As a passenger the Airbus A380 is a special experience. Takeoff rolls are incredibly smooth. While they can pack in passengers densely most operators have offered incredibly luxurious perks on the plane — in part because it can be so much more difficult to fill an aircraft with 600 or more passengers so the cost to use space ‘inefficiently’ is low. No US airline has operated one.
Etihad has offered the ‘First Apartment’, huge first class seats, and turned one of those first class seats plus an area that might house lavatory and dead space into ‘The Residence’, a three room suite for up to 2 people with seat, private bathroom and shower, and bedroom.
Emirates offers luxurious shower suites in first class (Etihad offers a more modest shower experience).
Many carriers, such as Emirates, Korean, and Qatar, have offered bars in business class.
Unfortunately the A380 program may be coming to an end. Only Emirates has been an enthusiastic operator of the plane. ANA took a couple in a deal to get Airbus’ support in the Skymark bankruptcy so that they could acquire the defunct airline’s landing slots. Singapore has a modest but not growing fleet. Qantas doesn’t want its remaining orders.
Airbus has been unsuccessful selling new planes. Emirates signed an order after much consternation, over engines and operating efficiency, but has backed off its enthusiasm for taking those additional aircraft.
British Airways has signaled some interesting in picking up planes at rock bottom prices, taking advantage of Airbus desperation.
The Airbus board is meeting and – barring a last minute rabbit out of a hat – could announce the end of A380 production as soon as tomorrow. Airbus has been signaling the possible end of the A380 program since 2014.
The Airbus A380 was supposed to be a remarkably efficient aircraft carrying large number of passengers between major hubs, maximizing use of takeoff and landing slots. It was supposed to dominate places like London Heathrow and Tokyo Narita.
Ultimately though the trend in aviation has been:
- operating point-to-point
- bypassing hubs
The A380 is a great aircraft if you can fill it. It expensive to operate less than full.
For a time many analysts claimed Airbus was going to eat Boeing’s lunch with the plane — Boeing had nothing of the size to compete. But that turned out to be wrong. Airbus has done exceptionally well with narrowbodies and not well with widebody aircraft.
As the Boeing 747 fades from the scene it was ultimately a profitable product, with 50 years of staying power. It operates on older technology, and Boeing’s attempt at modest updates (-8) haven’t been successful for some of the same reasons that the A380 has challenges.
Watch as an Emirates Airbus A380 lands in crosswinds in Dusseldorf:
Gary, I am a huge fan of the 747 was in the AF when Pan Am landed the first “Fat Albert” at Frankfurt that’s a long time ago.
Having flown the 380 a number of times AF/BA/EK I have always enjoyed the ride, and it’s quiet. But can also see how very very expensive it must be to operate. The ME3 used that bird to make a point and they did very effectively. AB on the other hand tried to out smart Boeing and lost. then Boeing bet big on the 787 a winner and AB had to play catch up. I enjoy the 787/777 really looking for the new 777 long wing
Is the A380 a nice plane? Yes. However, I have long said that there was no reason for the A380…and always presumed that, as with the Concorde, the program would be cancelled with the first accident. OK, I’d rather have it cancelled due to lack of interest, but either way, I’ve always thought it was short-lived.
I love flying onboard an A-380
She has a quiet, smooth and stable flight
Pilots and passengers love flying that plane
She handles severe weather turbulence softly
But she is fuel thirsty aircraft…
Not having a U.S. airline order it did not help.
The A380 is a passenger’s aircraft. A great shame if the program dies but then, we’re circling the drain….
Only a government controlled manufacturer would have built this airplane (Airbus). And only a non-profit government controlled airline (Emirates) would ever make it a major component of its fleet.
What could go wrong?
Boeing predicted exactly this when the aircraft was launched: that it made no economic sense. That the future of long haul aviation was smaller 2-engine aircraft like the 787. That was true, of course. But since its competitor is gov’t subsided ($22 billion in illegal subsidies, according to the WTO) they just write off the losses and move on.
It’s confirmed. Last jet delivered in 2021.
https://kurier.at/wirtschaft/airbus-a380-der-weltgroesste-passagierjet-wird-eingestellt/400406996
I am still waiting for the on trend comment about revenue from Cargo. Nevermind, I will say it: The cargo revenue never developed.
But the economies of scale combined with the comfort people describe may frighten Boeing. These low cost airlines that do not fly every day for certain destinations, if they acquire these lightly used craft at a low cost, may be able to afford to fly them every other day, instead of daily, from high population centers to major tourist destinations at highly discounted airfares. With their highly restricted luggage rules, they could also load cargo. Base it in the middle of the US, like St Louis, and fly it to whatever on trend ( apologies for abusing the term on trend by stating it more than once in a comment) hotspot of the season people have picked, that also need air cargo; charge for luggage, wifi, etc, and your break even volume could be a half full plane.
No ETOPS headaches (or scariness for those that see safety in numbers) for over water destinations. No lithium power packs on board. Hawaii comes to mind. I dont like Hawaii, but every single timeshare that has my cell phone number offers me a resort stay there. Amazon Prime to Hawaii because the airplanes and fuel are dirt cheap may be feasible. Boeing and the legacy three and Fedex/UPS (legacy 2?) may want to acquire the used stock “for parts” to avoid the possibility. Does anyone need a 120′ wing with 2 Rolls Royce engines?
I enjoyed the very smooth flights on the A380, but from the start you could see the issues – few airports could handle such a big plane (needing special ramps), few routes need that many seats on a single plane, and boarding and de-boarding took forever. At the end of the passport line from an A380 landing was not fun. Boeing’s bet on the 787 was definitely the smarter move.
But I look forward to my trips on an A380 and a 747 in a few weeks.
Finally, someone at Airbus is thinking like a business person and not trying to one up the USA. If they had built the A350 right from the beginning and not the A380 they would have one upped the 787/777 but the French / German egos got the best of them. I am sure Boeing can now retire the 747 after the freight orders are done with her still being the Queen of the Skies!