A380 Production Sadness

[serfty]

Good point- EK's 777 are in a total different class from their A380. In Why they're just horrid but even in the non-refurbed J class, not even in line with most competitors.

I suspect EK will be looking to update interiors. Moreover since they are still accepting delivery, their A380's will be operational for some time to come.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Also really sad - I never flew Concorde but I consider 747 and 380 to by clear step up from ALL other aircraft I have flown

I still have such wonderful memories climbing those stairs on SQ 747 to top deck and feeling the WOW factor in my earliest days of pointy end travel.

Than that super WOW feeling I experienced when SQ first made R Savers available - I grew to love old R on SQ 380 like it was my second home - just love it - would readily trade the hideous new R on 380 for old R any day. The totally over indulgent shower on EK 380 was just so OMG - but who didn't try it?

In time both 747 and 380 will be gone from our skies but the memories - oh the memories - they will be with us forever..

Maybe a new kid on the block will emerge - but I am not so confident with that.

 

[jb747]

But SQ tried that (initially with a fuel guzzler) and allegedly even now is having trouble filling some of the seats on its SIN - New York flights, despite its reputation as the world's number one airline.

No, I’m not talking about ULR flights, where you are offloading most of the passengers to carry fuel. I mean all flights...

Rarely a decision is the "only possible one" and in this case, it certainly wasn't. Years ago already Airbus should have had the guts to invest into a modified version with newer engines, a stretched body and ideally higher % use of composite materials. But they decided not to and now at this point, it was probably really the only economically sensible thing to do then to end it all.

There’s guts, and there’s throwing away vast billions of dollars that have very little chance of being recouped (although that comment really applies to the entire 380 program).

It didn’t need to be bigger. It was difficult enough to fill as it is. Newer engines? Why? How much more economical do you think they’d be. It doesn’t need more power (and as a pilot, I find that a strange thing to say). More composites? You’re really talking about a new aircraft now. It would need to lose in the order of 50,000 kgs to be really worthwhile, and I doubt that that is even vaguely possible.

There's also the position of the customers, us, and they have mostly been positive about the A380 as far as I can tell.

You aren’t Airbus’s customers. The airlines are. You are a customer of the airline.

 

[straitman]

Very poor decision. There was time to modify both A380 and 747 to compete with the smaller aircraft.

Very sad day if the main options for economy travel are A330, A350 and 787.

Modify. How? Already the program has cost Airbus Billions. As had to happen eventually they decided not to bleed any more.

Like most others here I prefer flying in a B747 or A380 but what we like doesn't actually help the economic decision.

 

[kelvedon]

Good point- EK's 777 are in a total different class from their A380. In Why they're just horrid but even in the non-refurbed J class, not even in line with most competitors.

I agree, there is a huge difference between EK A380 and the 777 in J, but I wonder how many pax would know the difference beforehand and make the aircraft type part of their decision process. Even less a factor for your average Y pax. They may vote with their feet the next time though.

 

[Berlin]

You aren’t Airbus’s customers. The airlines are. You are a customer of the airline.

With all due respect jb, but that is economically totally nonsense and a thinking from decades ago. It is akin to saying that consumers are not Coca Cola’s /Nestlé’s / Unilever’s customers because Coles and Woolies are. In the market of “getting comfortably from A to B”, airlines are just the middle man, the wholesaler or enabler so to speak- very much like a retailer. The actual customer, that is the one paying the bill.

And it might be the case that Airbus or Boeing are indeed wrongly thinking that the travelers are not their customers. But that’s really 60ies thinking- it’s like pharmaceutical companies in the old days assuming that only the doctors are their customers and not their patients or nurses. In Pharma and most other industries, this thinking has long evolved and if Airbus and Boeing are really stuck in this long overcome mindset, then they are more backwards than I would have thought.

 

[straitman]

With all due respect jb, but that is economically totally nonsense and a thinking from decades ago. It is akin to saying that consumers are not Coca Cola’s /Nestlé’s / Unilever’s customers because Coles and Woolies are. In the market of “getting comfortably from A to B”, airlines are just the middle man, the wholesaler or enabler so to speak- very much like a retailer. The actual consumer, that is the one paying the bill.

And Airbus or Boeing might really think that the travelers are not the customers. But that’s really 60ies thinking- it’s like pharmaceutical companies in the old days thinking that the doctors are their customers and not their patients. This thinking has long evolved and if Airbus and Boeing are really stuck in this overcome scheme of thinking, then they are very very backwards.

Irrespective of which way you take that it is irrelevant to the bigger picture here. (...and I agree with jb747 here and disagree with Berlin)

The 747-800 and the A380 are not economically competitive in the current environment nor are they going to become so at anytime in the future unless the passengers are willing to pay a lot more for the pleasure of flying on them.

 

[moa999]

Slightly different to Coke v Woolies..

Business and Economy on a Qantas 333 is very different to the experience on AirAsiaX for example

While pax in the know may seek out a particular aircraft on a given airline, I don't see many chasing an individual aircraft without knowing the airline fitout

 

[odysseus]

The 747-800 and the A380 are not economically competitive in the current environment nor are they going to become so at anytime in the future unless the passengers are willing to pay a lot more for the pleasure of flying on them.

From what I can discern, the A380 is economically competitive without the customers paying more. The only issue is that has a larger capacity and requires that capacity to be filled, in the same way as the smaller craft do, to achieve their efficiencies. (Plus the operational considerations, in that that higher threshold means fewer markets can be served, and some limits on airports that can be visited.)

It's just in absolute numbers it's easier to fill the smaller capacities - in simplistic terms an 85% yield on an A380 from MEL to LHR means the 787 can operate at 100% capacity on the same route. However, if both craft were operating at the airline's target capacities, the A380 would still be equally viable.

 

[drron]

Well I didn't think the A380 was all that marvellous.My favourite trips have been JAL,ANA and SQ in their F cabins on the B777.The fitout and service simply outweigh any advantage the particular model of plane may have.
As well I am not impressed with the B787-J cabin on LAN and ANA amongst the worst.Y on QF was worse than the B717 IMHO.Though since QF have taken delivery of their 787s additions have been made to the routes flown-that never happened with the A380-and no Dubai was not added because of the A380 but because of the EK tieup.

 

[straitman]

From what I can discern, the A380 is economically competitive without the customers paying more. The only issue is that has a larger capacity and requires that capacity to be filled, in the same way as the smaller craft do, to achieve their efficiencies. (Plus the operational considerations, in that that higher threshold means fewer markets can be served, and some limits on airports that can be visited.)

It's just in absolute numbers it's easier to fill the smaller capacities - in simplistic terms an 85% yield on an A380 from MEL to LHR means the 787 can operate at 100% capacity on the same route. However, if both craft were operating at the airline's target capacities, the A380 would still be equally viable.

What you have said, in a round about way is actually the essence of the story/issue.

Airline operating costs are worked out at the cost per seat per mile. This is after taking into account everything including all fixed and variable costs. From that they can work out a % load at which point the aircraft becomes profitable.

So in the equation you have the number of seats that require filling AND the cost of each of those seats. IF The A380 seat mile cost was exactly the same as say an A350 or B787 then it's a whole different equation than if its seat cost is higher and my understanding is that the A380 has a higher seat cost is higher than that of new generation twin engined aircraft.

Then take into account taxi speeds, taxi times and load and unloading times it becomes a very mixed up equation. Suffice to say that the airlines will buy the aircraft that is most overall cost effective for their operations. When the B747 arrived 50 years ago it was a huge step forward however like everything else its time has come and gone with the efficiency and reliability of the twins.

Like any/most long term aviators I would prefer the concept of more engines but life and reality move on.

 

[jb747]

Like any/most long term aviators I would prefer the concept of more engines but life and reality move on.

I’d really like to fly a six engined aircraft...but they don’t make any.

But they used to...

An interesting part of the equation, that has to be considered, is the empty weight per passenger. Looking at the QF configuration, you’ve got about 500 kgs/passenger for the 787, and around 590 kgs for the 380. No efficiency in the world will make up for that.

Worth noting that the 747-400 is also down around the 520 kgs mark. There was much more life left in the 747-800, than there ever was in the 380.

The upshot though, is that you simply do not need the cost and complexity of 4 engines over 2. And perhaps a point to consider...a 2 engined aircraft can fly away after losing half of it’s power on take off. I’d not like to bet on the outcome with a quad in the same situation.

 

[Himeno]

I’d really like to fly a six engined aircraft...but they don’t make any.

How about an 8 engine aircraft?

 

[straitman]

...or maybe this one jb747.

Antonov An-225 Mriya -- the largest aircraft by weight, length and wingspan. The six-engined Antonov An-225 is literally in a category of its own, holding the titles of both the heaviest aircraft ever built and the largest wingspan of an aircraft currently in service. It is powered by six turbofan engines and is the heaviest aircraft ever built, with a maximum takeoff weight of 640 tonnes.
In fact, only one An-225 has ever been built. Jul 27, 2018

 

[Captain Halliday]

I am literally shattered.

I hope you’ve been able to put yourself back together.

 

[juddles]

With all due respect jb, but that is economically totally nonsense and a thinking from decades ago. ....

'
Berlin, you may have knowledge that is not publicllaly available, but in the absense of such info, I completely agree with JB. The deal between airlines and aircraft manufacturers is complex. It has many components - delivery times / equipment / efficiency / engines / etc etc. It is true that a customer of QF (or any airline) is buying a service - to get from A to B. Their benefit or assesment is multi-layered, but key components are price of ticket, airline fitout of plane (hard product), airline service (soft product), etc. These are all factors governed by the airline, not the manufacturer of the aircraft.

 

[oz_mark]

With all due respect jb, but that is economically totally nonsense and a thinking from decades ago. It is akin to saying that consumers are not Coca Cola’s /Nestlé’s / Unilever’s customers because Coles and Woolies are. In the market of “getting comfortably from A to B”, airlines are just the middle man, the wholesaler or enabler so to speak- very much like a retailer. The actual customer, that is the one paying the bill.

And it might be the case that Airbus or Boeing are indeed wrongly thinking that the travelers are not their customers. But that’s really 60ies thinking- it’s like pharmaceutical companies in the old days assuming that only the doctors are their customers and not their patients or nurses. In Pharma and most other industries, this thinking has long evolved and if Airbus and Boeing are really stuck in this long overcome mindset, then they are more backwards than I would have thought.

You choose to drink Coke over Pepsi. Do you choose to fly Boeing over Airbus?

 

[drron]

You choose to drink Coke over Pepsi. Do you choose to fly Boeing over Airbus?

I choose the airline.Which plane they fly is up to them.Really not my choice.

 

[OATEK]

I choose the airline.Which plane they fly is up to them.Really not my choice.

While many people would love to experience a jumbo sized plane, I agree the majority of travellers will in the end go for the deal whatever planes that involves. Our next overseas jaunt has a mix of A330/A350 with the odd A319 because the deal makes sense. It is now some 5 years since I last flew in the A380, as much as I personally enjoy them, because I go with the best deal from an airline on our fly list, and just accept the aircraft provided (including the droop-bed on the QF 747 last month).

 

[RooFlyer]

This spruce looking number is an '8', and plenty of legroom!