Noises around saying the A380 could be discontinued in a few years. Airbus Raises Prospect of Ditching A380 as Orders Vanish - Bloomberg Karma is a *****, Airbus kills off the best looking Aircraft ever made (Concorde) and sticks us with the ugliest one Cant really say I'm surprised, for some reason the whole project and the reasons behind it didn't seem quite right. It was always going to struggle with out a single US carrier being interested or ordering it, and the only major buyers being the Gulf states.. ETOPS pretty much spelled the end of PAX 4 engines
If it stays in production, it'll be as a cargo plane. But Airbus will regret not putting the flight deck upstairs (as in the 747), allowing the addition of a lift-nose.
I have always considered this airplane a misstep , too big, too cumbersome for existing airports, non- adaptable, and uuugly.
Boeing really held AB's feet to the fire when they launched the 380. At that time Boeing had a "competitor" that never was launched, but they went into high gear in marketing and then pulled out after AB "won" the big orders. Some believe that Boeing never really was serious, but the effort was enough to scare AB into lowering the price... virtually insuring that AB would never really make any money on the aircraft. Then they came up with the 747-8 and spent a lot less to develop it than AB did for the all new 380. The -8 sells for $57M less than a 380 and carries 67 pax less. Unless you have a route that fills every seat every flight, it's difficult to spend the big money on the 380. I wouldn't be surprised if the 747 ended up in production for a longer period than the 380 and it will certainly be flying freight when the last 380 is parked in the desert and its bones are plucked clean for scrap.
That extra floor will make it heavy if they do reinforce it for cargo. I don't think it would make a good freighter and it's just to big for most passenger routes. They sit at airports for days waiting for their next flight. Europeans payed for a flop!
I really question whether it would make a good freighter with the high initial airframe weight. Conversion would add even more structural weight. IIRC, the 747 was designed with an option to be freighter from the beginning, hence the location of the cockpit on the second deck.
You're correct, the 747 inherited a lot of C-5 engineering inputs and the guys that worked on the C-5 proposal. It didn't start out with the cab on the upper deck but as Sutter and company continued the design work, they saw the potential of it being a better freighter by being able to stuff it through the nose without a bunch of heavy ramps, big doors, and machinery. It is density/volume efficient where the 380 is just the opposite. So, it wouldn't be a good freighter with all the wasted volume and unused structure that, as you said, would add weight along with the beef-up.
The A380 tried to answer a problem that didn't exist and they ended up in a not-so-surprising situation. The engineering design and manufacturing is impressive, though.
I don't remember any unusual concerns other than some thoughts about support equipment. Ramp and runway loads were spread out pretty well with the addition of the fuselage gear. Max gross was well below 1 mil. lbs. at the time so there was no concern there. The biggest worry was getting the factory built in time to meet the rollout date imposed by Juan Trippe of PAA.
Belly freight capacity afforded by the current generation of widebodies has doomed any prospect of an A350F. The 747 will also be discontinued in the same time frame as the A380.
Bob will correct me if im wrong here, but I believe hearing in one of the 747 documentaries that the main reason for putting the cockpit on the upper level was for the cargo version, as Boeing feared that there would not be as much demand for the PAX 747 as there would be for the freighter. Something AB clearly overlooked with the 380, but even having said that, I think despite its size difference over the 747-400 the A380 cannot carry as much freight because its empty weight is so vast. Maybe Lou can answer that better as his company seems to be snapping up 747-8 freighters.
The A380 a marvelous plane to fly in. But, Boeing got this one right... There isn't a market for another super jumbo. People want more flights, not less flights. And the airport restrictions cut down on where it can fly. If you don't fill the plane up, you don't make any money. We criticized Boeing's marketing department but in the long run, you would have to say they got it more right than wrong. I have flown on both the A380 and the new 747. The A380 is just a touch better but the new 747 on Lufthansa a few months ago and it is so close you can't really make a solid call. Honestly, sitting in the new 747 I hardly recognized it. I think I've done over a million miles in the old one. If there was one flaw in Boeing's strategy, they didn't upgrade the 747 fast enough to beat the A380 to market. The Dreamliner is replacing a lot of 777 routes as well. I wonder what is the future of this plane. I'm beginning to warm up to the Dreamliner.
Don't forget that even before the A380 was certified there was a production A380F being designed. FEDEX was the launch customer, then canceled due to delays, market changes, and probably performance metrics (weight issues). Design was then shelved as there was no other demand for a freighter of that size.
I forgot all about that. So maybe not so far fetched after all, except for that pesky overweight issue with the airframe.....
Current 747 backlog is 39. Boeing just announced production cut to ~16/month, so 2.5 yrs. Net order book for 2014 is 0. Its been a good run, and still one of the best airplanes flying.
Another view... however biased. Promoting the future of the A-380. Airbus says will re-engine or stretch A380 at some point - Yahoo Finance
I'll disagree. It serves a very specific purpose, and that's hauling a crap-ton of people to slot restricted, high demand airports. Problem is not every route/airport supports this plane, and I don't mean the physical stature, but the passenger loads. This plane, frankly was built to serve a handful of airports/routes, specifically LHR, JFK, HND, and ORD. ORD has I think one carrier doing A380 routes, HND has none, LHR, JFK, and LAX have a crap ton of A380 routes. But that's about the extent of it. Airbus figured every 747 operator would replace their 744s with A380s. And only a few did (Air France, British Airways, Singapore, Korean, Asiana). The middle eastern giants weren't even operating 747s at any scale (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad) Problem is big twins fragmented the need for the A380. Reality is between a handful of destinations (ignoring Emirates hub/spoke system using A380 as the backbone) there isn't a need for this aircraft at the numbers Airbus forecast (1200 over the life, but even at half that number). Airlines like Virgin (who has deferred their A380s, and we know will be cancelled), Cathay, JAL, ANA who were big 744 operators downsized their aircraft. If/when airlines cut back service (i.e. reducing 3-4 777-300 flights to same destination to 1-2 A380s), then this airplane has a role. But with the fragmentation of airline routes, Boeing got it right not with the 748, but investing in the 777 when they did. And the market way back when told Boeing "no, we don't want the 747-500/600/700" preferring an all new aircraft. But the A380 is late to the party and times have changed since double-decker aircraft (revised) have been pitched. Boeing had a VLA similar to the A380. And the other factor, ETOPS rules for twins, have evolved so much that the argument for a 4 engine VLA is not where it was expected to be. Anyone remember Virgin's "4-engines 4-longhaul" campaign? The 748 sits in an area most airlines just don't need: negligibly more passengers, less cargo capacity, more engines than a 777-300ER. Airlines have seem to stick with the 777, or augmented 747 replacements with A380s. But even those operators (Air France for example) are now deferring or canceling outstanding orders. Problem is, as air travel continues to grow, at some point in the near future, there's going to be a bigger need for VLA until airports like LHR either expand the number of flights they can accommodate, or airlines fly bigger aircraft within their slot constraints. Even if the A380 had never come along, the 748 passenger numbers probably would have been similar to A380 at best (i.e. it wouldn't be selling a ton). Airlines don't need VLAs at the levels estimated now, but they will in the future unless airports and airspace adapt for the number of aircraft flying these days. I'm betting Qantas either wishes they would have ordered the 777-300ER or a combination of 777 and 748s given the struggle to fill the A380 on flights to LAX.
I know that Korean has one A380 flight to here in ATL; I saw the airplane taxiing in once as we were preparing for takeoff. I wonder what its load factor is?
What I find absolutely intriguing is how long it took for a single U.S. carrier to order and operate the 777-300 (American Airlines, last year). United, Delta (big 777 operators and 747 operators) still haven't ordered this aircraft.
I noticed that Qantas has been using its 747's again for some of the LAX flights. For a while you saw nothing but 380's on the ramp in Qantas colours, now a lot of times its one of each.
I live in Seattle and want nothing but the best for Boeing. That being said, the two times I flew on an A380 (LHR to Dubai and back again), I was really impressed. Perhaps just as impressive as the plane itself and the quality of the flight (smooth, quiet, spacious) was the incredible terminal Emirates built just for their fleet of A380's in Dubai. The terminal has specific floors for coach, business and first classes respectively and your access to amenities and even your plane itself is all a function of your class of travel. For better or for worse, Emirates has encapsulated the class system and segregation into a single, gilded terminal building.
