Airbus pulls the plug on the A380: production to end in 2021

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/airbus-to-stop-building-its-a380-superjumbo-jet-2019-02-14

Rgds

 

Wow... big news

Wonderful plane but a bad idea. It's clear now Boeing going with the Dreamliner was the correct decision. I just flew on it yesterday and its a great plane.

 

I never believed it had a market...the rumor about the end of the program was going stronger these last days; the future of the plane was totally depending on "Emirates", which decided not to convert an option into firm orders. And that was it.
They also had to reserve - again ! - 400 million € in their annual accounts, published today, for the troubles of the A400M, still not cured...

Rgds

 

Without Emirates the program would never even gotten off the ground I think. What a waste. Back in 2000 the 747 was loosing sales to twin engine long haul aircraft so Airbus decides to capture all the 747 4 engine long haul market?? Idiotic planning. Then they rush around and make the A350 wich is now saving their butts, not that European tax payers would not have bailed them out anyway with or without a viable twin engine long haul aircraft. Sooner or latter I bet Airbus merges with someone or is taken over especially after the European Union finally falls apart.(Chinese Airbus takeover)

 

Emirates has kept the A380 viable for a while but other pieces of the story include Qantas recent announcement of cancelling their remaining orders. It has been published for a while that the airlines that already have the A380 are not adding more or replacing 1 for 1 as they age. The earliest ones from Singapore that Petters owns are being scrapped.

As for the history of the A350, it was going to be a warmed over A330 until Udvar-Hazy of ILFC publicly chided Airbus that that was insufficient. ILFC as one of the major purchasers carried significant weight if they did not like an aircraft.

 

Their main rationale, if my memory serves me well, was not the long haul market alone, but rather that the number of passengers would increase so much that they would need very large hub airports, where very large planes would embark them.
Trouble is, the big twins do not need a specialised airport and can take you from the existing ones, and that's much more convenient than having to go (by train, or airplane) to a hub first. Furthermore, the A-380 burns too much fuel, so nowadays is not economical.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47225789

Rgds

And I'm pretty sure that the E.U will not fall apart, but that would be another debate, and for P&R.

 

And the A330 neo is not a bad aircraft. I think the one error on the A350 is the narrow fuselage. They did that to save weight I suppose but it also has less volume across the fuselage than say a 777, its direct competitor. Cargo on long haul flights are a major profit factor.

 

Burns more fuel, thus the 2 engine long haul concept. And 10 years ago no one thought England would break off with Brexit(with due respect to nerofer). Airbus loved the 4 engine idea and even sold airplanes to Virgin who also bragged about it. They don't brag about it now.

On a sidebar, I wonder if the wing construction in England helped this decision along as sort of a slap in the face, or was it just common sense? (do they have any??)??

On the A400, Boeing is just as bad with the K767 tanker. But the wing on the A400 gave me questions due to the vibration from the turboprops and cracks.

 

I wrote this already, but I have vivid memories of a seminar I attended in 2004, about innovation. Although I am not qualified by any means in aviation, or aviation industry, etc...and only interested in aviation history, I voiced serious doubt about the speaker raving about the A-380 as the most interesting example of "innovation" (in a large perspective of "innovation", not only for aviation); I said that, to me, it was just another big four engined jet-liner betting on a future market that was not certain by any means, and said that I doubted its future and economic rationale. You should have heard how I was chastised as a doubter, a man from the past, etc...I never believed in the rationale of that plane, it never made sense to me.

Rgds

 

I will have to watch DW news, the German propaganda news outlet to see how they put a positive spin on it. Love their reports .

 

Well, what I can tell you is that the German press this morning (I read and understand German, but after all these years in Paris when I have so few occasion to speak it, I'm not "fluent" any more) was rather "matter of fact" about it; in fact, that was also what Tom Enders said: "the facts say that the market is not there". The French press did not make the news really headlines either. I guess it was expected, and only a matter of "when".

I don't think that the wing being constructed in England played any part in the decision; things are so weird regarding the incoming Brexit that taking a decision based on common sense in that matter is indeed very difficult ...

Rgds

 

Supposedly, the airflow over the A400 wing makes it nearly impossible to use the probe-&-drogue method of mid-air refueling. That's why the French had to buy KC-130J Hercules tankers!

 

Ultimately, the 747-8 may prove to have a longer career than the A380, because it's a better cargo plane, and it can be accommodated at a greater number of airports.

 

Yeah, especially with RR engines...

 

The 4 engine argument made by Airbus (A340 vs B777) was that the Europe - SE Asia flight going over the Himalayas, with 4 engines the fight was significantly shorter because in case of engine loss the Airbus could maintain a higher altitude. Ultimately the market valued the cost saving in fuel and maintenance of 2 engines versus 4 a whole lot more. It would also appear that engine technology moved faster than Airbus expected.

The A380 saw major airports with strict slot limits where more frequency was not an option. In that view more capacity by a single aircraft was their solution. In the end, the airports remained as Heathrow and Narita but the list did not really change.

When discussion the A380 I don't see people bring up how McDonnell-Douglas looked seriously at creating the double decker MD-12 when they thought they were finalizing a major Taiwan partnership. No orders were made although it was envisioned as having an entry into service of 1997. Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Fuselage cross sectional difference between an A350 and B777 only impact the main deck. Lower deck capacity of the A350-900 is slightly better than a B777-200. Lower deck capacity of the A350-1000 is same as a B777-300.

 

I guess Boeing will own both the 4 engine and 2 engine long haul cargo aircraft market then as the A350 won't make as good a cargo aircraft as the 777. ORD 28R departures.



Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I found it crazy reading an article today mentioning that. I had not read it before, but 10 years service to then be scrapped is a colossal waste of resources.

Here's an old article about it: http://www.traveller.com.au/first-two-retired-a380-superjumbos-to-be-broken-up-for-parts-h110ps

This article says Singapore paid ~75% of the value of the planes over the 5 year lease so the owner of the planes are not losing money after parting out. https://onemileatatime.com/airbus-a380-scrapped/

 

The A380 was a dinosaur from its Inception. One of the reasons was because the ground support equipment necessary for the airplane's continual operation was specific to that airplane. In other words, where a food truck would be able to rise vertically to service a 737, that same truck could also service a 757, 767,... You get the idea. Not so with the 380 the wings were in the way and the way the cabin doors were situated necessitated a specially-designed truck be utilized and purchased by the company in order to raise vertically around the wing section to place food and alcohol and beverages into the airplane, I understand it might have been the same way with fuel trucks, although I'm not sure. It's a lot like buying a boat, a motorcycle... Or a Ferrari; buying the actual item itself is only the first step, then there are other things you have to buy that go with it to support it. Add to that the additional cost of 4 engines instead of 2 and a limited number of airports that could actually house that airplane after it landed, Let alone supporting the landing weight itself, and you can see why it was already in the death throes when it was first certified. Just my humble opinion as a commercial pilot and FAA supervisor. It won't be that long from now when you will begin seeing a380s parked in the desert alongside a lot of the older, obsolete aircraft. Two engines with ETOPS is the way to go

Sent from my VS995 using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

When the A380 came on the scene in 2000 I was working on advanced 747's at Boeing and none of them clicked with the airlines. None were double deck but the over-size was causing gate issues and in some cases emergency egress. The A380 was far worse, the problems of which you mentioned surfaced right away and one major issue was runway and ramp strength. Some parking areas simply couldn't support the 380 as well as accommodate it. A380 specialized support equipment and ramp beef up were absorbed by Airbus if I remember. Getting a consistent profitable pax load factor was a problem in my mind. So, I agree with everything that you have mentioned and from the beginning I thought that it was a flawed concept. Talk about an elephant in the room!

 

Great hearing from you Bob, and thanks for your accurate input on this. I know the experience and background level that you have, having been with Boeing for so many years.
You know...for a Ferrari Arena, this A380 discussion is great.

Sent from my VS995 using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Apparently Boeing and Airbus did a joint study on jumbo airliners, with Boeing analysis of the results showing about a 250 aircraft market and Airbus mostly (French) analysis ultimately deciding there was a 1000 plane market. Other Airbus partners thought it was less, especially BAE, who soon divested themselves of Airbus stock. So Boeing invested in the 787 and Airbus invested in the A380. We know how that turned out. Even 250 turned out to be optimistic.

 

https://www.lepoint.fr/economie/ce-que-l-a380-a-apporte-a-l-aeronautique-14-02-2019-2293501_28.php

« the story started in 1996, in a nice auberge in Carcassonne ; thirteen persons, each representing a major carrier (Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, British Airways, Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Lufthansa, All Nippon Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Japan Airlines, Japan Air System, Singapore Airlines and Qantas) were invited by Airbus to express their feelings about the "A3XX" concept: a long-range double deck passenger plane able to carry 500 passengers; every representative approved it with enthusiasm ».

Thomas Enders said yesterday that 274 A380 will be built in the end; the economic balance point would have been 420, the production figure hoped initially for was 700.

Rgds

 

Look a photo of the new South Korean tankers. I am so glad the U.S. has a free trade agreement with them

Ok I will stop with the propaganda. Starting to sound like DW news. Atleast Airbus stopped the bleeding finally on this A380 program.







Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Last time I looked, the KC-46 deliveries to the USAF have started this January, although I believe to have read that the boom, being calibrated for the standard pressure, cannot refuel the A-10.
But the whole program has costed a lot of money to Boeing in penalties, I guess.

Rgds