3 ms·

The A380 is as good as retired. Production was scheduled to stop in 2021 since 2019 [0]. It seems to have been advanced by the coronavirus crisis [1]. Air Fran

The A380 is as good as retired. Production was scheduled to stop in 2021 since 2019 [0]. It seems to have been advanced by the coronavirus crisis [1]. Air France has stopped flying the A380 [2]. [0] Airbus announces stopping production of A380 in 2021: https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la-fin-de-la-production-de-la380-fin-des-livraisons-en-2021-1327539 https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/airbus-annonce-la... [1] Coronavirus gives the final blow to the A380 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-coup-de-grace-a-l-a380-20200429 https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/le-coronavirus-donne-le-co... [2] Air France flies the A380 for the last time https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a380-pour-la-derniere-fois-20200625 https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-france-fait-voler-l-a38...

kzrdude 6y ago
Stopped flying it? That sounds dire. Smaller planes, like the smaller airbuses, serve for 25-30 years, right, so why wouldn't the A380 serve them for longer?
- gsnedders 6y ago
  The economics were already marginal. You basically _have_ to fill the aircraft to justify its significantly higher operating costs over large twinjets today (and the fact that no airline has many means you lose many economies of scale). In addition, many of Air France's were some of the earliest airframes constructed, some of them non-standard compared with later aircraft. With COVID-19 and an expecting reduction in travel lasting a number of years, all airlines are downsizing. An aircraft that's already marginal makes a lot of sense to drop, even it means letting it go while young. They're effectively getting replaced by the A350-900s Air France has on order which are _vastly_ more fuel efficient per passenger.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Any idea why the A380 is so fuel inefficient? It's a relatively recent design with modern engines etc., no? (I've flown once on an A350. Very nice plane)
    - stirlo 6y ago
      Dead simple. 4 engines instead of 2. Same reason the 747 is going away
    - agurk 6y ago
      There are several reasons. A big one is having four jet engines rather than two. If you had two equivalent aircraft but one a twin jet the other a quad, the twin would have higher efficiency. With each extra engine you pay for it with more drag and reduced overall efficiency. The engines on the A380 aren't actually that modern with the two options being 15-20 year old designs. One of the reasons it was discontinued is that no engine manufacturer was willing to make new engines for it, so they weren't able to produce a modern fuel efficient variant. And it also makes limited use of composites in its design, so it's heavier than it would be if designed today.
      - jabl 6y ago
        > A big one is having four jet engines rather than two. If you had two equivalent aircraft but one a twin jet the other a quad, the twin would have higher efficiency. One can make a good case for turbine engines having better efficiency the larger they are (less losses due to boundary layer friction etc.), so yes, if you have two otherwise equivalent aircraft I'd assume fewer bigger engines would be better. But here we don't have equivalent aircraft, as the A380 is bigger than, well, pretty much any other passenger airliner out there. The A380 engines produce around 350 kN, which is slightly bigger than, say, the B787 engines. Admittedly the A350 engines are a bit bigger than that, but not by a huge amount. But the data seems to suggest both the 787 and 350 are much more fuel efficient than the A380? So to make an equivalent comparison, one would take an engine, make a twin engine plane and a quad engine plane with that exact same engine. Naively one could expect the quad version to take twice the number of passengers or cargo, and have roughly the same fuel economy/seat. If not, why not? Which scaling laws are non-linear here? > The engines on the A380 aren't actually that modern with the two options being 15-20 year old designs. One of the reasons it was discontinued is that no engine manufacturer was willing to make new engines for it, so they weren't able to produce a modern fuel efficient variant. > And it also makes limited use of composites in its design, so it's heavier than it would be if designed today. This explanation I can certainly buy. Also that the biggest turbofans are nowadays so large that a twin engine plane is already so big there's a very small market for quads.
- TylerE 6y ago
  The 380 has many special issues, primarily that it is too big for most airports.
- sjagoe 6y ago
  At a guess, more demand for direct flights served by A350 and 787 and falling demand for hub-and-spoke flights served by A380.
ardy42 6y ago
> The A380 is as good as retired. Doesn't one of the Middle Eastern airlines (Emirates?) have good routes for it, so they can still use it heavily?
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  It's unclear what the situation for Emirates is. I would guess they're also hit by the drop in air traffic although they might be able to make the routes work with fewer people seeing how they have a lot of luxury offers. According to the Figaro article, 8 of their 125 planes are still to be delivered. Maybe they could turn a profit by gaining a bigger share on their routes from other companies?

kzrdude 6y ago

Stopped flying it? That sounds dire. Smaller planes, like the smaller airbuses, serve for 25-30 years, right, so why wouldn't the A380 serve them for longer?

gsnedders 6y ago
The economics were already marginal. You basically _have_ to fill the aircraft to justify its significantly higher operating costs over large twinjets today (and the fact that no airline has many means you lose many economies of scale). In addition, many of Air France's were some of the earliest airframes constructed, some of them non-standard compared with later aircraft. With COVID-19 and an expecting reduction in travel lasting a number of years, all airlines are downsizing. An aircraft that's already marginal makes a lot of sense to drop, even it means letting it go while young. They're effectively getting replaced by the A350-900s Air France has on order which are _vastly_ more fuel efficient per passenger.
- jabl 6y ago
  Any idea why the A380 is so fuel inefficient? It's a relatively recent design with modern engines etc., no? (I've flown once on an A350. Very nice plane)
  - stirlo 6y ago
    Dead simple. 4 engines instead of 2. Same reason the 747 is going away
  - agurk 6y ago
    There are several reasons. A big one is having four jet engines rather than two. If you had two equivalent aircraft but one a twin jet the other a quad, the twin would have higher efficiency. With each extra engine you pay for it with more drag and reduced overall efficiency. The engines on the A380 aren't actually that modern with the two options being 15-20 year old designs. One of the reasons it was discontinued is that no engine manufacturer was willing to make new engines for it, so they weren't able to produce a modern fuel efficient variant. And it also makes limited use of composites in its design, so it's heavier than it would be if designed today.
    - jabl 6y ago
      > A big one is having four jet engines rather than two. If you had two equivalent aircraft but one a twin jet the other a quad, the twin would have higher efficiency. One can make a good case for turbine engines having better efficiency the larger they are (less losses due to boundary layer friction etc.), so yes, if you have two otherwise equivalent aircraft I'd assume fewer bigger engines would be better. But here we don't have equivalent aircraft, as the A380 is bigger than, well, pretty much any other passenger airliner out there. The A380 engines produce around 350 kN, which is slightly bigger than, say, the B787 engines. Admittedly the A350 engines are a bit bigger than that, but not by a huge amount. But the data seems to suggest both the 787 and 350 are much more fuel efficient than the A380? So to make an equivalent comparison, one would take an engine, make a twin engine plane and a quad engine plane with that exact same engine. Naively one could expect the quad version to take twice the number of passengers or cargo, and have roughly the same fuel economy/seat. If not, why not? Which scaling laws are non-linear here? > The engines on the A380 aren't actually that modern with the two options being 15-20 year old designs. One of the reasons it was discontinued is that no engine manufacturer was willing to make new engines for it, so they weren't able to produce a modern fuel efficient variant. > And it also makes limited use of composites in its design, so it's heavier than it would be if designed today. This explanation I can certainly buy. Also that the biggest turbofans are nowadays so large that a twin engine plane is already so big there's a very small market for quads.
TylerE 6y ago
The 380 has many special issues, primarily that it is too big for most airports.
sjagoe 6y ago
At a guess, more demand for direct flights served by A350 and 787 and falling demand for hub-and-spoke flights served by A380.

ardy42 6y ago

> The A380 is as good as retired. Doesn't one of the Middle Eastern airlines (Emirates?) have good routes for it, so they can still use it heavily?

vladvasiliu 6y ago
It's unclear what the situation for Emirates is. I would guess they're also hit by the drop in air traffic although they might be able to make the routes work with fewer people seeing how they have a lot of luxury offers. According to the Figaro article, 8 of their 125 planes are still to be delivered. Maybe they could turn a profit by gaining a bigger share on their routes from other companies?