4 ms·

The A380 was a technological marvel that was built more for European pride( see our jumbo jet is bigger than yours) than for real business reasons. Nevertheless

The A380 was a technological marvel that was built more for European pride( see our jumbo jet is bigger than yours) than for real business reasons. Nevertheless, it is a joy to fly in. (Though I do think it doesn’t look as beautiful as the 747).

simion314 6y ago
Just asking, is there any concrete evidence ? Like some politicians asking for the planes to have more passengers or length then some other airplane? I am wondering that maybe if Boeing is using super old design then maybe that explain why the american airplanes are less efficient. I don't deny pride exists everywhere, including in me.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  One Youtube video has a pretty convincing origin story of the A380. Apparently Airbus approached Boeing about a joint project, but Boeing's analysis showed point-to-point (787) made more sense, and Airbus got the opposite result. Pride no doubt had a part in it, as the investment is staggering. What hurt A380 development badly from a mfg. perspective was the wiring harness initially didn't fit, causing a delay of up to 2 years, so they had to re-design that. (This is common, and happened to one recent Boeing model too.) Also the first examples had a weight problem. A380 $6.1B in additional costs due to project delays http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 But the biggest issues were: 1) point-to-point won over spoke-and-hub 2) renovation of each airport so it would fit 3) no US carriers ordered any 4) operating cost of $29,000/hour, smaller planes are a quarter. 6) The A380 is not a cargo-design like the 747 - the A380 doesn't have a level floor from what I've heard.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    5) If there was really a big market for the A380 why wasn't Boeing selling more 747's.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      It's a good point. I suspect there's an argument that a newer design could be more fuel-efficient, but I haven't read anything on that. (The only things that operators care about are fuel efficiency and operating cost/commonality, and will the lenders finance it. Passenger comfort has no bearing.)
      - kortilla 6y ago
        No, the killer was the move away from hub and spoke model to directs between secondary cities. This was exacerbated more by ETOPS allowing narrow body jets to cover ocean flights. No point in Southwest funneling all passengers to LAX to board an A380 to HNL when they can just have directs on 737s from every west coast city.
        p_l 6y ago
        That's, however, specific more to USA. Intercontinental flights (and not only) seem to me to always go through hubs, and within Europe also through hubs, if maybe a bit smaller.
        kortilla 6y ago
        Not even in Europe. The growth didn’t happen because so many point to point flights displaced the need. LHR hasn’t become significantly larger since the late 90s, which was what the A380 (and 747 passenger for that matter) depended on to really compete. Look at an airport like Naples. It has over 100 direct flight destinations.
        p_l 6y ago
        Just took a look - most of the point-to-point are short-distance low cost flights. Which fly A320 and 737, not 787 nor A380. When you look at connections involving distances where one would use a long-range plane, it's pretty much always with a hub at one end - at least that's what cursory glance shows me. non-low cost airlines will schedule intra-european flights through hubs as well, the hub you will fly through depends on airline used (so Lufthansa will put your through MUC or FRA, LOT will do everything through Warsaw with few long-range flights from Cracow, BA will do Gatwick and Heathrow depending on the flights, etc.)
lightgreen 6y ago
> than for real business reasons Any explanations for that? Large airliners was a monopoly by Boeing, Airbus obviously wanted to cut a part of that market.
- Havoc 6y ago
  >Any explanations for that? A380 isn't profitable.
  - brnt 6y ago
    But not because it wasn't technically insufficient, the market has changed priorities.

simion314 6y ago

Just asking, is there any concrete evidence ? Like some politicians asking for the planes to have more passengers or length then some other airplane? I am wondering that maybe if Boeing is using super old design then maybe that explain why the american airplanes are less efficient. I don't deny pride exists everywhere, including in me.

redis_mlc 6y ago
One Youtube video has a pretty convincing origin story of the A380. Apparently Airbus approached Boeing about a joint project, but Boeing's analysis showed point-to-point (787) made more sense, and Airbus got the opposite result. Pride no doubt had a part in it, as the investment is staggering. What hurt A380 development badly from a mfg. perspective was the wiring harness initially didn't fit, causing a delay of up to 2 years, so they had to re-design that. (This is common, and happened to one recent Boeing model too.) Also the first examples had a weight problem. A380 $6.1B in additional costs due to project delays http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 But the biggest issues were: 1) point-to-point won over spoke-and-hub 2) renovation of each airport so it would fit 3) no US carriers ordered any 4) operating cost of $29,000/hour, smaller planes are a quarter. 6) The A380 is not a cargo-design like the 747 - the A380 doesn't have a level floor from what I've heard.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  5) If there was really a big market for the A380 why wasn't Boeing selling more 747's.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    It's a good point. I suspect there's an argument that a newer design could be more fuel-efficient, but I haven't read anything on that. (The only things that operators care about are fuel efficiency and operating cost/commonality, and will the lenders finance it. Passenger comfort has no bearing.)
    - kortilla 6y ago
      No, the killer was the move away from hub and spoke model to directs between secondary cities. This was exacerbated more by ETOPS allowing narrow body jets to cover ocean flights. No point in Southwest funneling all passengers to LAX to board an A380 to HNL when they can just have directs on 737s from every west coast city.
      - p_l 6y ago
        That's, however, specific more to USA. Intercontinental flights (and not only) seem to me to always go through hubs, and within Europe also through hubs, if maybe a bit smaller.
        kortilla 6y ago
        Not even in Europe. The growth didn’t happen because so many point to point flights displaced the need. LHR hasn’t become significantly larger since the late 90s, which was what the A380 (and 747 passenger for that matter) depended on to really compete. Look at an airport like Naples. It has over 100 direct flight destinations.
        p_l 6y ago
        Just took a look - most of the point-to-point are short-distance low cost flights. Which fly A320 and 737, not 787 nor A380. When you look at connections involving distances where one would use a long-range plane, it's pretty much always with a hub at one end - at least that's what cursory glance shows me. non-low cost airlines will schedule intra-european flights through hubs as well, the hub you will fly through depends on airline used (so Lufthansa will put your through MUC or FRA, LOT will do everything through Warsaw with few long-range flights from Cracow, BA will do Gatwick and Heathrow depending on the flights, etc.)

lightgreen 6y ago

> than for real business reasons Any explanations for that? Large airliners was a monopoly by Boeing, Airbus obviously wanted to cut a part of that market.

Havoc 6y ago
>Any explanations for that? A380 isn't profitable.
- brnt 6y ago
  But not because it wasn't technically insufficient, the market has changed priorities.