44 ms·

Airbus will stop building the A380 in 2021

414 points by ramzyo 8y ago

kzrdude 8y ago
Obivously they didn't make as much money as projected then, but did they lose money on this project? Was it an acceptable product to launch, or what is airbus learning?
- donedealomg 8y ago
  Yes, the A380 will never make 1 euro. The project is financially a complete disaster and it's now with Brexit (hard or soft) that sponsoring from the UK will drop so they had to halt the A380
- 666lumberjack 8y ago
  It won't make back the 25bn euro development costs, but there's an argument that its beneficial effect on the prestige of Airbus as a manufacturer will eventually make back those costs through increased sales of other aircraft.
- mshook 8y ago
  They probably lost a huge chunk of money but in the long run, it will probably be worth the effort. When you design something new like that, you invent and invest in new technologies that you'll use along the way. Concorde, while a commercial failure, was a good example: - first commercial aircraft to have fly-by-wire - carbon brakes - anti skid (the first electronic system as far as I know) - center of gravity adjustment through fuel pumping (no need to trim the aicraft hence less drag) So lots of money thrown out of the window, sure, but they'll use what they've learned...
dx7tnt 8y ago
I second the comments about this wonderful plane delivering a superior experience. I used to fly Manchester (UK) - DXB - Melbourne and loved every second of being in economy on one of these. Flying with Emirates even in the cheap seats is always exciting with great food and drink, so much so I'd arrive at my destination both drunk and hungover, but feeling good because of the nice clean air and quiet ride of the A380. Flying on the 777 or with a carrier like Etihad isn't even a comparable experience. The little things really count on a long-haul flight so that little bit more legroom, comfort, and class that the A380 gives makes flying on one a real treat, even if you are flying with 500 other people. Big shame there weren't more customers for Airbus, and more carriers couldn't make this plane work for them.
- bb101 8y ago
  Unfortunately not all carriers give more space to economy passengers in an A380. Qatar Airways for example, pack the seats in just as tight. I actively choose against A380s for my long flights because the aircraft feels like a flying city as opposed to a flying village. An A350 or 787 provide a far superior passenger experience in my opinion.
  - mattlondon 8y ago
    +1 I remember when the A380 was starting to get some public media attention and there were these great sounding potential-perks of these new super jumbos: an on-board gym! a library! a creche! perhaps even an on-board casino! In hindsight it was perhaps inevitable that all that extra space would just mean more people packed in just as tight as they are on smaller planes. While I am sure its very nice up in first class, my A380 experience has been as soul-destroying and uncomfortable as any other plane.
    - mayniac 8y ago
      I got to experience first class in a BA A380 flight once since it was cheaper than business class and my company was paying. This is probably going to sound like the pinnacle of first world problems, but: it's overrated. The main differences between business and first were getting actual bedding and having more attendants per passenger. And three types of champagne, because obviously just one isn't enough. The food was slightly better than in business but nothing outstanding. There's a huge step up from economy to business since you get the lie-flat seats you can actually sleep comfortably in and good food/alcohol. Beyond that, you're mainly paying for exclusivity and status.
      - chrissnell 8y ago
        BA A380 first class is pretty lacking. The saying is that it's "the world's best business class". I flew it over and back from ORD to LHR and it was enjoyable but it can't touch the Emirates A380 experience in F.
      - 8y ago
warp_factor 8y ago
I took the A380 probably more than 40 times on different routes altogether. I hope that current companies (Lufthansa, Airfrance, Qantas) will keep it for a long time. It is always a pleasure to fly in it. And superior to the 787 in my opinion.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  I hate those stupid windows of the 787 with a passion. The only joy of being flown in a can is to look out through the windows.
  - kenneth 8y ago
    You should like the 787 then, the windows are quite a bit larger. I don't mind the dimming feature, it takes a moment but it works, and I like the ability to have partial dimming. The only thing I don't love is when they're controlled by the crew automatically.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      the ability of the crew to take away the dimming control is precisely why I hate them so much.
      - shorts_theory 8y ago
        I found the crew's control of the dimming function far too aggressive on Air India. Even on a midday flight at 1330, the windows were dimmed all throughout till we landed at around 2200. It didn't help that I couldn't sleep throughout, so it was painful to be in a cabin with next to zero natural light.
AceyMan 8y ago
Knowing the state of things and the history of the project I'm not much surprised by this, yet I'm a bit taken aback that this indeed has come to pass. I always hate it when a serviceable, if not especially outstanding, aircraft gets shuttered well before it had a meaningful lifecycle in the industry. But from everything I've read (am I'm no industry expert on the business side) it was a dick-swinging contest from the get-go. Boeing saw that a full-on new spec 4-engine plane was not going to pay itself back; if Airbus execs saw it, they didn't let it change their path. "Build it and they will come," was perhaps the irrational source of motive for pressing on from the beginning. I don't recall the market (at the time the project was greenlit) clamoring for a bigger, more efficient, more pax friendly quad-jet. It's almost as if Airbus managed to upsell this beast to the carriers that did choose to purchase the ones they have. The shifting winds of route topology from hub-n-spoke to point-to-point were already brewing, and the stair-step jumps in the ETOPS allowances for twins had obviously not yet reached its limit ... but still, they went for it. Well, I hope the ones that are built, and those yet to be built, will run for decades more because they are mighty beasts to behold; that much is true. I know the international departure slots out of LAX and when I remember and the sky is clear I step out on my deck and get to watch them on initial climb-out (it's usually Emirates, but sometimes there are others). They look like freight trains in the sky and are really quiet, but the four engines together make a unique drone that will pull me outside even when I'm not even planning to take a peek. Farewell, A380; we barely knew thee.
- the_duke 8y ago
  My understanding is that Airbus assumed the worldwide increase in traffic, in part fueled by developing countries, combined with limited slots in busy airports would give a large boost to the hub and spoke model and make a large plane viable. I agree that the shift in the market to point-to-point was becoming apparent during A380 development. A major reason for the 747s popularity was it's range. With much more efficient engines coming along, smaller twin engine aircraft could cover most routes, and do so cheaper, so the A380 wasn't really needed anymore. But I reckon the project was too far along, with too much buy in and investment by European countries and partners, to pull the plug. Boeing foresaw this and focused on smaller, more efficient models instead. This sure saved them a lot of money and engineering resources. It's a shame for aviation enthusiasts though, it sure is a fascinating plane.
W-Stool 8y ago
Here in Reno, not far from the Mustang VOR, I've seen the Air France A380 flight to Paris from SFO coming over around 4pm local time on a nice warm sunny day, and even at pretty much full cruising altitude when they get out this far they are a sight to see through some good binoculars. On the ground (again for me at SFO) they look big enough to be built by aliens. RIP A380.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  Have you seen a Beluga ? They are scary to see in the sky :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga
ra7 8y ago
A380 is the smoothest and quietest aircraft I've flown in, and those things really make a difference if you're flying 16 hours from SFO to DXB.
- mstade 8y ago
  I've only flown in an A380 once, business class from London to Miami, but I'd agreee with this 100%. Very nice ride!
- jhatax 8y ago
  I just did this flight last Friday. 16-odd hours, with a slight delay, and I got off the plane without the usual chapped lips and dry throat. To add to what others have said, the 380 has the quietest take off and landing. It’s an engineering marvel. In contrast, while the 787 is good, the cabin is louder and the air quality isn’t on par with the 380. Even if this is deemed a failure, the 380 spurred the industry to do more, made Boeing do more for the 787, and eventually led to the development of the A-350 which is my favorite plane to fly right now. All in all, the 380 gave Airbus swagger and the license to seriously compete with Boeing. Costs be damned. Update: light punctuation edits
  - bb101 8y ago
    I've read a few posts on here about people getting off their A380 flights feeling better sans dry throats, chapped lips, etc. I find that a bit odd, as the A380 still uses bleed air systems, unlike the A350 and 787 which use filtered air. All other factors being equal, there should be no difference between air quality on a 777 and A380. Perhaps I'm missing something?
    - dx034 8y ago
      I actually feel the difference most for B787, less exhausted and not as dehydrated after 8+ hour flights. A reason for me to book B787 wherever possible. I believe the A350 should be similar but wasn't able to test it yet on long-haul. A380 is relatively quiet but air quality isn't really comparable with the Dreamliner.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Sad sad day, economy on the upper deck of an AirFrance/KLM A380 is the most quiet, most space long haul flight you can get, my default way to go Europe <--> Japan and Europe <--> US.
jedberg 8y ago
A shame. I've flown the A380 from SFO to Frankfurt, and man was that a nice flight. There was a noticeable difference in my jet lag. And when I first got on, I was sure the row number was wrong or there were skipped rows or something, but no, I just kept walking and walking and sure enough eventually I got to row 90!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tallanvor 8y ago
  Both the A380 and 787 are able to maintain higher humidity in the cabin, which helps a lot during long flights. You don't get as dehydrated and you're more likely to be able to get some decent sleep.
  - acchow 8y ago
    Also, higher cabin pressure
    - keymone 8y ago
      Also less affected by turbulence. Also more room to walk around and stretch. Also more space above your head. The greatest passenger jet in history.
  - swasheck 8y ago
    Pretty sure the A350 does this as well. Asiana also uses the LED lighting modes to great effect and it was explained to me as another way to reduce long haul fatigue
dbg31415 8y ago
Shame. Anyone who's flown from LAX to Sydney knows how much better the A380 is than the 7X7. Fun dramatic video. * Planes That Changed the World 3of3 Airbus A380 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s
- alexis_fr 8y ago
  All the video with the trademark Airbus accent. It’s what we (French) do best, but it’s like Singlish: It sounds like we have our own dialect of English.
donedealomg 8y ago
They figured with Brexit hard or soft, they will miss out on the subsidy from the UK. Airbus makes planes with government sponsoring. Without this, there is no Airbus.
tzfld 8y ago
Everyone mourns it, but not to forget that there are more than 200 already built A380s in use, and they will be used probably decades from now on.
- umeshunni 8y ago
  As a point of comparison, ‎1548 B747s were built and they are only now being phased out.
_pmf_ 8y ago
Would the A380 have been more attractive in terms of economics if fuel subsidies were lower?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
estomagordo 8y ago
ITT: people who fly a lot.
- kzrdude 8y ago
  It gives you great things, like being able to visit places with different climate and nature and culture.
  - em500 8y ago
    It also has a very large CO2 footprint. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest...
mrleiter 8y ago
As someone with fear of flying, but who still has to fly from time to time, this is sad news. If I ever had to fly, I always tried to take an A380. They are so smooth in flight, take off and landing. Nothing compares.
- speedplane 8y ago
  I hope you live in Europe and often take long hauls. The A380 was built to travel from one big city to another big city. It's a beautiful plane, but it needs to be filled up with hundreds of passengers to be economical, needs a huge runway, and can only park in a handful of the largest airports in the world. When it does that, it does it beautifully. I took a New York to Dubai flight that was top notch, even in coach in the middle aisle. That said, there's no way that plane could realistically make most domestic flights or even medium demand international ones.
  - mrleiter 8y ago
    Yes, living in Europe is in fact the reason why I can "enjoy" the A380.
jokoon 8y ago
I remember a youtube video explaining why big airplanes like the A380, while technically impressive, do not make economic sense to airlines because it's all about stopovers: it's more efficient to "ship" people with several airplanes because it allows them to land to many more airports. Of course there are still very busy destinations, for example Los Angeles - New York, New York - London, but that's not enough air traffic so they don't need as many A380 as we would think.
- speedplane 8y ago
  The true goal of commercial airplane design is to find a plane that fits demand of a particular route, so it's always full. With an A380, you can do well on long haul popular flights, but even with those flights, you have very little flexibility if things change. Panam invested heavily in the 747 back in the day, and they minted money by offering relatively reasonably priced international long haul flights. But when gas prices and terrorism spiked, diminishing demand, they had these huge gas guzzling planes that they couldn't fill up. The A380 is really impressive, and it works well (now) on several specific routes. But it's clear that the industry is moving towards fuel efficient, more reasonably sized planes like the 787 and the A350 that are efficient on both long and short haul flights.
jlangenauer 8y ago
Well, I better get myself to Toulouse this year, so I can take a tour of the Airbus factory while they're still building them.
TheTruth321 8y ago
Disappointing. A very smooth, spacious, quiet plane ... Easily the best ride experience ... at least on Emirates. Reduced jet lag and brought a little joy back to the flying again. Hopefully the existing planes last for some time yet.
infoflopay 8y ago
InfoFlo Pay offers cloud-based invoice management system to create and manage highly customizable invoices. Click here to find invoicing software for small business!! https://infoflopay.com/ https://infoflopay.com/
infoflopay 8y ago
InfoFlo Pay offers cloud-based <a href="https://infoflopay.com/">invoice https://infoflopay.com/">invoice management system</a> to create and manage highly customizable invoices. Click here to find invoicing software for small business!!
desertedisland 8y ago
Stopped to watch one take off from Heathrow yesterday. They're iconic but then so was the Concorde - being iconic is not a substitute for being commercially viable.
sarenc 8y ago
I recently moved under the Heathrow flight path (maybe 25km away), so I'm delighted to hear this news. Hopefully the 747 is heading the same way.
- epanchin 8y ago
  What an unfortunate attitude. You chose to live there and that noise got you a bigger house, you’ve sold your right to complain. The A380 is not loud on take off - are you sure you’ve got the right plane?
- SirHound 8y ago
  Sounds like a pretty odd attitude to become a NIMBY after the fact. You knew what you were buying.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- addicted 8y ago
  The A380 is probably quieter than its competitors. And further, if there are less flights with A380s carrying 400 passengers, then there will be more flights with alternative planes carrying 200 passengers. Those 400 passengers are still going to fly. Fewer A380s mean there will likely be more planes flying overhead, and each one is likely noisier than the A380.
- marsRoverDev 8y ago
  > Moves under flight path of major airport > Hears planes shockedpikachu.jpg
totololo 8y ago
Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone? I find it incredibly hard to find this key info...
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone? It's so much more complicated than that. Sure, there's probably not much more efficient than a fully loaded A380, but airlines that doesn't present the full picture if there are connections. Also, on the same plane, longer flights are often less efficient than shorter ones because the plane needs to carry extra fuel. Further, actual seat density matters: a full A380 may be very efficient, but an empty one is miserably inefficient. Today, airlines are so competitive, they build airplanes for specific routes. To do a proper analysis, you need to analyze a specific route, look at the competition, what they are flying, their utilization, etc.
  - totololo 8y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
ngcc_hk 8y ago
I have fixed to fly with a380 with London for many years, until I need to go to another airport. The 77w is actually quite good.
offsetr 8y ago
Is this surprising? The A380 uses nearly 50% more fuel per seat than a 787/A350. That's when its full! Then you have to fill it up too - and it doesn't go as far. It's just silly. Sure its innovative but that's not economical.
- exidy 8y ago
  I very much doubt this is true. Just as a sanity check, the A380 has slightly more than double the fuel capacity (320 kL vs 156 kL) of the A350, and carries twice as many people. At least at maximum fully loaded range, the fuel per seat is going to be very close. The problem starts when you're unable to fill the plane.
huffmsa 8y ago
And so begins the death of the hub and spoke theory of aviation. It's slowly been invalidated for about a decade, but I'd say this is a mark of the end. May the internet follow suit.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Most 787 and A350 flights are out of hubs, too.
mikece 8y ago
I'm surprised they aren't going to bother with trying a freighter. The 747-8F is still being sold; it's got almost twice the payload weight lift capacity of the C-17 and 88% of the lift capacity of the decades-old Antanov An-124 (though the C-17 and An-124 can have taller and wider items, like tanks and helicopters, loaded into the cargo hold than the 747-8F can).
- Already__Taken 8y ago
  Watched a youtube video so now I'm an expert. The A380 runs out of load capacity long before all the volume is used up so your cargo flights are moving a lot of empty plane.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It'd be great for transporting large amounts of packing peanuts, though.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Might be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s from DJ Aviation that explains the problems with a A380-F.
- vermontdevil 8y ago
  This blog explains well why there’s no a380-F https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
  - mikece 8y ago
    Good points, especially the notion that a freighter version would hit the weight limit long before filling up. Makes me wonder if a secondary market could be available for air freight companies: no frills, on-our-schedule-not-yours, inexpensive hops between cargo hubs similar to how it's possible (for active duty and some military vets) to catch dirty-cheap rides on the heavy cargo lifters as long as you make your way to the US point of departure and don't mind making your way from the European/Asian/etc point of arrival.
nabla9 8y ago
A380 has three economic advantages: 1. Landing slot price per passenger is low. Congested airports are the economic reason for A380 to exist. 2. A380 is runway-friendly large aircraft due to its wheel load distribution and low load per wheel. Airfield pavement maintenance cost is 30-40 percent of the airfield maintenance. If the weight based pricing is changed to match actual runway damage, A380 will do really well. 3. Relative to 747-400, significantly better fuel efficiency. Economically A380 starts to make sense again in 10-20 years after the traffic volumes in Asia skyrocket. When the demand exceeds the slots available, the value of existing A380s starts to increase.
- adsadadsad 8y ago
  Possibly. Some are already rotting on the runways, at least two of Malaysia's A380 are just sitting there away from gate collecting dust everytime I fly out of KL (I think MH3/4 is still A380 though), there was plan to sell them to some middle east charter company and refit them in an all economy mode so they could take 600 people to walk around a stone chanting once a year - I doubt they could be refitted back to their former glory after this abuse. Also, hasn't Emirates parked many at a secondary airport too whilst they re-evaluate their schedules and deny pilot shortages? I can't find the article but if I remember correctly it was mainly A380, whilst the 777s were kept on the main schedule. Shame, best economy class by far. 10 across on a 777 is tortue as is 9 on the new sardineliners.
- Retric 8y ago
  The fall off of hub and spoke as dual engine aircraft could legally and safely makes such huge aircraft far less appealing. Clearly the market exists, but aircraft last long enough that Airbus is in many ways competing with it’s self for a sill limited number of viable routes. Remeber, a hub and spoke trip means 2-3x the landings and relies on extremely congested airports. So, point to point has significantly shifted what gets congested. Things may look different in 25 years, but that’s a long time.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    High population density cities in Asia inevitably create the same economic conditions as the hub and spoke model. Busy airports with high volume of traffic and high capacity rate. All estimates point to the future where there will be multiple mega-airports with more than 100 million passengers in Asia.
carlosgg 8y ago
This really interesting Business Week article from early 2017, "Is Emirates Airline Running Out of Sky?", is probably relevant: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirates-airline-running-out-of-sky https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirat...
baybal2 8y ago
So sad, A380 was a gigantic, magnificent plane. A plane with a lot of "ego"
FabHK 8y ago
noooooooooo :-(
ibejoeb 8y ago
Another problem with the A380 is that although it could run more passengers through the same number of gates, airports had to rebuild the gates to accommodate the thing. On economy long-hauls, I appreciate every config I've been on; they're roomy and the effective cabin altitude is very comfortable, so it makes flying easier. That said, I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight. I wouldn't care so much about comfort if I could take my 18-hour flight and bring it down to 10. I don't know the economics of it, but flying on a smaller, faster, higher-altitude aircraft would be more comfortable. Planes haven't really gotten faster since the dawn of the jet age.
- yblu 8y ago
  > I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight That's what they're doing: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-jet-concorde-boom-aerion-carbon-us-laws https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-jet-...
unethical_ban 8y ago
How do I find a route that flies on the A380, if I want to take a trip on that plane specifically?
saosebastiao 8y ago
Inevitably in comments about the demise of the 747 or A380, people refer to the proliferation of point to point routes. But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. There is an illusion of the proliferation of point to point routes caused by the proliferation of new hubs. For example, Seattle now has ~20 more direct international destinations with a year round schedule than it did 15 years ago, which makes it seem like point to point routes are more common. But careful inspection shows that every single direct international route from SEA is a hub and spoke route for the airline flying it, with either the hub in Seattle, or the hub at the destination. When these aircraft were conceived, all industry momentum was pointed toward superhubs, and all of the superhubs were capacity constrained. Landing and takeoff slots were constrained and airports were moving to auction models to sell the slots. Terminal space was becoming more and more expensive. These planes weren't more efficient because they could move more people, they were more efficient because they didn't cost as much to land and take off and load and unload. The reality of the matter is that Boeing and Airbus didn't incorrectly forecast the decline of hub and spoke models, they incorrectly forecasted the decline of superhubs.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  > But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. I wish trains were lower priced. I'd much rather, say, fly to Paris then take a train to Brussels rather than take a technically shorter flight that might get delayed, or I might miss if the customs line is long. But my choices are often expensive direct flight, cheaper hub and spoke flight - plane+train is often more expensive :(
InTheArena 8y ago
Airbus has new management, as the old management was wiped out by bribery scandals and retirement. They have more to come here - their is a new Indian investigation on their practices in that country, and management is keen to break with the previous regime. John Leahy - who crusaded for the plane internally at Airbus, recently retired, and with him, anyone else who had a stake in the A380 decide. The development costs of the A380 are not paid off - the launch aid - from the European governments was to be repaid in royalties per plane on a ongoing basis. The governments will find a way to sweep what remains under the covers. Ironically, the group most at risk with this decision is Boeing. The A380 has been a total albatross and a anchor around the neck of Airbus. If Airbus hadn't been sinking in cash left and right to the A380 program, when Boeing had it's issue with the 787, Airbus could have really punished them in the market. Instead, Airbus went with a slightly warmed over A330, until the market forced them to the A350, which still wasn't as revolutionary as what the 787 brought to bear, once it finally got over it's development hurdles. So good application of the Sunk cost fallacy here by the new Airbus leadership, and a message to Boeing that the new leadership at Airbus isn't going to be constrained by the decisions of the past.
InTheArena 8y ago
Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a single United States airline orders the A380. At the time of the A380's introduction, more then half of world wide airlift was located in the United States. The numbers are less now, but it's still the largest seat market by a insane margin world wide. The US carriers were almost wiped out by the irrational exuberance when the initial 747 came out. They were always skeptical about their ability to fill consistently a A380, given market dynamics. It doesn't matter how much more efficient you are with a bigger plane, if you can't fill a seat, economically it simply spoills - you take all the cost of the airplane, the fuel, the pilots, etc (CASM) but none of the revenue (RASM). I've flown on enough empty upper decks on the A380 to know this is a huge issue.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a single United States airline orders the A380. The second arguments seems like support for the first one, not an alternative explanation.
protomyth 8y ago
DJ Aviation has a short video with some explanation and what replaced the A380. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o
chrissnell 8y ago
I flew first class on the Emirates A380 earlier this year. It's an experience like none other. It's completely absurd and unnecessary but simultaneously incredible and nearly unbeatable. It's an unreal feeling to take a shower at 40,000', or to drink a Manhattan over Iran, or to experience a lively cocktail bar at 3AM over Northern Greenland. Unless you own a Boeing Business Jet, you're probably not going to be able to do that. It's a taste of the 0.1% that's in reach for mere mortals if you know the right routes. The typical first class A380 ride from the US to or from the Middle East or most of Asia will run anywhere from $9,000-15,000 one-way. However, if you're willing to fly out of Colomobo, Sri Lanka, you can sometimes do this trip for less than $5,000. A flight from Bangkok to Houston via Dubai will get you a 777-300ER ride (itself an experience) plus a 16-hour A380 ride. If you want to see what it's like, I posted some pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/72157706663987055 https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721577066639...
jimmcslim 8y ago
There's a Brexit impact here as well, since the wings for the A380 were being manufactured in Wales.
umichguy 8y ago
When it was conceived, it was the right aircraft. By the time it arrived, market conditions changed. So it became the wrong plane. That's really to it. Really.
ousta 8y ago
this kind of engineering undertaking, praising greatness over profit is what built our world. sad to see it put to an end just like the concorde was. america and western civilization became a nation of bankers and social networkers while it was a nation of engineers driven by innovation
drallison 8y ago
The Airbus 380 is the only passenger aircraft for which I have a strong preference. I dislike the toy aircraft (regional jets) that have become standard which are too small and constrained for modern adults. In contrast, at least in the Air France configuration, the A380 is roomy and comfortable. I am sad that Airbus has decided to deprecate the model.

414 points by ramzyo 8y ago

Obivously they didn't make as much money as projected then, but did they lose money on this project? Was it an acceptable product to launch, or what is airbus learning?

donedealomg 8y ago
Yes, the A380 will never make 1 euro. The project is financially a complete disaster and it's now with Brexit (hard or soft) that sponsoring from the UK will drop so they had to halt the A380
666lumberjack 8y ago
It won't make back the 25bn euro development costs, but there's an argument that its beneficial effect on the prestige of Airbus as a manufacturer will eventually make back those costs through increased sales of other aircraft.
mshook 8y ago
They probably lost a huge chunk of money but in the long run, it will probably be worth the effort. When you design something new like that, you invent and invest in new technologies that you'll use along the way. Concorde, while a commercial failure, was a good example: - first commercial aircraft to have fly-by-wire - carbon brakes - anti skid (the first electronic system as far as I know) - center of gravity adjustment through fuel pumping (no need to trim the aicraft hence less drag) So lots of money thrown out of the window, sure, but they'll use what they've learned...

dx7tnt 8y ago

I second the comments about this wonderful plane delivering a superior experience. I used to fly Manchester (UK) - DXB - Melbourne and loved every second of being in economy on one of these. Flying with Emirates even in the cheap seats is always exciting with great food and drink, so much so I'd arrive at my destination both drunk and hungover, but feeling good because of the nice clean air and quiet ride of the A380. Flying on the 777 or with a carrier like Etihad isn't even a comparable experience. The little things really count on a long-haul flight so that little bit more legroom, comfort, and class that the A380 gives makes flying on one a real treat, even if you are flying with 500 other people. Big shame there weren't more customers for Airbus, and more carriers couldn't make this plane work for them.

bb101 8y ago
Unfortunately not all carriers give more space to economy passengers in an A380. Qatar Airways for example, pack the seats in just as tight. I actively choose against A380s for my long flights because the aircraft feels like a flying city as opposed to a flying village. An A350 or 787 provide a far superior passenger experience in my opinion.
- mattlondon 8y ago
  +1 I remember when the A380 was starting to get some public media attention and there were these great sounding potential-perks of these new super jumbos: an on-board gym! a library! a creche! perhaps even an on-board casino! In hindsight it was perhaps inevitable that all that extra space would just mean more people packed in just as tight as they are on smaller planes. While I am sure its very nice up in first class, my A380 experience has been as soul-destroying and uncomfortable as any other plane.
  - mayniac 8y ago
    I got to experience first class in a BA A380 flight once since it was cheaper than business class and my company was paying. This is probably going to sound like the pinnacle of first world problems, but: it's overrated. The main differences between business and first were getting actual bedding and having more attendants per passenger. And three types of champagne, because obviously just one isn't enough. The food was slightly better than in business but nothing outstanding. There's a huge step up from economy to business since you get the lie-flat seats you can actually sleep comfortably in and good food/alcohol. Beyond that, you're mainly paying for exclusivity and status.
    - chrissnell 8y ago
      BA A380 first class is pretty lacking. The saying is that it's "the world's best business class". I flew it over and back from ORD to LHR and it was enjoyable but it can't touch the Emirates A380 experience in F.
    - 8y ago

warp_factor 8y ago

I took the A380 probably more than 40 times on different routes altogether. I hope that current companies (Lufthansa, Airfrance, Qantas) will keep it for a long time. It is always a pleasure to fly in it. And superior to the 787 in my opinion.

rbanffy 8y ago
I hate those stupid windows of the 787 with a passion. The only joy of being flown in a can is to look out through the windows.
- kenneth 8y ago
  You should like the 787 then, the windows are quite a bit larger. I don't mind the dimming feature, it takes a moment but it works, and I like the ability to have partial dimming. The only thing I don't love is when they're controlled by the crew automatically.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    the ability of the crew to take away the dimming control is precisely why I hate them so much.
    - shorts_theory 8y ago
      I found the crew's control of the dimming function far too aggressive on Air India. Even on a midday flight at 1330, the windows were dimmed all throughout till we landed at around 2200. It didn't help that I couldn't sleep throughout, so it was painful to be in a cabin with next to zero natural light.

AceyMan 8y ago

Knowing the state of things and the history of the project I'm not much surprised by this, yet I'm a bit taken aback that this indeed has come to pass. I always hate it when a serviceable, if not especially outstanding, aircraft gets shuttered well before it had a meaningful lifecycle in the industry. But from everything I've read (am I'm no industry expert on the business side) it was a dick-swinging contest from the get-go. Boeing saw that a full-on new spec 4-engine plane was not going to pay itself back; if Airbus execs saw it, they didn't let it change their path. "Build it and they will come," was perhaps the irrational source of motive for pressing on from the beginning. I don't recall the market (at the time the project was greenlit) clamoring for a bigger, more efficient, more pax friendly quad-jet. It's almost as if Airbus managed to upsell this beast to the carriers that did choose to purchase the ones they have. The shifting winds of route topology from hub-n-spoke to point-to-point were already brewing, and the stair-step jumps in the ETOPS allowances for twins had obviously not yet reached its limit ... but still, they went for it. Well, I hope the ones that are built, and those yet to be built, will run for decades more because they are mighty beasts to behold; that much is true. I know the international departure slots out of LAX and when I remember and the sky is clear I step out on my deck and get to watch them on initial climb-out (it's usually Emirates, but sometimes there are others). They look like freight trains in the sky and are really quiet, but the four engines together make a unique drone that will pull me outside even when I'm not even planning to take a peek. Farewell, A380; we barely knew thee.

the_duke 8y ago
My understanding is that Airbus assumed the worldwide increase in traffic, in part fueled by developing countries, combined with limited slots in busy airports would give a large boost to the hub and spoke model and make a large plane viable. I agree that the shift in the market to point-to-point was becoming apparent during A380 development. A major reason for the 747s popularity was it's range. With much more efficient engines coming along, smaller twin engine aircraft could cover most routes, and do so cheaper, so the A380 wasn't really needed anymore. But I reckon the project was too far along, with too much buy in and investment by European countries and partners, to pull the plug. Boeing foresaw this and focused on smaller, more efficient models instead. This sure saved them a lot of money and engineering resources. It's a shame for aviation enthusiasts though, it sure is a fascinating plane.

W-Stool 8y ago

Here in Reno, not far from the Mustang VOR, I've seen the Air France A380 flight to Paris from SFO coming over around 4pm local time on a nice warm sunny day, and even at pretty much full cruising altitude when they get out this far they are a sight to see through some good binoculars. On the ground (again for me at SFO) they look big enough to be built by aliens. RIP A380.

ttoinou 8y ago
Have you seen a Beluga ? They are scary to see in the sky :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

ra7 8y ago

A380 is the smoothest and quietest aircraft I've flown in, and those things really make a difference if you're flying 16 hours from SFO to DXB.

mstade 8y ago
I've only flown in an A380 once, business class from London to Miami, but I'd agreee with this 100%. Very nice ride!
jhatax 8y ago
I just did this flight last Friday. 16-odd hours, with a slight delay, and I got off the plane without the usual chapped lips and dry throat. To add to what others have said, the 380 has the quietest take off and landing. It’s an engineering marvel. In contrast, while the 787 is good, the cabin is louder and the air quality isn’t on par with the 380. Even if this is deemed a failure, the 380 spurred the industry to do more, made Boeing do more for the 787, and eventually led to the development of the A-350 which is my favorite plane to fly right now. All in all, the 380 gave Airbus swagger and the license to seriously compete with Boeing. Costs be damned. Update: light punctuation edits
- bb101 8y ago
  I've read a few posts on here about people getting off their A380 flights feeling better sans dry throats, chapped lips, etc. I find that a bit odd, as the A380 still uses bleed air systems, unlike the A350 and 787 which use filtered air. All other factors being equal, there should be no difference between air quality on a 777 and A380. Perhaps I'm missing something?
  - dx034 8y ago
    I actually feel the difference most for B787, less exhausted and not as dehydrated after 8+ hour flights. A reason for me to book B787 wherever possible. I believe the A350 should be similar but wasn't able to test it yet on long-haul. A380 is relatively quiet but air quality isn't really comparable with the Dreamliner.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Sad sad day, economy on the upper deck of an AirFrance/KLM A380 is the most quiet, most space long haul flight you can get, my default way to go Europe <--> Japan and Europe <--> US.

jedberg 8y ago

A shame. I've flown the A380 from SFO to Frankfurt, and man was that a nice flight. There was a noticeable difference in my jet lag. And when I first got on, I was sure the row number was wrong or there were skipped rows or something, but no, I just kept walking and walking and sure enough eventually I got to row 90!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tallanvor 8y ago
Both the A380 and 787 are able to maintain higher humidity in the cabin, which helps a lot during long flights. You don't get as dehydrated and you're more likely to be able to get some decent sleep.
- acchow 8y ago
  Also, higher cabin pressure
  - keymone 8y ago
    Also less affected by turbulence. Also more room to walk around and stretch. Also more space above your head. The greatest passenger jet in history.
- swasheck 8y ago
  Pretty sure the A350 does this as well. Asiana also uses the LED lighting modes to great effect and it was explained to me as another way to reduce long haul fatigue

dbg31415 8y ago

Shame. Anyone who's flown from LAX to Sydney knows how much better the A380 is than the 7X7. Fun dramatic video. * Planes That Changed the World 3of3 Airbus A380 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s

alexis_fr 8y ago
All the video with the trademark Airbus accent. It’s what we (French) do best, but it’s like Singlish: It sounds like we have our own dialect of English.

donedealomg 8y ago

They figured with Brexit hard or soft, they will miss out on the subsidy from the UK. Airbus makes planes with government sponsoring. Without this, there is no Airbus.

tzfld 8y ago

Everyone mourns it, but not to forget that there are more than 200 already built A380s in use, and they will be used probably decades from now on.

umeshunni 8y ago
As a point of comparison, ‎1548 B747s were built and they are only now being phased out.

_pmf_ 8y ago

Would the A380 have been more attractive in terms of economics if fuel subsidies were lower?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

estomagordo 8y ago

ITT: people who fly a lot.

kzrdude 8y ago
It gives you great things, like being able to visit places with different climate and nature and culture.
- em500 8y ago
  It also has a very large CO2 footprint. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest...

mrleiter 8y ago

As someone with fear of flying, but who still has to fly from time to time, this is sad news. If I ever had to fly, I always tried to take an A380. They are so smooth in flight, take off and landing. Nothing compares.

speedplane 8y ago
I hope you live in Europe and often take long hauls. The A380 was built to travel from one big city to another big city. It's a beautiful plane, but it needs to be filled up with hundreds of passengers to be economical, needs a huge runway, and can only park in a handful of the largest airports in the world. When it does that, it does it beautifully. I took a New York to Dubai flight that was top notch, even in coach in the middle aisle. That said, there's no way that plane could realistically make most domestic flights or even medium demand international ones.
- mrleiter 8y ago
  Yes, living in Europe is in fact the reason why I can "enjoy" the A380.

jokoon 8y ago

I remember a youtube video explaining why big airplanes like the A380, while technically impressive, do not make economic sense to airlines because it's all about stopovers: it's more efficient to "ship" people with several airplanes because it allows them to land to many more airports. Of course there are still very busy destinations, for example Los Angeles - New York, New York - London, but that's not enough air traffic so they don't need as many A380 as we would think.

speedplane 8y ago
The true goal of commercial airplane design is to find a plane that fits demand of a particular route, so it's always full. With an A380, you can do well on long haul popular flights, but even with those flights, you have very little flexibility if things change. Panam invested heavily in the 747 back in the day, and they minted money by offering relatively reasonably priced international long haul flights. But when gas prices and terrorism spiked, diminishing demand, they had these huge gas guzzling planes that they couldn't fill up. The A380 is really impressive, and it works well (now) on several specific routes. But it's clear that the industry is moving towards fuel efficient, more reasonably sized planes like the 787 and the A350 that are efficient on both long and short haul flights.

jlangenauer 8y ago

Well, I better get myself to Toulouse this year, so I can take a tour of the Airbus factory while they're still building them.

TheTruth321 8y ago

Disappointing. A very smooth, spacious, quiet plane ... Easily the best ride experience ... at least on Emirates. Reduced jet lag and brought a little joy back to the flying again. Hopefully the existing planes last for some time yet.

infoflopay 8y ago

InfoFlo Pay offers cloud-based invoice management system to create and manage highly customizable invoices. Click here to find invoicing software for small business!! https://infoflopay.com/ https://infoflopay.com/

infoflopay 8y ago

InfoFlo Pay offers cloud-based <a href="https://infoflopay.com/">invoice https://infoflopay.com/">invoice management system</a> to create and manage highly customizable invoices. Click here to find invoicing software for small business!!

desertedisland 8y ago

Stopped to watch one take off from Heathrow yesterday. They're iconic but then so was the Concorde - being iconic is not a substitute for being commercially viable.

sarenc 8y ago

I recently moved under the Heathrow flight path (maybe 25km away), so I'm delighted to hear this news. Hopefully the 747 is heading the same way.

epanchin 8y ago
What an unfortunate attitude. You chose to live there and that noise got you a bigger house, you’ve sold your right to complain. The A380 is not loud on take off - are you sure you’ve got the right plane?
SirHound 8y ago
Sounds like a pretty odd attitude to become a NIMBY after the fact. You knew what you were buying.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
addicted 8y ago
The A380 is probably quieter than its competitors. And further, if there are less flights with A380s carrying 400 passengers, then there will be more flights with alternative planes carrying 200 passengers. Those 400 passengers are still going to fly. Fewer A380s mean there will likely be more planes flying overhead, and each one is likely noisier than the A380.
marsRoverDev 8y ago
> Moves under flight path of major airport > Hears planes shockedpikachu.jpg

totololo 8y ago

Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone? I find it incredibly hard to find this key info...

speedplane 8y ago
> Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone? It's so much more complicated than that. Sure, there's probably not much more efficient than a fully loaded A380, but airlines that doesn't present the full picture if there are connections. Also, on the same plane, longer flights are often less efficient than shorter ones because the plane needs to carry extra fuel. Further, actual seat density matters: a full A380 may be very efficient, but an empty one is miserably inefficient. Today, airlines are so competitive, they build airplanes for specific routes. To do a proper analysis, you need to analyze a specific route, look at the competition, what they are flying, their utilization, etc.
- totololo 8y ago
  Interesting, thanks.

ngcc_hk 8y ago

I have fixed to fly with a380 with London for many years, until I need to go to another airport. The 77w is actually quite good.

offsetr 8y ago

Is this surprising? The A380 uses nearly 50% more fuel per seat than a 787/A350. That's when its full! Then you have to fill it up too - and it doesn't go as far. It's just silly. Sure its innovative but that's not economical.

exidy 8y ago
I very much doubt this is true. Just as a sanity check, the A380 has slightly more than double the fuel capacity (320 kL vs 156 kL) of the A350, and carries twice as many people. At least at maximum fully loaded range, the fuel per seat is going to be very close. The problem starts when you're unable to fill the plane.

huffmsa 8y ago

And so begins the death of the hub and spoke theory of aviation. It's slowly been invalidated for about a decade, but I'd say this is a mark of the end. May the internet follow suit.

dingaling 8y ago
Most 787 and A350 flights are out of hubs, too.

mikece 8y ago

I'm surprised they aren't going to bother with trying a freighter. The 747-8F is still being sold; it's got almost twice the payload weight lift capacity of the C-17 and 88% of the lift capacity of the decades-old Antanov An-124 (though the C-17 and An-124 can have taller and wider items, like tanks and helicopters, loaded into the cargo hold than the 747-8F can).

Already__Taken 8y ago
Watched a youtube video so now I'm an expert. The A380 runs out of load capacity long before all the volume is used up so your cargo flights are moving a lot of empty plane.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It'd be great for transporting large amounts of packing peanuts, though.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Might be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s from DJ Aviation that explains the problems with a A380-F.
vermontdevil 8y ago
This blog explains well why there’s no a380-F https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
- mikece 8y ago
  Good points, especially the notion that a freighter version would hit the weight limit long before filling up. Makes me wonder if a secondary market could be available for air freight companies: no frills, on-our-schedule-not-yours, inexpensive hops between cargo hubs similar to how it's possible (for active duty and some military vets) to catch dirty-cheap rides on the heavy cargo lifters as long as you make your way to the US point of departure and don't mind making your way from the European/Asian/etc point of arrival.

nabla9 8y ago

A380 has three economic advantages: 1. Landing slot price per passenger is low. Congested airports are the economic reason for A380 to exist. 2. A380 is runway-friendly large aircraft due to its wheel load distribution and low load per wheel. Airfield pavement maintenance cost is 30-40 percent of the airfield maintenance. If the weight based pricing is changed to match actual runway damage, A380 will do really well. 3. Relative to 747-400, significantly better fuel efficiency. Economically A380 starts to make sense again in 10-20 years after the traffic volumes in Asia skyrocket. When the demand exceeds the slots available, the value of existing A380s starts to increase.

adsadadsad 8y ago
Possibly. Some are already rotting on the runways, at least two of Malaysia's A380 are just sitting there away from gate collecting dust everytime I fly out of KL (I think MH3/4 is still A380 though), there was plan to sell them to some middle east charter company and refit them in an all economy mode so they could take 600 people to walk around a stone chanting once a year - I doubt they could be refitted back to their former glory after this abuse. Also, hasn't Emirates parked many at a secondary airport too whilst they re-evaluate their schedules and deny pilot shortages? I can't find the article but if I remember correctly it was mainly A380, whilst the 777s were kept on the main schedule. Shame, best economy class by far. 10 across on a 777 is tortue as is 9 on the new sardineliners.
Retric 8y ago
The fall off of hub and spoke as dual engine aircraft could legally and safely makes such huge aircraft far less appealing. Clearly the market exists, but aircraft last long enough that Airbus is in many ways competing with it’s self for a sill limited number of viable routes. Remeber, a hub and spoke trip means 2-3x the landings and relies on extremely congested airports. So, point to point has significantly shifted what gets congested. Things may look different in 25 years, but that’s a long time.
- nabla9 8y ago
  High population density cities in Asia inevitably create the same economic conditions as the hub and spoke model. Busy airports with high volume of traffic and high capacity rate. All estimates point to the future where there will be multiple mega-airports with more than 100 million passengers in Asia.

carlosgg 8y ago

This really interesting Business Week article from early 2017, "Is Emirates Airline Running Out of Sky?", is probably relevant: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirates-airline-running-out-of-sky https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirat...

baybal2 8y ago

So sad, A380 was a gigantic, magnificent plane. A plane with a lot of "ego"

FabHK 8y ago

noooooooooo :-(

ibejoeb 8y ago

Another problem with the A380 is that although it could run more passengers through the same number of gates, airports had to rebuild the gates to accommodate the thing. On economy long-hauls, I appreciate every config I've been on; they're roomy and the effective cabin altitude is very comfortable, so it makes flying easier. That said, I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight. I wouldn't care so much about comfort if I could take my 18-hour flight and bring it down to 10. I don't know the economics of it, but flying on a smaller, faster, higher-altitude aircraft would be more comfortable. Planes haven't really gotten faster since the dawn of the jet age.

yblu 8y ago
> I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight That's what they're doing: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-jet-concorde-boom-aerion-carbon-us-laws https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-jet-...

unethical_ban 8y ago

How do I find a route that flies on the A380, if I want to take a trip on that plane specifically?

saosebastiao 8y ago

Inevitably in comments about the demise of the 747 or A380, people refer to the proliferation of point to point routes. But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. There is an illusion of the proliferation of point to point routes caused by the proliferation of new hubs. For example, Seattle now has ~20 more direct international destinations with a year round schedule than it did 15 years ago, which makes it seem like point to point routes are more common. But careful inspection shows that every single direct international route from SEA is a hub and spoke route for the airline flying it, with either the hub in Seattle, or the hub at the destination. When these aircraft were conceived, all industry momentum was pointed toward superhubs, and all of the superhubs were capacity constrained. Landing and takeoff slots were constrained and airports were moving to auction models to sell the slots. Terminal space was becoming more and more expensive. These planes weren't more efficient because they could move more people, they were more efficient because they didn't cost as much to land and take off and load and unload. The reality of the matter is that Boeing and Airbus didn't incorrectly forecast the decline of hub and spoke models, they incorrectly forecasted the decline of superhubs.

dontbenebby 8y ago
> But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. I wish trains were lower priced. I'd much rather, say, fly to Paris then take a train to Brussels rather than take a technically shorter flight that might get delayed, or I might miss if the customs line is long. But my choices are often expensive direct flight, cheaper hub and spoke flight - plane+train is often more expensive :(

InTheArena 8y ago

Airbus has new management, as the old management was wiped out by bribery scandals and retirement. They have more to come here - their is a new Indian investigation on their practices in that country, and management is keen to break with the previous regime. John Leahy - who crusaded for the plane internally at Airbus, recently retired, and with him, anyone else who had a stake in the A380 decide. The development costs of the A380 are not paid off - the launch aid - from the European governments was to be repaid in royalties per plane on a ongoing basis. The governments will find a way to sweep what remains under the covers. Ironically, the group most at risk with this decision is Boeing. The A380 has been a total albatross and a anchor around the neck of Airbus. If Airbus hadn't been sinking in cash left and right to the A380 program, when Boeing had it's issue with the 787, Airbus could have really punished them in the market. Instead, Airbus went with a slightly warmed over A330, until the market forced them to the A350, which still wasn't as revolutionary as what the 787 brought to bear, once it finally got over it's development hurdles. So good application of the Sunk cost fallacy here by the new Airbus leadership, and a message to Boeing that the new leadership at Airbus isn't going to be constrained by the decisions of the past.

InTheArena 8y ago

Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a single United States airline orders the A380. At the time of the A380's introduction, more then half of world wide airlift was located in the United States. The numbers are less now, but it's still the largest seat market by a insane margin world wide. The US carriers were almost wiped out by the irrational exuberance when the initial 747 came out. They were always skeptical about their ability to fill consistently a A380, given market dynamics. It doesn't matter how much more efficient you are with a bigger plane, if you can't fill a seat, economically it simply spoills - you take all the cost of the airplane, the fuel, the pilots, etc (CASM) but none of the revenue (RASM). I've flown on enough empty upper decks on the A380 to know this is a huge issue.

jessriedel 8y ago
> Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a single United States airline orders the A380. The second arguments seems like support for the first one, not an alternative explanation.

protomyth 8y ago

DJ Aviation has a short video with some explanation and what replaced the A380. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o

chrissnell 8y ago

I flew first class on the Emirates A380 earlier this year. It's an experience like none other. It's completely absurd and unnecessary but simultaneously incredible and nearly unbeatable. It's an unreal feeling to take a shower at 40,000', or to drink a Manhattan over Iran, or to experience a lively cocktail bar at 3AM over Northern Greenland. Unless you own a Boeing Business Jet, you're probably not going to be able to do that. It's a taste of the 0.1% that's in reach for mere mortals if you know the right routes. The typical first class A380 ride from the US to or from the Middle East or most of Asia will run anywhere from $9,000-15,000 one-way. However, if you're willing to fly out of Colomobo, Sri Lanka, you can sometimes do this trip for less than $5,000. A flight from Bangkok to Houston via Dubai will get you a 777-300ER ride (itself an experience) plus a 16-hour A380 ride. If you want to see what it's like, I posted some pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/72157706663987055 https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721577066639...

jimmcslim 8y ago

There's a Brexit impact here as well, since the wings for the A380 were being manufactured in Wales.

umichguy 8y ago

When it was conceived, it was the right aircraft. By the time it arrived, market conditions changed. So it became the wrong plane. That's really to it. Really.

ousta 8y ago

this kind of engineering undertaking, praising greatness over profit is what built our world. sad to see it put to an end just like the concorde was. america and western civilization became a nation of bankers and social networkers while it was a nation of engineers driven by innovation

drallison 8y ago

The Airbus 380 is the only passenger aircraft for which I have a strong preference. I dislike the toy aircraft (regional jets) that have become standard which are too small and constrained for modern adults. In contrast, at least in the Air France configuration, the A380 is roomy and comfortable. I am sad that Airbus has decided to deprecate the model.