12 ms·

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actua

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all segments more competitive. It's unfortunate that the largest aircraft are going out at the time when demand for flying is higher than ever. On the upside, the A350 has many of the A380's technologies, and is a great competitor to the 777 series (and is also a very good competitor to the 787 series!)

raulgalera 4y ago
i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were trying to get rid of it.
- llsf 4y ago
  The landing surprised me too. Super soft compared to smaller planes. I once landed in Johannesburg on a A380 Air France from Paris and the airport was in thick fog. You could not even tell we touched the ground. The captain made the announcement after landing that it was his very first time letting the plane land in itself... you could tell the excitement in his voice :)
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Fog basically means no wind or turbulence. So, smooth landings would be expected and easy. More challenging would be lots of cross wind, wind shear, and turbulence. The plane basically has to land at an angle and then yaw to straighten out at the last second all while constantly correcting for changes in lift and vertical speed. So you are shaking around the plane and passengers quite a bit. A rough landing is actually considered a safe landing when the conditions are not ideal. A smooth landing means flying the plane close to stall speed. So close that it gently touches down with barely any vertical speed left. You don't do that when there's any risk of wind shear causing very sudden and extreme drops in air speed of tens of knots. If that happens you drop below stall speed and basically the plane drops out of the sky. If that happens low enough, you crash and die. It's extremely unsafe to do anything else than plonking it down decisively under such conditions. That means a larger vertical and horizontal speed and eliminating airspeed via the shock absorbers instead of floating over the runway. That's what shock absorbers are for. As long as the plane doesn't bounce off again, it's all good. Bouncing is dangerous though because now you are slow and stalling.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  > the takeoff is so long and smooth Is this another way of saying slow to accelerate?
- pwarner 4y ago
  I missed the actual takeoff on my one and only 380 flight. It was truly exceptional. 747 may have more character and history, but 380 may be more comfortable.
- roncesvalles 4y ago
  If you sit in the forwardmost section of the cabin far ahead of the engines (possible to do in economy on the A380), the pin-drop silence (by airplane standards) combined with the long and slow takeoff makes the moment of lift totally surreal. I think the guy next to me panicked because he thought there was engine trouble and we were going to overrun.
bastian 4y ago
A great video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI
InTheArena 4y ago
The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now, the three busiest airports in the world are ATL, DFW and DEN. None of which was ever a target market for the A380. Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown...
- noahtallen 4y ago
  > Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown... But they have direct competitors for these types of routes too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are as good as Boeing’s options! (And even some which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X and working on a new single-aisle plane.
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    The A380 decision was two decades ago now. The A350 was a result of Boeing wiping out the A340 and the first iteration of the A350. Airbus is in a good potion now that they did in fact go back to what made them successful. Mid range single deck two engine airframes.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220 What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project. Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for NAFTA.
  - tacticus 4y ago
    > if Boeing ships the 777X Though even a 737\757 replacement is 10 to 15 years away with airbus getting more and more of the order book.
coredog64 4y ago
I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.
- rob74 4y ago
  Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    The 737 and 707 are the exemplar for airplanes. MCDs reverse takeover of Boeing has been a disaster / but safety wise even with the 737 Max debacle the 737 is the lane that took the jet age from only the elites to everyone.
  - reisse 4y ago
    737 MAX MCAS issue pale in comparison to 737 classic rudder issues (two crashes confirmed because of the issue, three crashes suspected, and a few more cases where pilots were able to overcome the plane). Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it. And the public's opinion of the air travel industry was different so hand wringing over it wasn't so fashionable.
    - LastTrain 4y ago
      I’m old and I remember it being all over the news and Johnny Carson making jokes about Boeing “BOING” in his monologue. There was no social network but we were ALL watching the same damn 3 channels.
InTheArena 4y ago
This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and placed the blame for the A320 not selling better than the 737 on mythical subsidies that Boeing was supposedly providing. The real reason was Airlines stuck with the 737 instead of the A320 because the price was competitive, they had trained pilots, staff, and mechanics, and some people didn't want fly-by-wire and CFRP. The 777 had already passed the 747 as the main breadwinner well before the A380 took to the sky. Boeing had tried to launch two different 747 stretches and both failed. Airbus with government aid decided to launch the A380, even though there was significant evidence that the A340 was getting crushed against the 777.
- Reason077 4y ago
  Of course the A340 got crushed against the 777: it was a fairly inefficient quad jet in an era that nobody wanted quad jets anymore due to the relaxation of ETOPS rules. The twin A330, however, sold very well and still sells well today (A330neo), as does the larger A350.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  The A340 was badly timed. ETOPS restrictions were loosened, making the 777 the better product for the vast majority of routes. The A340-500 in particular had great range and was used on the longest nonstop routes for some time, but it was replaced by the A380, 777-200LR, 787-9, and the A350-900.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Not just that, but lots of airspace and emergency airports opened when the USSR fell, making twin engine flights between the USA and Asia much more feasible.
- devoutsalsa 4y ago
  Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+ engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747s, a340s, and similar planes simply couldn't compete in routes efficiently served by twin engine planes. The a380 is a great plane for an airline like Emirates which primarily serves Dubai because there is a lot of tourism demand for long haul travel on a jet w/ huge passenger capacity. If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
rconti 4y ago
Source for the "they launched the shortened version"? I've never heard that before. Interesting.
- S201 4y ago
  It's not so much as there is a "longer version" designed and sitting around, but more that the wings were built with a potential future, longer fuselage variant in mind. This is more evident if you look at a top-down view of it and note that the wing-to-fuselage ratio is higher than that of other planes, similar to how the 747-SP looks much shorter in length than its wings should be designed for. There's more details on the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_but_not_produced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_...
  - rob74 4y ago
    Or, to quote the Wikipedia article directly: > The A380's wings are sized for a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes to accommodate these [larger] future versions, albeit with some internal strengthening required on the A380F freighter. The optimal wingspan for this weight is about 90 m (300 ft), but airport restrictions have limited it to less than 80 m (260 ft), thereby lowering the aspect ratio to 7.8 which reduces fuel efficiency by about 10% and increases operating costs a few percent, given that fuel costs constitute about 50% of the cost of long-haul aeroplane operation.
ramesh31 4y ago
>Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all segments more competitive. It all comes down to fuel prices. Lamenting for the age of the 747 is the same as missing those boat size finned Cadillacs. It was another era. The ETOPS ratings of modern engines and fuel efficiency of high bypass designs means we will never see a four engined passenger liner ever again. The A380 itself was outdated by the time it flew its first passengers, as the 787 was in its final stages of testing at the time. They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads, and possibly long haul first class configurations, but the economics are simply not there for mainline passenger use.
- ggm 4y ago
  The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747 freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors so there's only side-door loading. Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or only very close to a 747 in most cases. It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will continue to work well for state funded airlines like Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases, Jetstar run the 787. At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times and it was less than 20% load both ways. The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion, but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350, &c) are running fine. The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers. Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource, end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all complicated. It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're an armchair planner. All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it.
aziaziazi 4y ago
> demand for flying is higher than ever Is it ? Trafic is close to prependemic but still below. > The industry is now just about 15% below 2019 levels of demand [0] [0]https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-02/ https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-0...
- badcppdev 4y ago
  You can tell demand is high because ticket prices are very high. Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0] I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I think leads to them being less ambitious with growth. 0 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transcript-companies-are-telling-us-the-real-reason-they-re-still-raising-prices#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transcrip...
  - aziaziazi 4y ago
    The causes you propose may be true but don’t respond to “higher than never”. I’ll add to your note the not-totaly-solved risk of petroleum not being infinite and while the industry is not freaking out, it has started to questioning itself. I can buy “prices are very hight” but how would you measure that ? Also did you took inflation into account in your estimation ? Flight “recovery” is largely due to Asian market booming, so prices may go up in the US while decreasing in the biggest market share.
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      You are absolutely correct. Demand exists but is it "higher than ever"? I don't know. I don't even know what units are used to describe demand. I don't even know enough economics to be able to tell you how you measure demand. For instance I would like to buy some long haul flights but will have to delay due to being outside my budget. Is that demand? Regarding prices obviously you can adjust for inflation and affordability changes but all statements like that have to be accepted as only being valid/pertinent for certain time periods. I think in this context only a few people are interested in a comparison to the 1920s, 1960s, etc
rootusrootus 4y ago
The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.
- benjaminwootton 4y ago
  I can feel that glide too. You are flying along, then feel a slight gliding fall, then a wobble. You always feel any turbulence during the glides too. Sorry for the highly technical terms but I agree it is unique to the A380. Apart from this they comfortable to travel and sleep on.
  - beavis000 4y ago
    What are "glides"?
    - joncrane 4y ago
      The flying equivalent to a car coasting.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      I think it's the slight (unexpected and short duration) change in altitude. That sensation of ground falling under your feet, with a slight sense of suspension. As if the craft is sliding down. (Glide as in gliding down a slope.)
- acchow 4y ago
  Is this how pilots are taught to operate it? Or how the engines automatically operate when the pilot is throttling "smoothly".
  - ak217 4y ago
    The pilot is not flying the plane at cruise, the autopilot is. The autopilot can definitely have an effect on how smooth the flying feels, depending on how autothrottle and altitude hold control loops are implemented.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
Emirates, the largest owner of A380s, is asking for a bigger one https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-clark-on-the-a380-and-why-we-need-a-new-super-jumbo/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-clark-o... Apparently the slot limitations at major city airports are becoming a harder constraint to work with, especially as a larger swatch of Asia gain the ability to travel long haul. Losing the A380 in 15-20 years is going to make flying between big city pairs more expensive.
- wahern 4y ago
  None of the engine manufacturers are interested. That's what killed the A380--Rolls Royce pulled out of a re-engine deal that would've brought A380 engines into the 21st century. "Green" concept showcases notwithstanding, all the engine manufactures seem to have decided to cut back on investment and coast for awhile. Something will need to change to spur competition in the engine space, and then we might see hungrier competitors. But the shelving of the A380 supply chain means there'll still be a steep hill to an A380 derivative.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote. I doubt airlines are actually interested in committing tens of billions of capital, today, to get a dozen % improvement in fuel efficiency a decade from now. And why would a private investor take such a huge risk without guarantees of making it back several fold? So it doesn't happen.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote. No. Even if an engine got to the Carnot efficiency, you can still improve it. Massively. You can push a certain quantity of air with a velocity v or 4 times that quantity with half the velocity. The second option produces twice the thrust, for the same fuel consumption. That's the reason engines are getting larger and larger, and going for higher and higher bypass ratios. Separately, the maximum theoretical (Carnot) efficiency depends on how hot the engine runs. GE has introduced turbines made of silicon carbide, which can withstand absurdly high temperatures. Silicon carbide melts at more than 2800 Celsius, but they don't push it to such limits. But they push it to more than 1300 Celsius [1]. Military jet engines run much hotter though. Exact numbers are classified, but according to [2] the temperature inside F35's engine might reach 2000 Celsius (the actual number is obviously classified). Of course, military jet engines are many times more expensive than civilian ones, with higher maintenance costs, and lifespan about 2 orders of magnitude shorter. Still the fact that they can run this hot means improvements for the civilian jet engines are possible. And they will happen. [1] https://www.ornl.gov/news/ceramic-matrix-composites-take-flight-leap-jet-engine https://www.ornl.gov/news/ceramic-matrix-composites-take-fli... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285727346_Fahrenheit_3600 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285727346_Fahrenhei...
bobthepanda 4y ago
The 747 also had incredible product market fit, if only accidentally. They were all designed to be freight compatible, because the 747 was meant to be a stopgap before supersonics dominated the skies. Most 747s have happy second lives as freight workhorses. The A380 is too heavy to get off the ground with freight packed to the gills.
- cjrp 4y ago
  Not sure if it was in the original (cargo-carrying) spec., but it’s one of the few aeroplanes where the nose can be lifted to load awkwardly-shaped freight.
tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
It is. They're just difficult because their wingspan is too damn big to fit in most airports. If they had retractable folding legs like us sardine passengers in economy class, they'd fit like a champ.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Seattle built a new terminal to accommodate the big jets for $1 billion. After completion, they discovered the jets won't fit. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...
zuhsetaqi 4y ago
Maybe a dumb question but can’t you switch the engines to the more efficient ones? I mean it’s surely not cheap but maybe cheaper and faster than building whole new planes!?
- speedgoose 4y ago
  More efficient engines fitting the A380 requirements do not exist.
  - Affric 4y ago
    Could you outline the requirements and how such engines cannot be created?
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      Just guessing but the amount of space available for the engines is probably the key limiting factor. The engines on the existing A380s will be replaced multiple times during their lifetimes and certainly those replacement engines will have some efficiency improvements. But I doubt it's possible to change the efficiency significantly without changing the diameter and or length of the engines. And that seems pretty unlikely given how many things you'd have to change and how much it would cost to re-certify, etc.

raulgalera 4y ago

i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were trying to get rid of it.

llsf 4y ago
The landing surprised me too. Super soft compared to smaller planes. I once landed in Johannesburg on a A380 Air France from Paris and the airport was in thick fog. You could not even tell we touched the ground. The captain made the announcement after landing that it was his very first time letting the plane land in itself... you could tell the excitement in his voice :)
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Fog basically means no wind or turbulence. So, smooth landings would be expected and easy. More challenging would be lots of cross wind, wind shear, and turbulence. The plane basically has to land at an angle and then yaw to straighten out at the last second all while constantly correcting for changes in lift and vertical speed. So you are shaking around the plane and passengers quite a bit. A rough landing is actually considered a safe landing when the conditions are not ideal. A smooth landing means flying the plane close to stall speed. So close that it gently touches down with barely any vertical speed left. You don't do that when there's any risk of wind shear causing very sudden and extreme drops in air speed of tens of knots. If that happens you drop below stall speed and basically the plane drops out of the sky. If that happens low enough, you crash and die. It's extremely unsafe to do anything else than plonking it down decisively under such conditions. That means a larger vertical and horizontal speed and eliminating airspeed via the shock absorbers instead of floating over the runway. That's what shock absorbers are for. As long as the plane doesn't bounce off again, it's all good. Bouncing is dangerous though because now you are slow and stalling.
Scoundreller 4y ago
> the takeoff is so long and smooth Is this another way of saying slow to accelerate?
pwarner 4y ago
I missed the actual takeoff on my one and only 380 flight. It was truly exceptional. 747 may have more character and history, but 380 may be more comfortable.
roncesvalles 4y ago
If you sit in the forwardmost section of the cabin far ahead of the engines (possible to do in economy on the A380), the pin-drop silence (by airplane standards) combined with the long and slow takeoff makes the moment of lift totally surreal. I think the guy next to me panicked because he thought there was engine trouble and we were going to overrun.

bastian 4y ago

A great video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI

InTheArena 4y ago

The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now, the three busiest airports in the world are ATL, DFW and DEN. None of which was ever a target market for the A380. Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown...

noahtallen 4y ago
> Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown... But they have direct competitors for these types of routes too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are as good as Boeing’s options! (And even some which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X and working on a new single-aisle plane.
- InTheArena 4y ago
  The A380 decision was two decades ago now. The A350 was a result of Boeing wiping out the A340 and the first iteration of the A350. Airbus is in a good potion now that they did in fact go back to what made them successful. Mid range single deck two engine airframes.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220 What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project. Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for NAFTA.
- tacticus 4y ago
  > if Boeing ships the 777X Though even a 737\757 replacement is 10 to 15 years away with airbus getting more and more of the order book.

coredog64 4y ago

I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.

rob74 4y ago
Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).
- InTheArena 4y ago
  The 737 and 707 are the exemplar for airplanes. MCDs reverse takeover of Boeing has been a disaster / but safety wise even with the 737 Max debacle the 737 is the lane that took the jet age from only the elites to everyone.
- reisse 4y ago
  737 MAX MCAS issue pale in comparison to 737 classic rudder issues (two crashes confirmed because of the issue, three crashes suspected, and a few more cases where pilots were able to overcome the plane). Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it. And the public's opinion of the air travel industry was different so hand wringing over it wasn't so fashionable.
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    I’m old and I remember it being all over the news and Johnny Carson making jokes about Boeing “BOING” in his monologue. There was no social network but we were ALL watching the same damn 3 channels.

InTheArena 4y ago

This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and placed the blame for the A320 not selling better than the 737 on mythical subsidies that Boeing was supposedly providing. The real reason was Airlines stuck with the 737 instead of the A320 because the price was competitive, they had trained pilots, staff, and mechanics, and some people didn't want fly-by-wire and CFRP. The 777 had already passed the 747 as the main breadwinner well before the A380 took to the sky. Boeing had tried to launch two different 747 stretches and both failed. Airbus with government aid decided to launch the A380, even though there was significant evidence that the A340 was getting crushed against the 777.

Reason077 4y ago
Of course the A340 got crushed against the 777: it was a fairly inefficient quad jet in an era that nobody wanted quad jets anymore due to the relaxation of ETOPS rules. The twin A330, however, sold very well and still sells well today (A330neo), as does the larger A350.
diebeforei485 4y ago
The A340 was badly timed. ETOPS restrictions were loosened, making the 777 the better product for the vast majority of routes. The A340-500 in particular had great range and was used on the longest nonstop routes for some time, but it was replaced by the A380, 777-200LR, 787-9, and the A350-900.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Not just that, but lots of airspace and emergency airports opened when the USSR fell, making twin engine flights between the USA and Asia much more feasible.
devoutsalsa 4y ago
Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+ engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747s, a340s, and similar planes simply couldn't compete in routes efficiently served by twin engine planes. The a380 is a great plane for an airline like Emirates which primarily serves Dubai because there is a lot of tourism demand for long haul travel on a jet w/ huge passenger capacity. If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

rconti 4y ago

Source for the "they launched the shortened version"? I've never heard that before. Interesting.

S201 4y ago
It's not so much as there is a "longer version" designed and sitting around, but more that the wings were built with a potential future, longer fuselage variant in mind. This is more evident if you look at a top-down view of it and note that the wing-to-fuselage ratio is higher than that of other planes, similar to how the 747-SP looks much shorter in length than its wings should be designed for. There's more details on the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_but_not_produced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_...
- rob74 4y ago
  Or, to quote the Wikipedia article directly: > The A380's wings are sized for a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes to accommodate these [larger] future versions, albeit with some internal strengthening required on the A380F freighter. The optimal wingspan for this weight is about 90 m (300 ft), but airport restrictions have limited it to less than 80 m (260 ft), thereby lowering the aspect ratio to 7.8 which reduces fuel efficiency by about 10% and increases operating costs a few percent, given that fuel costs constitute about 50% of the cost of long-haul aeroplane operation.

ramesh31 4y ago

>Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all segments more competitive. It all comes down to fuel prices. Lamenting for the age of the 747 is the same as missing those boat size finned Cadillacs. It was another era. The ETOPS ratings of modern engines and fuel efficiency of high bypass designs means we will never see a four engined passenger liner ever again. The A380 itself was outdated by the time it flew its first passengers, as the 787 was in its final stages of testing at the time. They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads, and possibly long haul first class configurations, but the economics are simply not there for mainline passenger use.

ggm 4y ago
The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747 freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors so there's only side-door loading. Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or only very close to a 747 in most cases. It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will continue to work well for state funded airlines like Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases, Jetstar run the 787. At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times and it was less than 20% load both ways. The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion, but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350, &c) are running fine. The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers. Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource, end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all complicated. It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're an armchair planner. All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it.

aziaziazi 4y ago

> demand for flying is higher than ever Is it ? Trafic is close to prependemic but still below. > The industry is now just about 15% below 2019 levels of demand [0] [0]https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-02/ https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-0...

badcppdev 4y ago
You can tell demand is high because ticket prices are very high. Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0] I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I think leads to them being less ambitious with growth. 0 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transcript-companies-are-telling-us-the-real-reason-they-re-still-raising-prices#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transcrip...
- aziaziazi 4y ago
  The causes you propose may be true but don’t respond to “higher than never”. I’ll add to your note the not-totaly-solved risk of petroleum not being infinite and while the industry is not freaking out, it has started to questioning itself. I can buy “prices are very hight” but how would you measure that ? Also did you took inflation into account in your estimation ? Flight “recovery” is largely due to Asian market booming, so prices may go up in the US while decreasing in the biggest market share.
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    You are absolutely correct. Demand exists but is it "higher than ever"? I don't know. I don't even know what units are used to describe demand. I don't even know enough economics to be able to tell you how you measure demand. For instance I would like to buy some long haul flights but will have to delay due to being outside my budget. Is that demand? Regarding prices obviously you can adjust for inflation and affordability changes but all statements like that have to be accepted as only being valid/pertinent for certain time periods. I think in this context only a few people are interested in a comparison to the 1920s, 1960s, etc

rootusrootus 4y ago

The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.

benjaminwootton 4y ago
I can feel that glide too. You are flying along, then feel a slight gliding fall, then a wobble. You always feel any turbulence during the glides too. Sorry for the highly technical terms but I agree it is unique to the A380. Apart from this they comfortable to travel and sleep on.
- beavis000 4y ago
  What are "glides"?
  - joncrane 4y ago
    The flying equivalent to a car coasting.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    I think it's the slight (unexpected and short duration) change in altitude. That sensation of ground falling under your feet, with a slight sense of suspension. As if the craft is sliding down. (Glide as in gliding down a slope.)
acchow 4y ago
Is this how pilots are taught to operate it? Or how the engines automatically operate when the pilot is throttling "smoothly".
- ak217 4y ago
  The pilot is not flying the plane at cruise, the autopilot is. The autopilot can definitely have an effect on how smooth the flying feels, depending on how autothrottle and altitude hold control loops are implemented.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago

Emirates, the largest owner of A380s, is asking for a bigger one https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-clark-on-the-a380-and-why-we-need-a-new-super-jumbo/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-clark-o... Apparently the slot limitations at major city airports are becoming a harder constraint to work with, especially as a larger swatch of Asia gain the ability to travel long haul. Losing the A380 in 15-20 years is going to make flying between big city pairs more expensive.

wahern 4y ago
None of the engine manufacturers are interested. That's what killed the A380--Rolls Royce pulled out of a re-engine deal that would've brought A380 engines into the 21st century. "Green" concept showcases notwithstanding, all the engine manufactures seem to have decided to cut back on investment and coast for awhile. Something will need to change to spur competition in the engine space, and then we might see hungrier competitors. But the shelving of the A380 supply chain means there'll still be a steep hill to an A380 derivative.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote. I doubt airlines are actually interested in committing tens of billions of capital, today, to get a dozen % improvement in fuel efficiency a decade from now. And why would a private investor take such a huge risk without guarantees of making it back several fold? So it doesn't happen.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote. No. Even if an engine got to the Carnot efficiency, you can still improve it. Massively. You can push a certain quantity of air with a velocity v or 4 times that quantity with half the velocity. The second option produces twice the thrust, for the same fuel consumption. That's the reason engines are getting larger and larger, and going for higher and higher bypass ratios. Separately, the maximum theoretical (Carnot) efficiency depends on how hot the engine runs. GE has introduced turbines made of silicon carbide, which can withstand absurdly high temperatures. Silicon carbide melts at more than 2800 Celsius, but they don't push it to such limits. But they push it to more than 1300 Celsius [1]. Military jet engines run much hotter though. Exact numbers are classified, but according to [2] the temperature inside F35's engine might reach 2000 Celsius (the actual number is obviously classified). Of course, military jet engines are many times more expensive than civilian ones, with higher maintenance costs, and lifespan about 2 orders of magnitude shorter. Still the fact that they can run this hot means improvements for the civilian jet engines are possible. And they will happen. [1] https://www.ornl.gov/news/ceramic-matrix-composites-take-flight-leap-jet-engine https://www.ornl.gov/news/ceramic-matrix-composites-take-fli... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285727346_Fahrenheit_3600 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285727346_Fahrenhei...

bobthepanda 4y ago

The 747 also had incredible product market fit, if only accidentally. They were all designed to be freight compatible, because the 747 was meant to be a stopgap before supersonics dominated the skies. Most 747s have happy second lives as freight workhorses. The A380 is too heavy to get off the ground with freight packed to the gills.

cjrp 4y ago
Not sure if it was in the original (cargo-carrying) spec., but it’s one of the few aeroplanes where the nose can be lifted to load awkwardly-shaped freight.

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago

It is. They're just difficult because their wingspan is too damn big to fit in most airports. If they had retractable folding legs like us sardine passengers in economy class, they'd fit like a champ.

WalterBright 4y ago
Seattle built a new terminal to accommodate the big jets for $1 billion. After completion, they discovered the jets won't fit. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-tac-airports-new-1b-international-terminal-too-tight-a-squeeze-for-20-big-jets/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...

zuhsetaqi 4y ago

Maybe a dumb question but can’t you switch the engines to the more efficient ones? I mean it’s surely not cheap but maybe cheaper and faster than building whole new planes!?

speedgoose 4y ago
More efficient engines fitting the A380 requirements do not exist.
- Affric 4y ago
  Could you outline the requirements and how such engines cannot be created?
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    Just guessing but the amount of space available for the engines is probably the key limiting factor. The engines on the existing A380s will be replaced multiple times during their lifetimes and certainly those replacement engines will have some efficiency improvements. But I doubt it's possible to change the efficiency significantly without changing the diameter and or length of the engines. And that seems pretty unlikely given how many things you'd have to change and how much it would cost to re-certify, etc.