5 ms·

It's a shame these didn't sell in the numbers that Airbus initially hoped for, but I also think breaking these down for parts make a lot of sense considering th

by kokey 8y ago

It's a shame these didn't sell in the numbers that Airbus initially hoped for, but I also think breaking these down for parts make a lot of sense considering that updating the customer interior of such a large aircraft for a new operator is so expensive. I hope Airbus can continue making this model, if they can keep bringing the cost down as manufacturing of this continues to improve, that should be possible.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I hope Airbus can continue making this model The A380 was doomed from the start. It was built to compete with the 747, a jet which first flew in 1969 [1] and designed for hub-and-spoke "trunk" routes. In that narrow aim, the A380 succeeded. The problem is the entire A380/747 category peaked before the A380's first flight. High-efficiency engines mean long-and-skinny routes are now profitable. Instead of packing Chicago to London and D.C. to London passengers into a JFK-Heathrow megaflight, one runs Chicago-Heathrow and D.C.-Heathrow with medium jets. At the end of the day, the A380 was designed to be impressive to European politicians more than to airline executives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics. To be fair other Airbus models like the A32x line have been phenomenally successful.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics The Concorde was ahead of its time. Fun fact: the 747 was designed with its "hump" so it could be turned into a freighter once the Concorde's successors made it obsolete. The assumption was everyone would be flying supersonic by the new millennium. Unlike the A380, the Concorde was assumed to be a vision of the future.
    - InTheArena 8y ago
      Not Concorde per se - The Boeing 2707 - which Boeing canceled as it became clear that the numbers just didn't make sense.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        And the US government cut funding--which of course made the numbers make even less sense.
        jandrese 8y ago
        And also people complained about sonic booms which caused a bunch of rushed legislation and killed the potential market even harder. Honestly, the extra fuel burn (carbon emissions!) from SSTs would be problematic even today. I'm not sad that aircraft manufacturers instead focused on boring but profitable fuel efficiency instead.
        ghaff 8y ago
        I don't disagree with any of that. Honestly, with modern lie-flat seating (much less Emirates-class luxury) and communication/entertainment options, long-haul flights are still sort of boring but they're comfortable enough to a degree that they weren't when the Concorde was flying. I actually find them a good opportunity to catch up on reading books and watching some movies. Even if one of these supersonic startups get off the ground (sorry), I expect they'll be in the province of CEOs and investment bankers billing by the hour hopping over to London to close a deal. It's hard to see the economics working for just about anyone else.
        jandrese 8y ago
        I'm still waiting for an airline with Fifth Element style beds for seating. Lie flat seating is nice, but it takes up so much room that it ends up being quite expensive most of the time. I'd like to be able to lie down and take a nap at the price of a coach ticket.
- robbiep 8y ago
  The bigger question which is still unaddressed is: with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win? Even if the a380 is dead, food for thought: In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. That is hub and spoke
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win? Long-and-skinny scales better than hub-and-spoke. Comparing the systems, you have identical origin and destination airport traffic. With long-and-skinny, however, traffic at congested hubs is avoided and reduced. Long-and-skinny is purely a reality because of improved jet technology, in reliability and efficiency. What four engines could barely do in 1969 two engines comfortably manage today.
  - yock 8y ago
    > In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. Is your average human's health and safety really compatible with the acceleration required for ballistic travel?
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      At one time people thought that any transport faster than a horse would cause the human body to fly apart. Engineering finds a way.
      - notahacker 8y ago
        We're in the opposite position from people that doubted whether the human body could cope with transport faster than a horse. We have pretty good data for what very high G-forces do to the human body and what the failure rates of rocket launches are, and neither are compatible with routine commercial flight.
        8y ago
- selectodude 8y ago
  I mean, British Airways flies a 747-400 and an A380 daily to Chicago. It's cities like Austin, TX, San Jose, CA and Portland, OR that are getting huge boosts of non-stop service to western europe.
  - savoytruffle 8y ago
    While Heathrow to Austin did start on a 787, as seemed appropriate, it has become so successful that it upgraded to 777 and now actually a 747, amazing as that is. http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-serving-austin-london http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-...
    - selectodude 8y ago
      That's remarkable, though a huge downgrade for passenger experience. Those 787s are really magnificent.
joezydeco 8y ago
The only reason Airbus is continuing is because of the large order from Emirates, and who knows what they hell they think they can do with over 100 A380s and 50+ more on order.
- InTheArena 8y ago
  EK is still pushing on the global hub concept. They recently have been talking to Denver about a non-stop ther, but I don't see how you do that when there are already 7 non-stops to Europe (two Norwegian, one united, One Edelweiss, two Lufthansa, one Iceland Air) and one non-stop to Asia, plus connections on both sides of the country. That's route fragmentation at work.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    Denver+Boulder+Colorado Springs area is growing by quite a bit, however. Since 2010 (to 2017) Colorado's population increased by more than 500K people. And, since they all come from "somewhere else" that means that likelihood of them needing flights is possibly higher also.
- sitepodmatt 8y ago
  I think its 20 on the way with some more options. regardless of the economics the a380 is best in class in economy for Joe public since the densification program of the 777 started some years ago - Qatar used to be great in 9 across - 10 sucks, and the change to 3/3/3 on 787 vs initial guidelines of 2/4/2 which only JAL stuck to. Unless invested, or a 26" waist, or flying biz, one should be wishing a future success of a380. Economy sucks but a380 makes it bearable
InTheArena 8y ago
The exact opposite is happening. They need a certain number of orders to keep the line efficient. Only the recent A380 order by EK keeps them above that line, and just barely at that.

by kokey 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I hope Airbus can continue making this model The A380 was doomed from the start. It was built to compete with the 747, a jet which first flew in 1969 [1] and designed for hub-and-spoke "trunk" routes. In that narrow aim, the A380 succeeded. The problem is the entire A380/747 category peaked before the A380's first flight. High-efficiency engines mean long-and-skinny routes are now profitable. Instead of packing Chicago to London and D.C. to London passengers into a JFK-Heathrow megaflight, one runs Chicago-Heathrow and D.C.-Heathrow with medium jets. At the end of the day, the A380 was designed to be impressive to European politicians more than to airline executives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

hodgesrm 8y ago
It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics. To be fair other Airbus models like the A32x line have been phenomenally successful.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics The Concorde was ahead of its time. Fun fact: the 747 was designed with its "hump" so it could be turned into a freighter once the Concorde's successors made it obsolete. The assumption was everyone would be flying supersonic by the new millennium. Unlike the A380, the Concorde was assumed to be a vision of the future.
  - InTheArena 8y ago
    Not Concorde per se - The Boeing 2707 - which Boeing canceled as it became clear that the numbers just didn't make sense.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      And the US government cut funding--which of course made the numbers make even less sense.
      - jandrese 8y ago
        And also people complained about sonic booms which caused a bunch of rushed legislation and killed the potential market even harder. Honestly, the extra fuel burn (carbon emissions!) from SSTs would be problematic even today. I'm not sad that aircraft manufacturers instead focused on boring but profitable fuel efficiency instead.
        ghaff 8y ago
        I don't disagree with any of that. Honestly, with modern lie-flat seating (much less Emirates-class luxury) and communication/entertainment options, long-haul flights are still sort of boring but they're comfortable enough to a degree that they weren't when the Concorde was flying. I actually find them a good opportunity to catch up on reading books and watching some movies. Even if one of these supersonic startups get off the ground (sorry), I expect they'll be in the province of CEOs and investment bankers billing by the hour hopping over to London to close a deal. It's hard to see the economics working for just about anyone else.
        jandrese 8y ago
        I'm still waiting for an airline with Fifth Element style beds for seating. Lie flat seating is nice, but it takes up so much room that it ends up being quite expensive most of the time. I'd like to be able to lie down and take a nap at the price of a coach ticket.
robbiep 8y ago
The bigger question which is still unaddressed is: with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win? Even if the a380 is dead, food for thought: In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. That is hub and spoke
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win? Long-and-skinny scales better than hub-and-spoke. Comparing the systems, you have identical origin and destination airport traffic. With long-and-skinny, however, traffic at congested hubs is avoided and reduced. Long-and-skinny is purely a reality because of improved jet technology, in reliability and efficiency. What four engines could barely do in 1969 two engines comfortably manage today.
- yock 8y ago
  > In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. Is your average human's health and safety really compatible with the acceleration required for ballistic travel?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    At one time people thought that any transport faster than a horse would cause the human body to fly apart. Engineering finds a way.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      We're in the opposite position from people that doubted whether the human body could cope with transport faster than a horse. We have pretty good data for what very high G-forces do to the human body and what the failure rates of rocket launches are, and neither are compatible with routine commercial flight.
      - 8y ago
selectodude 8y ago
I mean, British Airways flies a 747-400 and an A380 daily to Chicago. It's cities like Austin, TX, San Jose, CA and Portland, OR that are getting huge boosts of non-stop service to western europe.
- savoytruffle 8y ago
  While Heathrow to Austin did start on a 787, as seemed appropriate, it has become so successful that it upgraded to 777 and now actually a 747, amazing as that is. http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-serving-austin-london http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-...
  - selectodude 8y ago
    That's remarkable, though a huge downgrade for passenger experience. Those 787s are really magnificent.

joezydeco 8y ago

The only reason Airbus is continuing is because of the large order from Emirates, and who knows what they hell they think they can do with over 100 A380s and 50+ more on order.

InTheArena 8y ago
EK is still pushing on the global hub concept. They recently have been talking to Denver about a non-stop ther, but I don't see how you do that when there are already 7 non-stops to Europe (two Norwegian, one united, One Edelweiss, two Lufthansa, one Iceland Air) and one non-stop to Asia, plus connections on both sides of the country. That's route fragmentation at work.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Denver+Boulder+Colorado Springs area is growing by quite a bit, however. Since 2010 (to 2017) Colorado's population increased by more than 500K people. And, since they all come from "somewhere else" that means that likelihood of them needing flights is possibly higher also.
sitepodmatt 8y ago
I think its 20 on the way with some more options. regardless of the economics the a380 is best in class in economy for Joe public since the densification program of the 777 started some years ago - Qatar used to be great in 9 across - 10 sucks, and the change to 3/3/3 on 787 vs initial guidelines of 2/4/2 which only JAL stuck to. Unless invested, or a 26" waist, or flying biz, one should be wishing a future success of a380. Economy sucks but a380 makes it bearable

InTheArena 8y ago

The exact opposite is happening. They need a certain number of orders to keep the line efficient. Only the recent A380 order by EK keeps them above that line, and just barely at that.