4 ms·

A380s are relatively new arent they? Compared to 747s I mean.

by waheoo 6y ago

CydeWeys 6y ago
They're even bigger though, so they have the same problem as the 747 in a post-COVID world only worse. In hindsight it was a mistake ever developing them. They're a huge loss for Airbus and will never remotely turn a profit.
- lmm 6y ago
  They've turned out to be unpopular which means they're doomed. But pandemic notwithstanding they made sense for hub-and-spoke carriers (like the Gulf states or Turkish Airlines) in a world where landing slots became increasingly limited and expensive (because the likes of London will probably take 100 years to get around to building another runway). They've ended up failing, but I don't think it was as dumb an idea as many people see them as.
  - jryle70 6y ago
    There'd been rumor of a Turkish Airlines's order for A380 for so long but it never happened. Etihad and Qatar each operate a tiny fleet. In fact A380 seems to only work for Emirates. So it doesn't really make sense for hub and spoke airlines either. It isn't a dumb idea. It's a marvelous machine. But it isn't viable commercially and Airbus let prestige cloud their judgement. Doesn't help that they fucked up the service introduction, causing a two year delay and probably extra billions.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - hkt 6y ago
    London may never build another runway. The current prime minister has personally campaigned against it, for a start.
    - timthorn 6y ago
      He's only campaigned against it at Heathrow. He has also championed the idea of "Boris Island" - a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.
    - andy_ppp 6y ago
      Man of his word too.
      - namdnay 6y ago
        (jets off to Kabul)
      - hkt 6y ago
        Point taken..
    - Symbiote 6y ago
      Hopefully Heathrow will never build an additional runway, and will eventually be closed. A different airport (near London) should build it instead. The noise pollution from aircraft flying over London to land is horrible, and affects millions of people.
  - guiriduro 6y ago
    They're certainly not unpopular with travellers, citing quietness and smoothness and space (larger seats.) The premium that customers are willing to pay vs non-A380s for the same route is a different matter of course, and their difficult economics certainly made them less popular with airlines. And that was before covid19.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Bad investment for Airbus might turn into cash cow to airliners after 3-4 years. If air traffic returns to fast growth era, congestion in large cities becomes issue again and A380 shines there. There is only limited number of them and A380 is surprisingly efficient. Landing slots are expensive. A380 wins cost/passenger easily in busy and congested airfields. A380 is easy on pavement. Pavement maintenance is roughly third of airfield maintenance. When landing fee rates reflect pavement loading accurately, a380 becomes even more economic to operate in large airfields.
- phire 6y ago
  They were dying even before COVID19. Airbus announced the end of A380 production back in February 2019. They are only scheduled to deliver another 9 planes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those end up cancelled.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  They're actually even worse than the 747, because one of the benefits of the 747 (and some of the few outstanding orders of 747 production left) is that they were designed to be easily converted into freighter aircraft, because at the time people thought the 747 was a stopgap till supersonic travel became the norm. The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one. That being said, the A380 being a lemon certainly cost Airbus far less than the 737MAX program has taken down Boeing.
  - briandear 6y ago
    > The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one. That’s not the reason. Airbus was exceptionally short sighted; they designed an A380 cargo option but never built it. https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/ https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      Both things are true. Same website as your link corroborating what I‘m saying: https://simpleflying.com/why-existing-airbus-a380s-wont-be-converted-to-freighters/amp/ https://simpleflying.com/why-existing-airbus-a380s-wont-be-c... > Alas, there are some flaws in the A380 design when it comes to cargo. > The first is how heavy the A380 is. Because the A380 has a heavier empty weight than the competitive Boeing 747-8F cargo carrier, it actually costs more to get the aircraft in the air. > In practice, this means that despite having more room onboard, the A380 would hit its maximum carrying weight before the entire volume was filled up, leaving plenty of extra empty room onboard. It would be too expensive for a cargo operator to run to make a profit.
- luch 6y ago
  I remember as a student seeing an Airbus bigwig explain why they created the A380 using a financial diagram : "short couriers costs X€/seat, transatlantic couriers costs Y€/seat and the new A380 will cost Z€/seat" (Z < Y < X of course), disregarding completely the fact that landways needed to be widened/stretched or that airports started to bubble everywhere leading to what we know as the hub-and-spoke model. In all honesty, I'm pretty sure Airbus exec went with the A380 design as a pissing contest with Boeing.
  - grkvlt 6y ago
    not really. the a380 was designed to be able to use any airport which could service a 747 (so no widening or lengthening of runways etc) and airbus were betting ON the hub and spoke model remaining dominant, which didn't happen, and point to point flights between regional airports became the norm instead with the 787 etc being used to services them.
    - yardie 6y ago
      That’s only partially true. They could land at any airport that could land a 747. They could not be a regular scheduled flight there. Runways had to be reinforced for the heavier plane. And the terminals needed to be upgraded to accommodate the 2 levels of passenger boarding. There are still relatively few airports that could accommodate scheduled A380 service except a dozen major cities.
      - grkvlt 6y ago
        i stopped counting at 15 (over a dozen) cities in this list [0] and had just finished the letter c so there are scheduled a380 flights to many more destinations than you imagined... 0. https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html
        yardie 6y ago
        Sorry, misspoke according to Airbus it is 140 airports. https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/ https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/

A380s are relatively new arent they? Compared to 747s I mean.

by waheoo 6y ago

A380s are relatively new arent they? Compared to 747s I mean.

They're even bigger though, so they have the same problem as the 747 in a post-COVID world only worse. In hindsight it was a mistake ever developing them. They're a huge loss for Airbus and will never remotely turn a profit.

lmm 6y ago
They've turned out to be unpopular which means they're doomed. But pandemic notwithstanding they made sense for hub-and-spoke carriers (like the Gulf states or Turkish Airlines) in a world where landing slots became increasingly limited and expensive (because the likes of London will probably take 100 years to get around to building another runway). They've ended up failing, but I don't think it was as dumb an idea as many people see them as.
- jryle70 6y ago
  There'd been rumor of a Turkish Airlines's order for A380 for so long but it never happened. Etihad and Qatar each operate a tiny fleet. In fact A380 seems to only work for Emirates. So it doesn't really make sense for hub and spoke airlines either. It isn't a dumb idea. It's a marvelous machine. But it isn't viable commercially and Airbus let prestige cloud their judgement. Doesn't help that they fucked up the service introduction, causing a two year delay and probably extra billions.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- hkt 6y ago
  London may never build another runway. The current prime minister has personally campaigned against it, for a start.
  - timthorn 6y ago
    He's only campaigned against it at Heathrow. He has also championed the idea of "Boris Island" - a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary.
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    Man of his word too.
    - namdnay 6y ago
      (jets off to Kabul)
    - hkt 6y ago
      Point taken..
  - Symbiote 6y ago
    Hopefully Heathrow will never build an additional runway, and will eventually be closed. A different airport (near London) should build it instead. The noise pollution from aircraft flying over London to land is horrible, and affects millions of people.
- guiriduro 6y ago
  They're certainly not unpopular with travellers, citing quietness and smoothness and space (larger seats.) The premium that customers are willing to pay vs non-A380s for the same route is a different matter of course, and their difficult economics certainly made them less popular with airlines. And that was before covid19.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Bad investment for Airbus might turn into cash cow to airliners after 3-4 years. If air traffic returns to fast growth era, congestion in large cities becomes issue again and A380 shines there. There is only limited number of them and A380 is surprisingly efficient. Landing slots are expensive. A380 wins cost/passenger easily in busy and congested airfields. A380 is easy on pavement. Pavement maintenance is roughly third of airfield maintenance. When landing fee rates reflect pavement loading accurately, a380 becomes even more economic to operate in large airfields.
phire 6y ago
They were dying even before COVID19. Airbus announced the end of A380 production back in February 2019. They are only scheduled to deliver another 9 planes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those end up cancelled.
bobthepanda 6y ago
They're actually even worse than the 747, because one of the benefits of the 747 (and some of the few outstanding orders of 747 production left) is that they were designed to be easily converted into freighter aircraft, because at the time people thought the 747 was a stopgap till supersonic travel became the norm. The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one. That being said, the A380 being a lemon certainly cost Airbus far less than the 737MAX program has taken down Boeing.
- briandear 6y ago
  > The A380, due to its heavier dead weight, wouldn't be very good as a freighter even if it could be turned into one. That’s not the reason. Airbus was exceptionally short sighted; they designed an A380 cargo option but never built it. https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/ https://simpleflying.com/cargo-a380-how-to-load/
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Both things are true. Same website as your link corroborating what I‘m saying: https://simpleflying.com/why-existing-airbus-a380s-wont-be-converted-to-freighters/amp/ https://simpleflying.com/why-existing-airbus-a380s-wont-be-c... > Alas, there are some flaws in the A380 design when it comes to cargo. > The first is how heavy the A380 is. Because the A380 has a heavier empty weight than the competitive Boeing 747-8F cargo carrier, it actually costs more to get the aircraft in the air. > In practice, this means that despite having more room onboard, the A380 would hit its maximum carrying weight before the entire volume was filled up, leaving plenty of extra empty room onboard. It would be too expensive for a cargo operator to run to make a profit.
luch 6y ago
I remember as a student seeing an Airbus bigwig explain why they created the A380 using a financial diagram : "short couriers costs X€/seat, transatlantic couriers costs Y€/seat and the new A380 will cost Z€/seat" (Z < Y < X of course), disregarding completely the fact that landways needed to be widened/stretched or that airports started to bubble everywhere leading to what we know as the hub-and-spoke model. In all honesty, I'm pretty sure Airbus exec went with the A380 design as a pissing contest with Boeing.
- grkvlt 6y ago
  not really. the a380 was designed to be able to use any airport which could service a 747 (so no widening or lengthening of runways etc) and airbus were betting ON the hub and spoke model remaining dominant, which didn't happen, and point to point flights between regional airports became the norm instead with the 787 etc being used to services them.
  - yardie 6y ago
    That’s only partially true. They could land at any airport that could land a 747. They could not be a regular scheduled flight there. Runways had to be reinforced for the heavier plane. And the terminals needed to be upgraded to accommodate the 2 levels of passenger boarding. There are still relatively few airports that could accommodate scheduled A380 service except a dozen major cities.
    - grkvlt 6y ago
      i stopped counting at 15 (over a dozen) cities in this list [0] and had just finished the letter c so there are scheduled a380 flights to many more destinations than you imagined... 0. https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html https://www.iflya380.com/a380-destinations.html
      - yardie 6y ago
        Sorry, misspoke according to Airbus it is 140 airports. https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/ https://simpleflying.com/hi-fly-airbus-a380-lisbon/