Airbus 380 Pronounced Dead

Timing is everything. The 747 had an enviable 40+ year run. The A380, not so much.

(That article is a sign of the times for another reason, too. It's so poorly-written it's hard to read. That would be a 'C' paper in my granddaughter's junior-high composition class ... )
 
Some years back, when both the 380 and the 787 were in development I remember reading a number of articles about the vastly different strategies being pursued by Airbus and Boeing. Airbus was wedded to the hub & spoke model, and saw the 380 as the next logical hub-to-hub aircraft. Boeing felt that worked for cargo but not people.

One of my brothers flies the B787. The 777 gets the high freight content routes - Sydney, Beijing and so forth. The 787 is sucking up all the non-stop from the west coast low cargo people hauler routes - Brisbane, Hong Kong, Seoul, New Delhi...

The 787 may have had some serious teething problems early on but it sure looks like Boeing got the strategy right in the end.
 
The reality is that for *most* routes, it is hard to fill 500-600 seats on an airplane. Also, the loading/unloading becomes a huge time-suck.

So, you substitute multiple 250 seat airplanes and carry the same number of pax, possibly enabling more point to point routes, rather than hub and spoke routes. Those 250 seat aircraft are much more mission flexible to boot - they are not one trick ponies like the bigger aircraft.
 
The airline my brother flies for will have 298 seats in a 2-class configuration in the 787-9 series.
 
Some airlines wanted a stretched 380 or at a minimum re-engined versions of the existing model.
 
I thought Airbus was over their head when they first announced the A380. You see they were making the same mistake Ford made in the late 90s when they came out with the Excursion. Chevrolet had a monopoly in the large SUV market for many years with the Suburban, and Ford wanted a piece. However by the late 90s even Chevrolet was having trouble marketing the Suburbans, and Ford's Excursion had a short run since the market couldn't support two models.

The ultra large aircraft market was much the same. Boeing had the 747 for decades, and did ok but it was a small market, one which was shrinking not growing. Airbus wanted to one up Boeing with the A380, but the market share is just not there. Yeah they sold a few hundred to specialized markets, but not enough to cover the development costs. Even the 747 line seems to be at the end of its reign.

Not to even mention that the A380 did not work at nearly any of the existing airports and infrastructure, and required airports around the world to invest heavily in new runways, taxiways, and terminals just to accommodate it.
 
I don't see Airbus getting a re-engined A380. Engine Alliance (the GE/Pratt partnership for the GP7200 engine on the A380) was formed because neither GE nor Pratt thought there was enough of a market for the A380 to invest in a new engine design. So their best bet would probably be Rolls Royce agreeing to a new engine design, but then they'd probably want a sole source (similar to the GE90-115B on the 777-300). I'm not sure which engine Emirates uses on their A380s. Basically Boeing got their bets right, Airbus did not.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I thought Airbus was over their head when they first announced the A380. You see they were making the same mistake Ford made in the late 90s when they came out with the Excursion. Chevrolet had a monopoly in the large SUV market for many years with the Suburban, and Ford wanted a piece. However by the late 90s even Chevrolet was having trouble marketing the Suburbans, and Ford's Excursion had a short run since the market couldn't support two models.
Click to expand...

I actually think Ford could market the Excursion successfully today. The initial offering had a few issues. First one was that it was enough bigger than a Suburban that it didn't fit into many garages. We have that issue with our garage. Second was that they were marketing it as ONLY a 3/4-ton truck, which was a small sub-segment of the Suburban's market. But, it did the 3/4-ton market way better than the Suburban did, having a better suspension for towing and better engine options.

We're on our 2nd Excursion (I bought my first one in 2007 when gas hit $4/gallon for the first time and everybody panicked). Really we never should have sold the first one. If you have a need for a large SUV and you do any towing or hauling of significance, it's the way to go. That's why they've held their value so well, even with the newest one being 12 years old.

I hope Ford starts making them again, even if it's a short period. It might be enough to make us consider buying a new one... maybe. At the very least it would get some new ones out there for when we're ready for our next one.
 
7.3l Powerstroke Excursion... mmmmm... My dad always dreamed of owning one (he had an F350 7.3 instead) but my sister purchased a diesel excursion recently. Her and her husband love it and it works well for their family/farm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
midwestpa24 said:
Not to even mention that the A380 did not work at nearly any of the existing airports and infrastructure, and required airports around the world to invest heavily in new runways, taxiways, and terminals just to accommodate it.
Click to expand...

I was really surprised that so many airports especially US ones spent the money to accommodate the A380. I would have refused to do so if I ran an airport. The potential for any real ROI for the airports was never there in my opinion. Wasted money.
 
Joshuajayg said:
7.3l Powerstroke Excursion... mmmmm... My dad always dreamed of owning one (he had an F350 7.3 instead) but my sister purchased a diesel excursion recently. Her and her husband love it and it works well for their family/farm.
Click to expand...

In both cases we went for a V10. The V10 is good enough for the amount of towing we do (not a ton) and is quieter, much cheaper to purchase, and very reliable. The 7.3 is no doubt one of the best engines ever put in a Ford, but the V10 isn't far behind.

When I bought my first one, I paid $6,500 for a 2000 model with 90k on the clock. To buy an equivalent 7.3 at that point would've been closer to $20k. The cheapest 7.3 versions I could find were in the realm of $12k for ones with 200k+ on the clock.

Fast forward today and the 7.3s are still a good bit expensive to buy. We looked at a few different Excursions and settled on another gasser. Unfortunately they all have higher miles now (at least all the ones we could find locally), but I've seen enough with 400k on them that pushing 200k doesn't bother me much.
 
I think the A380 has a tough short term future, but actually really good long term prospects. The risk is it will get euthanized before it has a chance to find its market. Fact is that most airports are at full capacity and there are no more slots. Only way to free up slots, is to increase capacity on the ones you got so you can use the rest on new lines. Or sell them. That's where the A380 will work.

It also takes just a little vision; I bet Virgin America could fill an A380 on their NY-LA run at peak hours. All it needs is someone doing it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I was really surprised that so many airports especially US ones spent the money to accommodate the A380. I would have refused to do so if I ran an airport. The potential for any real ROI for the airports was never there in my opinion. Wasted money.
Click to expand...

I think the airport managers were afraid they would lose an international flight to another airport if they didn't (and the PFC for 555 A380 passengers). Since major airports seem to have plenty of cash it was probably safer to upgrade than not.
 
Overall I think we are seeing the end of an era for 4 engine aircraft for commercial passengers. 747-800 is an awesome aircraft however they are not selling well either. Maybe the cargo version will justify the program however in the case of the 380, Airbus doesnt have a cargo variation to fall back on to possibly break even.

I know it wouldnt be feasible from a structural stand point, but how cool would it be if they came up with a two engine 380. The engines would be massive, lol.
 
Boeing appears to almost always get it right . . .if Airbus wasn't subsidized so heavily, not sure they'd ever be able to compete with Boeing. . .
 
Just think in a few years big airliners will be nonexistent and they will be downsizing to Cherokee 140s!

*just kidding*
 
CC268 said:
Just think in a few years big airliners will be nonexistent and they will be downsizing to Cherokee 140s!

*just kidding*
Click to expand...
It's called the 50-seat so-called regional jet. And it didn't really work out for the pax.
 
ColoPilot said:
I think the airport managers were afraid they would lose an international flight to another airport if they didn't (and the PFC for 555 A380 passengers). Since major airports seem to have plenty of cash it was probably safer to upgrade than not.
Click to expand...

I really don't see an airport losing flights or pax count over it. If an airport couldn't accommodate the A380, the airlines would just fly another large aircraft into that airport or the pax would choose another airline that did.
 
CC268 said:
You know...hindsight is always 20-20
Click to expand...
Preview
 
AW&ST has been predicting the shutdown of the A380 production line for over a year. This week's issue details the planned builds and purchases for 2017 and 2018. Other than Emirates, the demand for the aircraft has collapsed. Emirates has postponed their 2017 deliveries to 2018.

It's looking like Boeing made the correct call. They have lost money on the 747-8, but it's nowhere near the bleeding that Airbus will experience before it's all said and done.

Like Ted, I think the Excursion is a great vehicle. Mine is a 2001 V10 4WD with about 72,000 miles on it. The biggest concern I have is someone hitting me and causing significant body damage. There aren't any parts available except those from salvage yards.
 
3393RP said:
AW&ST has been predicting the shutdown of the A380 production line for over a year. This week's issue details the planned builds and purchases for 2017 and 2018. Other than Emirates, the demand for the aircraft has collapsed. Emirates has postponed their 2017 deliveries to 2018.

It's looking like Boeing made the correct call. They have lost money on the 747-8, but it's nowhere near the bleeding that Airbus will experience before it's all said and done.

Like Ted, I think the Excursion is a great vehicle. Mine is a 2001 V10 4WD with about 72,000 miles on it. The biggest concern I have is someone hitting me and causing significant body damage. There aren't any parts available except those from salvage yards.
Click to expand...

And the Emirates just bought the A380 because it is the biggest and they do like to do things big over there. Must be making up for something else.
 
I think the airline companies are just so massive that they are looking at this all wrong. They can either have a bunch of the smaller or a few of the bigger but not both because the penny pinchers have only one way to go. They cannot come back and say "get smaller planes". There is a price per mile per mx per weight per fuel formula that only works by getting rid of the larger planes because they have so many smaller ones that offset their thinking.
A company like Emirates does just fine operating their large four engine planes because they don't have to support a bunch of half filled smaller planes.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Not to even mention that the A380 did not work at nearly any of the existing airports and infrastructure, and required airports around the world to invest heavily in new runways, taxiways, and terminals just to accommodate it.
Click to expand...

The same was true for the switch from DC8/707 to 747.

I just think the physics of loading and unloading that big of a plane worked against it.
 
Clark1961 said:
mooo
Click to expand...

Actually, when 5 years ago a herd of 2500 cows was exported from ND to Kazachstan, it was done 100 head at a time in 747s. Each cow had their own box which it was loaded into on the ramp. They traveled first class.
 
weilke said:
Actually, when 5 years ago a herd of 2500 cows was exported from ND to Kazachstan, it was done 100 head at a time in 747s. Each cow had their own box which it was loaded into on the ramp. They traveled first class.
Click to expand...
I'd settle for my own box loaded on the ramp rather than a seat in cattle car class. Or did you miss that point?
 
You'd have better seating pitch with a hay laden box than in damn coach, that's for sure #airlineflyingsux #pilotsagainstDVT
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Lack of snow
Click to expand...

Nope. They got that covered too: :cool:

And for those who haven't been there, just hangin' out watching is some of the best entertainment in Dubai. :)
Spider on glass comes readily to mind.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0196.JPG
    IMG_0196.JPG
    31.6 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
SkyDog58 said:
And the Emirates just bought the A380 because it is the biggest and they do like to do things big over there...
Click to expand...

The A380 is completely consistent with Dubai's mega-hub strategy. The tiny Emirate of Dubai is not a destination for large numbers of travellers. But because of its geographic location you can fly from just about anywhere in the world to just about anywhere else in the world routing through Dubai.

The problem for Airbus is there is only one Dubai and one Emirates Airline; tough to build a product around just one customer.
 
Clark1961 said:
I'd settle for my own box loaded on the ramp rather than a seat in cattle car class. Or did you miss that point?
Click to expand...

Did you make that point?


Just landed in Frankfurt. Rows of 747 amd A380s lined up at the Z concourse.
While the US market sees little use for the 600 seat cattle haulers doesn't mean there isn't a use for them.
The 777 is a magnificent piece of machinery. Not sure why Boeing hasn't evolved that one further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top