. I don’t understand this. Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because it’s a zero sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages count but can be scaled up or down without effect.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? Quality of life is not a zero sum game. If you want to be quantitative, one could deploy a proxy metric like the Kardashev scale [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
    - ComputerGuru 9y ago
      But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge, microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water, and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still “richer” than him. (Some Roman rulers did have “AC” though: Attempts to control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where wealthy citizens took advantage of the remarkable aqueduct system to circulate cool water through the walls of their homes. The emperor Elagabalus took things a step further in the third century, building a mountain of snow—imported from the mountains via donkey trains—in the garden next to his villa to keep cool during the summer. [0]) 0: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_history_of_air_conditioning.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_hist...
bobity 9y ago
Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much more comfortable than any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on an A380 in any class you won't go back...
- jeffcore 9y ago
  No one is really disputing that the A380 is more comfortable than the older 747, but that's not enough to save it as more and more carriers prefer frequency over size.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  > Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines You seem to be under the impression that European, Middle Eastern, and Asian airlines don't fly to the United States. I've been on the A380 at least a dozen times on the LAX-NRT route. It also flies into ATL, JFK, SFO, IAD, BOS, MIA, and IAH.
- rconti 9y ago
  I've flown the A380 a bunch of times, always SFO-FRA, upper deck economy on Lufthansa. The best part of the experience is the relative calm of the small economy class on the upper deck. To be honest, other than that, I don't particularly prefer it over anything else. If I was pressed I guess I'd say I prefer the 787. Mostly I prefer whatever gets me to my destination without a layover (which, thankfully, is usually available from SFO). The worst part is the crush of people trying to board the damn plane, spilling out all over the entire terminal.
- ryguytilidie 9y ago
  Yank here. I've flown the 380 twice. It's obviously better than the 747, which is a what, 40 year older plane, but that isn't the point. 787s and 350s are both just as nice and more economical for airlines. I prefer business class in the 787 vs the 380.
infofarmer 9y ago
«Airbus to axe A380 mid-flight if Emirates deal blows up»
Yizahi 9y ago
I may be dumb but I don't understand the numbers in the article. They write Airbus has "96 unfilled orders" then say that "47 of those are unlikely to be delivered". So they won't be ordered or won't be delivered? If it's the latter then won't it be breach of contract on Airbus side and just kinda plain stupid? And if it's the former that doesn't it contradict previous number of 96 units ordered? Next they say "deliver the remaining 41 it has on order" - where did this number come from if they have 96 on order? Or if we believe paragraph about 47 not delivered, then 96-47=49, not 41. And the last whether it is 96, 49 or 41 - it is more than "Airbus needs to sell at least another 30". And regarding "To bridge the gap, Airbus plans to cut output to six a year beyond 2019, from 12 in 2018 and 8 in 2019, even if it means producing at a loss, Reuters recently reported." - 12+8+(8years*6units)=68 units over next 10 years (and way more than "at least another 30") - how does this correlate with any other number in the article?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- reaperducer 9y ago
  This happens all the time. Airline X places an order for 50 new jets. The jets take 15 years to build. Three years later, economics shift. Maybe Airline X is bought by Airline Y and doesn't need all those jets. Some of the orders are cancelled. You read about it all the time in the business press.
- tolien 9y ago
  Some orders will be transferred to other models, e.g. Airbus sold customers an A350-800 that didn't exist yet then cancelled the project that would have developed it. The orders were transferred to the -900 and A330neo, with the airlines presumably getting an inducement to do so.
- csours 9y ago
  6 could be in production right now.
samfisher83 9y ago
The 747 struggled initially as well. If the A380 is completely full it is almost 30% cheaper per passenger per mile to fly compared to 787. Maybe some new company will come up with a way to make money like southwest or spirit.
- ethagknight 9y ago
  Sounds like filling the A380 is the problem, without flooding the various markets with availability. Curious- I've always read the A380 is more expensive per seat mile than 787. Source?
  - samfisher83 9y ago
    http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.aspx http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.as... You would basically have to fill it up to its capacity.
KeepTalking 9y ago
While the focus is on the original business case for building Mega planes like the A380 the knock-on/hidden impact of closing the A380 line has detrimental impact on Airports that invested millions into being 'A380 ready'. Airports around the world spent millions of dollars building out A380 capable terminal gates, wider taxi-ways and bigger baggage handling systems to deal with A380 arrivals and departures. Food caterers invested money in special trucks that deliver food to the upper deck. At the ATC level, slots and flight seperation guidelines were changed to accomodate the whale jets. Some airports were chastised for not investing fast enough (ORD?, SEA) to be A380 ready. I guess they now look wiser. The death of the A380 will reduce risk taking by airports in the future. Failed aircraft projects have a large negative impact on future appetite for these crafts. Just look at what happened to supersonic flight. We have not seen any commercial investment and research into supersonic air travel. While the case can be easily made against these white elephant projects, the knock on R&D benefits of these airlines projects are amazing. Selective R&D 'Hand of God' moments that allow government support could be the solution here. At minimum, it would be great if China, Japan or any other aspiring aerospace super powers can buy the project and invest in its future.
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective . Maybe the A380 will have the same outcome ? It seems like ORD knew this .
  - masklinn 9y ago
    > Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective. Supersonic flight was mostly killed by US political decisions, not by economics.
    - rizwank 9y ago
      Citation please.
hindsightbias 9y ago
Boeing was right and with all those savings still only has a single-isle solution that is 50 years old. 787 bankrupted them mentally.
_ph_ 9y ago
While it is easy to see how airlines like the 2 engined airplanes on most routes, and flying directly instead of the spoke and the hub model, the question is, how easy is it to grow? I just flew MUC-SFO and back. A nice direct flight operated by LHA once per day with an A 340. And both flights were booked to the last seat. While arriving at SFO on the way back I could see the LHA A380 leaving for FRA. So, with them operating a flight to Frankfurth with the A 380 already and the flight to Munich filled completely, what is the most economic way of growing? Is it to have two flights per day, or take a larger airplane? And probably, there are only so many more open slots at the airports for additional flights. Once they are saturated, having a much bigger airplane available could be a business perspective for Airbus. If global air travel continues to grow, we need either many more flights, or bigger airplanes. Especialls with the 747 going away, if Airbus can keep the A 380 alive, there might be quite a future.
- karthikb 9y ago
  The right way to deal with this is by adding more flights. United operates a seasonal sfo-muc during the summer. And the timings for this flight are quite different than the LH flight, giving travelers quite a bit of flexibility.
alexhutcheson 9y ago
This could be posturing to help them win the Emirates deal. Emirates has already made a huge investment in the A380, so if Airbus shuts down the production line that could translate to larger costs and less flexibility for Emirates in the medium term. If Airbus can make a credible threat to wind down the program, that might convince Emirates to pay more than they otherwise would as a way to keep the program afloat.
- notatoad 9y ago
  If it is, it's pretty shitty posturing. The fact that your most sigificant recent product is effectively EOL if one customer cancels is not the sort of thing you want other potential customers to hear. Even if emirates does re-up on the 380, they're going to have a hard time convincing other customers after this.
saosebastiao 9y ago
I find it interesting that people claim that the hub and spoke model is being phased out. It's not...it's being expanded. There are more hubs, and hubs are expanding the reach of their spokes, and that means more cities where you can find direct flights to or from. The expansion of the number of cities in the US that fly direct to London is because the London hubs have expanded its reach to US cities. In the absence of an airline hub there, you would never find a direct flight to London from Seattle or New Orleans. In fact, you can prove this out yourself: find the list of non-seasonal direct international flights available from your local airport. Of those, filter out the flights that are seasonal, or on an airline for which your local airport is a hub. Then filter out all the flights where the destination is a hub for that specific airline. What is left? For me, nothing [0]. The trend in aviation isn't point to point. It is more hubs with longer reaches. The A380 failed because it is an extremely expensive behemoth with a single solitary benefit that could only ever be realized at megahubs that were already maxed out on 747s: it eased slot constraints. Airlines responded to slot constraints like they should have, by spreading out to more hubs with fewer slot constraints...not by buying a steaming pile of extremely expensive garbage. [0] http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-Maps/Pages/Non-Stop-International.aspx http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-Ma...
- rconti 9y ago
  I don't see how you can reach this conclusion. At the very least, it goes against conventional wisdom. And, of course, it depends on where you sit. With my home airport as SFO, I can be happy about the diversity of point-to-point options I have, but you might argue I'm just flying from one hub to another. If it's true that there are more "hubs", that means that there are also more point-to-point flights for more people. And conversely, the more point-to-point flights there are, the more you could argue some of those points are hubs. Ultimately the issue comes down to how airlines see themselves and market their routes. Low-cost carriers like Southwest are invested in point-to-point, but in the international market, nationality regulations mean that flights are necessarily hub-and-spoke, at least in small countries. If I take a nonstop Icelandair flight from the US to Iceland, is that a point-to-point route? Or would you argue it's hub-and-spoke because Icelandair uses KEF as their hub?
Animats 9y ago
The disappointing thing is that Boeing discontinued the B-757 while continuing to make B-737 variants. The 737 first flew in 1967. Fifty years later, variants are still in production. It's longer now, has better avionics, and better engines, but it's still the same diameter and still has poor climb performance. What the airline industry wants to buy is flying buses.
KeepTalking 9y ago
>> As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up. Color commentary: This is a outcome of a micro trend that was caused due to the collapse the 2nd largest airline in Germany. It is unlikely this is an indicator of longer aircraft deployment. Regional and domestic routes tend to skew towards frequency and convenience. Most major airports and regulators also encourage this behavior when analyzing and distributing airport slots.
WalterBright 9y ago
If I recall correctly, the 747 was in production for 10 years before it turned a profit. And then it became a huge money-making machine for Boeing.
sologoub 9y ago
From consumer standpoint, A380 is by far my favorite for cross-Atlantic flights. A340 would be a distant second. 777s layout fits more people then A340 (superior for airline), but 3/4/3 seating just plain sucks for passengers compared to 2/4/2 for A340. More leg room too. A340 having toilets below deck is also great - fewer smells in the cabin. Sadly, getting a A340 is like lottery and A380 is only operated in a few routes.
- lathiat 9y ago
  Emirates A380 is very comfortable, flying ex-Australia to Europe or USA it's common to get an A380 from either Emirates or Qantas. For Asia, you can get an A350 from Cathay Pacific at very competetive prices. Seat Width is a big factor, 18" on Emirates and very comfortable seats. I haven't yet tried the 787 though, looking forward to trying the Qantas offering.
- tim333 9y ago
  The 787 is pretty nice too. Having electrical air pumps rather than bleed air is a plus - there's some evidence it can cause problems (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-is-a-breath-of-fresh-cabin-air.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-...)
sitepodmatt 9y ago
Not mentioned but 787 in economy 9 across is horrific, I'd take a380, a350 or a now rare 9 across 777 any day of the week. Future of economy flying is grim.
ojosilva 9y ago
The whole thing, including ousting the CEO recently, sounds like Airbus sales antics to win the deal. Threatening Emirates with dropping the A380 program is a killer pressure point. Can you imagine it? It would leave Emirates with a dead fleet of elephants in their hands (brandwise). They would go from exclusive long haul kings, with hundreds of youtube videos of their wonderful first class to looking like a junk yard plane carrier. This would also kill most A380 airport expansion plans. Right now airports around the globe are pushing or planning to push for expansions to welcome such an exclusive aircraft. Once Airbus announces it's over, no more airports will support the A380 and Emirates loses a hell lot of future money besides the obvious branding issues. This is why I believe the Emirates sale will happen and the wonderful A380 will enjoy a very long, albeit shy, life.
- semperdark 9y ago
  I have no experience in the Aerospace industry; won't announcing that the A380 is so precarious make airports reluctant to spend on supporting them anyway? Maybe the huge numbers at play here change the economics, but in other industries a signal like this would often kill off all related investment.
m23khan 9y ago
One of the reasons A380 is struggling is because of lack of airports around the World that can handle such a large aircraft for passenger usage. It really does require an upgrade to an existing International Airport (those built way before A380 came along and are located in poor countries) in terms of passenger bridges and other such facilities. Other than that, in the new age of aviation, smaller jets such as A319, A321, embraer's jets, Bombardier's Cseries, and even jets like 737MAX, 737-700+ are taking away a lot of traditional routes that would have been typically serviced by large aircraft. It seems that now (barring transoceanic routes), smart routing of flights typically involve increased frequencies between two cities using smaller aircrafts meanwhile providing additional scheduling options for a more busy modern man. IMHO, A380, Airbus's superguppy, and 747s should be aggressively and exclusively developed and marketed towards cargo airlines and towards military customers (think military transport) around the World and including companies like Amazon.

294 points by tiff 9y ago

I fly Emirates A380 from time to time, I have to say the business class is better than the first class of most carriers. Very quiet, masses of space, and the bar is not bad at all when you want to stretch your legs. And when you get bumped up to first... having a shower on a flight is very nice :) The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Sometimes I'll fly on BA, which is far inferior on every point, just to have a bit of uninterrupted sleep.

vinay427 9y ago
This makes sense about the stopover, but is why these airlines have gained a lot of traction with travelers from the Americas to Asia. Particularly from the eastern part of the Americas to non-eastern Asia, an approximately 10-15h flight followed by a 0-8h is relatively nice for getting sleep. However, I am definitely not a fan of the DXB terminal that Emirates flies into with its dim lighting and incredibly high number of very expensive shops. A high-end mall is not what I am looking for after hours of sitting on a plane.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Emirates does offer at least one of these flights (NYC to Milan). Though I'm not sure if it's an A380 - I suspect it's not. I wish I had the spare cash to fly their business class on the A380 before it gets discontinued!
- namdnay 9y ago
  Apparently it is: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE206 https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE206 I did not know about this flight, very interesting!
- mapgrep 9y ago
  It is indeed a 380. Even in economy, the Italian food (and wine) was very respectable.
- kylehotchkiss 9y ago
  They'll "offer" it to coach passengers for $1000 during check in sometimes. It's worth the splurge just once.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai This is why the A380 has been a failure. It is only economical when it is full. Airlines must cram demand into a few routes, e.g. London --> Dubai, to ensure they fill their planes. That's fine if you're flying from London to Dubai. But if you're flying to Asia, a competing flight going directly to your destination is preferable. That route has too little demand to profitably fill an A380. It might be just right, though, for a 787.
- isostatic 9y ago
  With the time difference I prefer two 8ish hour trips from Manchester to singapore than a 1 hour flight to London and 14 to singapore. I find the stopover in the Middle East really helps with the time difference
l8again 9y ago
>> If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. The only place it would be medium + medium/long going to Asia on a gulf airlines is if you are going to far east. In which case, european airlines wouldn't fare any better, and the best route would be to go pacific with Singapore Airlines. For me, gulf carriers always seem better route going to India as it translates to one long and one short (4 hours at most) flight.

dfine 9y ago

Can't help but think that this vindicates Boeing's bet on the smaller 787.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus’s bet at the time raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing’s didn’t. The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly Selling planes is complicated. For the same reason the F-35 sources random things from practically everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous to have suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers. [1] https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada
  - kss238 9y ago
    The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every state in the US is a political one, not from a logistics issue. Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut Just as Boeing might find it easier to convince Singapore Airlines to buy its planes if its government knows jobs would be lost if demand for the plane is insufficient.
    - kalleboo 9y ago
      The comment you're replying to is saying Selling planes is complicated. Not building them. Convincing congress to continue the program falls under selling.

perl4ever 9y ago

If customers believe this, is it self-fulfilling?

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
Or could it be a ploy to scare Emirates into making a big purchase, because they don't want to be the only company shouldering the support costs for a class of airplane?

brndnmtthws 9y ago

When it comes to airplanes, bigger isn't necessarily better. I guess the novelty value has worn off and giant jets like this have limited appeal. If there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of course it would make sense, but due to the limited number of airports that can service these planes and the high cost, I don't see much future in them. The efficiency just isn't there.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
They do pay off for large congested airports with limited landing slots (e.g. Beijing between Guangzhou, which is the only 380 I’ve flown on). But this isn’t as much of a problem as we thought it would be 20 years ago. Incidentally, this used to be why Japan flew so many 747s on domestic routes.
- brndnmtthws 9y ago
  Right, but in order for that to work you need to be able to consistently fill the planes to capacity. That's not as easy as it sounds. There's a limited number of routes where it makes sense, so that means you don't really have an economy of scale opportunity.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Yes, for sure. It makes sense on a few routes in china ATM but as airport infrastructure and high speed rail are built out, airbus is surely in trouble (same reason japan no longer uses any 747s domestically, and Boeing has basically relegated the 747 to a freighter, albeit a very successful one).
    - snowwrestler 9y ago
      Funny thing is that the 747 was originally designed as an airframe that could convert to a freighter. That's why the cockpit is in a bubble above the main cylinder of the fuselage--to get out of the way of the cargo. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that eventually all passenger travel would be supersonic. Boeing put their best folks on the SST project, and the 747 was a stopgap afterthought. Turned out that fuel efficiency was way more important than speed.

code4tee 9y ago

Boeing played the market correctly here. When everyone was oohing over the A380 Boeing said super jumbos were on their way out and focused on the 787. If it hadn’t been for Emirates buying so many A380s to begin with it would have been a flop from the start (Emirates alone operates almost half of the A380s ever built). The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin engine jets and here Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing in both sales and design.

zerkten 9y ago
It seems like a company can only make one successful move at a time (in what I find a very ugly) industry. At the lower end Boeing struggles with the 737 being too large for a lot of markets. There Embraer, Bombardier (now part of Airbus), and a bunch of other companies seem to have an opportunity, if they can execute. It'll be interesting to see what Boeing does there given the cozy relationship with Embraer.
- rchowe 9y ago
  Bombardier is not a part of Airbus now, they just sold 50.01% of the C-series program to Airbus so that they could manufacture them in Alabama and dodge the 300% tariff imposed on them by the US government. It is unclear where the C-series airplanes for non-US markets will be made, but it's suspected to still be by Bombardier in Canada.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > It is unclear where the C-series airplanes for non-US markets will be made, but it's suspected to still be by Bombardier in Canada. It's pretty clear—Canada. That said, there's a significant change: sales, and post-sales work, will mostly be handled by Airbus, who already have much more contact with many more airlines and leasing companies than Bombardier.
pmcollins 9y ago
Boeing's market analysis said that the market could barely support one super-jumbo, let alone two, so they opted for the much cheaper 747 upgrade and we got the 747-8 (which is also headed for extinction). I heard an analyst say that you have to carry a lot of fuel to carry a lot of fuel. The optimal size from an efficiency perspective is the much smaller 737 -- the more you deviate from that, the larger the efficiency penalty.

danmaz74 9y ago

> Emirates, however, has been a strong believer in the A380 and is easily the largest customer with total orders of 142 aircraft, of which it has taken just over 100. ... > Emirates, for its part, wants a guarantee that Airbus will keep production going for a decade to protect its investment. Closing the A380 production line isn't going to happen for years anyway, considering the backlog they have, so, this leak looks a lot like a tactical one to put pressure on Emirates.

vladd 9y ago
>> Closing A380 isn't going to happen for years considering the backlog they have The article mentions: "96 unfilled orders -- But based on airlines’ intentions or finances, 47 of those are unlikely to be delivered, which halves the number of jets in play." So the actual backlog stands at 96 - 47 = 49 planes. This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries#By_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and... - shows that they've been delivering between 20 and 30 airplanes per year in the last years, which would allow a backlog depletion within 2 years. Even if they slow down, it still doesn't cover the decade gap requested by Emirates.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  The article says that for this year they would produce 6 or 7 planes, so, the backlog would last much longer...
  - vladd 9y ago
    49 / 7 = 7 years (a gap of 3 years until they can commit for a decade)

stergios 9y ago

Boeing most likely has already delivered the last passenger 747 ever to be built [1]. Cargo demand will keep the line alive, but at greatly reduced numbers, which in total have been 1536 units since it's commercial introduction in 1970 [2]. IMHO, the A380 was not created to meet market demand, but instead was conceived to meet the national interests of England and France's own military industrial complex, and in that regard it was a success. 1. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747-jumbo-jetliner/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 edit: format fix.

jmnicolas 9y ago
The A380 is used as a military plane ?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  It’s the commercial product of Airbus, an EU defense contractor. http://www.airbus.com/defence.html http://www.airbus.com/defence.html
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Both Boeing and Airbus have defence contracting arms, that doesn't mean all of their platforms have defence purposes. AFAIK there is no military variant of the A380, Airbus's current civilian platforms with military variants are the A310[0] and A330[1] and their own derivatives (KC-45 which derives from the A330 MRTT). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
Shouldn't that be France and Germany? From the top of my head the largest production facilities with most employees are in those countries.

empressplay 9y ago

I hate that plane, I flew it from Melbourne to LAX and won't do it again. Weirdly noisy and almost hits the end of the runway on takeoff. No thanks.

johansch 9y ago
It's strangely quiet compared to everything except B787 and A350. Are you really sure it was an A380 you flew?

mpweiher 9y ago

I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official backlog for the A380 is ~100 planes (actual may be less), the 747's is 21. "the 747 line could be closed in the third quarter of 2019". And I don't quite get how Boeing somehow played this better, it's not exactly that they decided not to develop a jumbo, they just already had one, whereas Airbus had a bunch of mid-size twins (in fact, the company created and was founded on the mid-size wide-body twin, the A300). Now you can argue that both planes "were"/might be killed by the shift to smaller twins (and the shift in regulations allowing much longer ocean crossings with just two engines, heck, I recently read that they are now doing the Atlantic in 737s!), but I don't think this is necessarily so, at least not by itself. Boeing might have been right that there wasn't space in the market for two such planes, but that's a comfortable position if you have the monopoly in this, the high-end segment of the market. I also am not convinced that the reason given for the A380, constrained slots at major airports serving the major routes, is entirely invalid. With air travel growing the way it does, this problem is not going away, and the shift to more point to point routes may only have been a temporary reprieve. As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Boeing has built and sold over 1,500 747s [1]. It first flew in 1969 and is now being end of lifed. It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetime. The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a commercial disaster. The 747 was a great plane for 1969. Airbus built the finest horse-drawn carriage just as the Model T came out. > constrained slots at major airports serving the major routes Between 30 and 40% of passengers departing from JFK or Newark will go on to a connection [3]. Consider what happens when they start flying directly to their destinations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 [3] https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR_2015.pdf https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR_2015.pdf

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

Upper deck Air France economy A380 is still the best and most quiet economy layout I've ever flown.

rconti 9y ago
Lufthansa does this too (but I haven't flown the AF version so I cannot compare)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

yason 9y ago

Too bad it's struggling: A380 won't go anywhere overnight but in comparison 747 was in production for decades. Compared to 747 and many other wide-body aircraft it's a wonderful plane. Sitting on the second deck gets you by far the quietest flight even in economy.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

The A380 is too early and fell in a hole created by powerful and efficient new engines. This created the possibility for long point to point destinations. With growing air traffic congestion at airports will increase again and the need for larger planes will increase also.

org3432 9y ago

Naive question, but what routes does Emirates fly that could make an A380 worth it? That's a big plane.

gsnedders 9y ago
Dubai is slot contained, and they fly to plenty of other slot contained airports. As far as I'm aware, London to Dubai alone has seven daily A380 flights. More generally, Emirates have gone for a single daily A380 flight instead of more frequent flights to many destinations.
- org3432 9y ago
  Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a population of little more than Austria would have that many travelers.
  - namdnay 9y ago
    It's just a hub at an arbitrary (for travelers) location. People aren't actually going to Dubai. DXB is an extreme of course, but trasnfer passengers represents a huge part of the activity for many hubs: 30% of passengers at LHR are in transfer, and more than 50% at ATL!
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    Obviously, a vast majority of passengers are just changing planes in the hub to go to other destinations.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      I do wonder how many passengers ex-London are travelling to Australia/New Zealand (which are undoable currently without a stopover).
  - lathiat 9y ago
    They're well positioned as a hub between Europe/USA and Asia+Australia. Emirates as the stopover is literally in the middle (also counts for their ME airline cousins, as they are all next to each other). Plus with current flight lengths, you need a stopover somewhere. That is changing, though.. with Perth-London direct opening soon. That's a long time to be on 1 plane though. And it's only a little shorter (1-2h) than going via DXB. (I'm in Perth)

eccbits 9y ago

Good to see Boeing winning

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Why, do you have a share in the company?
- rconti 9y ago
  Or a job, or livelihood in the Northwest or Chicagoland, or...

Robotbeat 9y ago

777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply cannot scale because they already have to have short wings to fit in airports. Folding wings (like the 777x) can address this. Longer, higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the march to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow electrification of most air travel. And I do think that supersonic air travel will make a strong comeback. There are technology advances making the energy costs lower and the noise quieter. We're also becoming richer as a species. So I think this will bite into the first/business-class trans-oceanic market segment that the Jumbos previously operated in.

ComputerGuru 9y ago
> We're also becoming richer as a species. I don’t understand this. Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because it’s a zero sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages count but can be scaled up or down without effect.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? Quality of life is not a zero sum game. If you want to be quantitative, one could deploy a proxy metric like the Kardashev scale [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge, microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water, and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still “richer” than him. (Some Roman rulers did have “AC” though: Attempts to control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where wealthy citizens took advantage of the remarkable aqueduct system to circulate cool water through the walls of their homes. The emperor Elagabalus took things a step further in the third century, building a mountain of snow—imported from the mountains via donkey trains—in the garden next to his villa to keep cool during the summer. [0]) 0: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_history_of_air_conditioning.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_hist...

bobity 9y ago

Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much more comfortable than any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on an A380 in any class you won't go back...

jeffcore 9y ago
No one is really disputing that the A380 is more comfortable than the older 747, but that's not enough to save it as more and more carriers prefer frequency over size.
reaperducer 9y ago
> Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines You seem to be under the impression that European, Middle Eastern, and Asian airlines don't fly to the United States. I've been on the A380 at least a dozen times on the LAX-NRT route. It also flies into ATL, JFK, SFO, IAD, BOS, MIA, and IAH.
rconti 9y ago
I've flown the A380 a bunch of times, always SFO-FRA, upper deck economy on Lufthansa. The best part of the experience is the relative calm of the small economy class on the upper deck. To be honest, other than that, I don't particularly prefer it over anything else. If I was pressed I guess I'd say I prefer the 787. Mostly I prefer whatever gets me to my destination without a layover (which, thankfully, is usually available from SFO). The worst part is the crush of people trying to board the damn plane, spilling out all over the entire terminal.
ryguytilidie 9y ago
Yank here. I've flown the 380 twice. It's obviously better than the 747, which is a what, 40 year older plane, but that isn't the point. 787s and 350s are both just as nice and more economical for airlines. I prefer business class in the 787 vs the 380.

infofarmer 9y ago

«Airbus to axe A380 mid-flight if Emirates deal blows up»

Yizahi 9y ago

I may be dumb but I don't understand the numbers in the article. They write Airbus has "96 unfilled orders" then say that "47 of those are unlikely to be delivered". So they won't be ordered or won't be delivered? If it's the latter then won't it be breach of contract on Airbus side and just kinda plain stupid? And if it's the former that doesn't it contradict previous number of 96 units ordered? Next they say "deliver the remaining 41 it has on order" - where did this number come from if they have 96 on order? Or if we believe paragraph about 47 not delivered, then 96-47=49, not 41. And the last whether it is 96, 49 or 41 - it is more than "Airbus needs to sell at least another 30". And regarding "To bridge the gap, Airbus plans to cut output to six a year beyond 2019, from 12 in 2018 and 8 in 2019, even if it means producing at a loss, Reuters recently reported." - 12+8+(8years*6units)=68 units over next 10 years (and way more than "at least another 30") - how does this correlate with any other number in the article?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
reaperducer 9y ago
This happens all the time. Airline X places an order for 50 new jets. The jets take 15 years to build. Three years later, economics shift. Maybe Airline X is bought by Airline Y and doesn't need all those jets. Some of the orders are cancelled. You read about it all the time in the business press.
tolien 9y ago
Some orders will be transferred to other models, e.g. Airbus sold customers an A350-800 that didn't exist yet then cancelled the project that would have developed it. The orders were transferred to the -900 and A330neo, with the airlines presumably getting an inducement to do so.
csours 9y ago
6 could be in production right now.

samfisher83 9y ago

The 747 struggled initially as well. If the A380 is completely full it is almost 30% cheaper per passenger per mile to fly compared to 787. Maybe some new company will come up with a way to make money like southwest or spirit.

ethagknight 9y ago
Sounds like filling the A380 is the problem, without flooding the various markets with availability. Curious- I've always read the A380 is more expensive per seat mile than 787. Source?
- samfisher83 9y ago
  http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.aspx http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.as... You would basically have to fill it up to its capacity.

KeepTalking 9y ago

While the focus is on the original business case for building Mega planes like the A380 the knock-on/hidden impact of closing the A380 line has detrimental impact on Airports that invested millions into being 'A380 ready'. Airports around the world spent millions of dollars building out A380 capable terminal gates, wider taxi-ways and bigger baggage handling systems to deal with A380 arrivals and departures. Food caterers invested money in special trucks that deliver food to the upper deck. At the ATC level, slots and flight seperation guidelines were changed to accomodate the whale jets. Some airports were chastised for not investing fast enough (ORD?, SEA) to be A380 ready. I guess they now look wiser. The death of the A380 will reduce risk taking by airports in the future. Failed aircraft projects have a large negative impact on future appetite for these crafts. Just look at what happened to supersonic flight. We have not seen any commercial investment and research into supersonic air travel. While the case can be easily made against these white elephant projects, the knock on R&D benefits of these airlines projects are amazing. Selective R&D 'Hand of God' moments that allow government support could be the solution here. At minimum, it would be great if China, Japan or any other aspiring aerospace super powers can buy the project and invest in its future.

zitterbewegung 9y ago
Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective . Maybe the A380 will have the same outcome ? It seems like ORD knew this .
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective. Supersonic flight was mostly killed by US political decisions, not by economics.
  - rizwank 9y ago
    Citation please.

hindsightbias 9y ago

Boeing was right and with all those savings still only has a single-isle solution that is 50 years old. 787 bankrupted them mentally.

_ph_ 9y ago

While it is easy to see how airlines like the 2 engined airplanes on most routes, and flying directly instead of the spoke and the hub model, the question is, how easy is it to grow? I just flew MUC-SFO and back. A nice direct flight operated by LHA once per day with an A 340. And both flights were booked to the last seat. While arriving at SFO on the way back I could see the LHA A380 leaving for FRA. So, with them operating a flight to Frankfurth with the A 380 already and the flight to Munich filled completely, what is the most economic way of growing? Is it to have two flights per day, or take a larger airplane? And probably, there are only so many more open slots at the airports for additional flights. Once they are saturated, having a much bigger airplane available could be a business perspective for Airbus. If global air travel continues to grow, we need either many more flights, or bigger airplanes. Especialls with the 747 going away, if Airbus can keep the A 380 alive, there might be quite a future.

karthikb 9y ago
The right way to deal with this is by adding more flights. United operates a seasonal sfo-muc during the summer. And the timings for this flight are quite different than the LH flight, giving travelers quite a bit of flexibility.

alexhutcheson 9y ago

This could be posturing to help them win the Emirates deal. Emirates has already made a huge investment in the A380, so if Airbus shuts down the production line that could translate to larger costs and less flexibility for Emirates in the medium term. If Airbus can make a credible threat to wind down the program, that might convince Emirates to pay more than they otherwise would as a way to keep the program afloat.

notatoad 9y ago
If it is, it's pretty shitty posturing. The fact that your most sigificant recent product is effectively EOL if one customer cancels is not the sort of thing you want other potential customers to hear. Even if emirates does re-up on the 380, they're going to have a hard time convincing other customers after this.

saosebastiao 9y ago

I find it interesting that people claim that the hub and spoke model is being phased out. It's not...it's being expanded. There are more hubs, and hubs are expanding the reach of their spokes, and that means more cities where you can find direct flights to or from. The expansion of the number of cities in the US that fly direct to London is because the London hubs have expanded its reach to US cities. In the absence of an airline hub there, you would never find a direct flight to London from Seattle or New Orleans. In fact, you can prove this out yourself: find the list of non-seasonal direct international flights available from your local airport. Of those, filter out the flights that are seasonal, or on an airline for which your local airport is a hub. Then filter out all the flights where the destination is a hub for that specific airline. What is left? For me, nothing [0]. The trend in aviation isn't point to point. It is more hubs with longer reaches. The A380 failed because it is an extremely expensive behemoth with a single solitary benefit that could only ever be realized at megahubs that were already maxed out on 747s: it eased slot constraints. Airlines responded to slot constraints like they should have, by spreading out to more hubs with fewer slot constraints...not by buying a steaming pile of extremely expensive garbage. [0] http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-Maps/Pages/Non-Stop-International.aspx http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-Ma...

rconti 9y ago
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion. At the very least, it goes against conventional wisdom. And, of course, it depends on where you sit. With my home airport as SFO, I can be happy about the diversity of point-to-point options I have, but you might argue I'm just flying from one hub to another. If it's true that there are more "hubs", that means that there are also more point-to-point flights for more people. And conversely, the more point-to-point flights there are, the more you could argue some of those points are hubs. Ultimately the issue comes down to how airlines see themselves and market their routes. Low-cost carriers like Southwest are invested in point-to-point, but in the international market, nationality regulations mean that flights are necessarily hub-and-spoke, at least in small countries. If I take a nonstop Icelandair flight from the US to Iceland, is that a point-to-point route? Or would you argue it's hub-and-spoke because Icelandair uses KEF as their hub?

Animats 9y ago

The disappointing thing is that Boeing discontinued the B-757 while continuing to make B-737 variants. The 737 first flew in 1967. Fifty years later, variants are still in production. It's longer now, has better avionics, and better engines, but it's still the same diameter and still has poor climb performance. What the airline industry wants to buy is flying buses.

KeepTalking 9y ago

>> As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up. Color commentary: This is a outcome of a micro trend that was caused due to the collapse the 2nd largest airline in Germany. It is unlikely this is an indicator of longer aircraft deployment. Regional and domestic routes tend to skew towards frequency and convenience. Most major airports and regulators also encourage this behavior when analyzing and distributing airport slots.

WalterBright 9y ago

If I recall correctly, the 747 was in production for 10 years before it turned a profit. And then it became a huge money-making machine for Boeing.

sologoub 9y ago

From consumer standpoint, A380 is by far my favorite for cross-Atlantic flights. A340 would be a distant second. 777s layout fits more people then A340 (superior for airline), but 3/4/3 seating just plain sucks for passengers compared to 2/4/2 for A340. More leg room too. A340 having toilets below deck is also great - fewer smells in the cabin. Sadly, getting a A340 is like lottery and A380 is only operated in a few routes.

lathiat 9y ago
Emirates A380 is very comfortable, flying ex-Australia to Europe or USA it's common to get an A380 from either Emirates or Qantas. For Asia, you can get an A350 from Cathay Pacific at very competetive prices. Seat Width is a big factor, 18" on Emirates and very comfortable seats. I haven't yet tried the 787 though, looking forward to trying the Qantas offering.
tim333 9y ago
The 787 is pretty nice too. Having electrical air pumps rather than bleed air is a plus - there's some evidence it can cause problems (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-is-a-breath-of-fresh-cabin-air.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-...)

sitepodmatt 9y ago

Not mentioned but 787 in economy 9 across is horrific, I'd take a380, a350 or a now rare 9 across 777 any day of the week. Future of economy flying is grim.

ojosilva 9y ago

The whole thing, including ousting the CEO recently, sounds like Airbus sales antics to win the deal. Threatening Emirates with dropping the A380 program is a killer pressure point. Can you imagine it? It would leave Emirates with a dead fleet of elephants in their hands (brandwise). They would go from exclusive long haul kings, with hundreds of youtube videos of their wonderful first class to looking like a junk yard plane carrier. This would also kill most A380 airport expansion plans. Right now airports around the globe are pushing or planning to push for expansions to welcome such an exclusive aircraft. Once Airbus announces it's over, no more airports will support the A380 and Emirates loses a hell lot of future money besides the obvious branding issues. This is why I believe the Emirates sale will happen and the wonderful A380 will enjoy a very long, albeit shy, life.

semperdark 9y ago
I have no experience in the Aerospace industry; won't announcing that the A380 is so precarious make airports reluctant to spend on supporting them anyway? Maybe the huge numbers at play here change the economics, but in other industries a signal like this would often kill off all related investment.

m23khan 9y ago

One of the reasons A380 is struggling is because of lack of airports around the World that can handle such a large aircraft for passenger usage. It really does require an upgrade to an existing International Airport (those built way before A380 came along and are located in poor countries) in terms of passenger bridges and other such facilities. Other than that, in the new age of aviation, smaller jets such as A319, A321, embraer's jets, Bombardier's Cseries, and even jets like 737MAX, 737-700+ are taking away a lot of traditional routes that would have been typically serviced by large aircraft. It seems that now (barring transoceanic routes), smart routing of flights typically involve increased frequencies between two cities using smaller aircrafts meanwhile providing additional scheduling options for a more busy modern man. IMHO, A380, Airbus's superguppy, and 747s should be aggressively and exclusively developed and marketed towards cargo airlines and towards military customers (think military transport) around the World and including companies like Amazon.