A decade after debut, first A380 jumbos to be broken up(reuters.com)
reuters.com
A decade after debut, first A380 jumbos to be broken up
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-a380/a-decade-after-debut-first-a380-jumbos-to-be-broken-up-idUSKCN1J10R2
117 comments
These particular aircraft that are being scrapped were very early-production A380s which were delivered significantly overweight (rumoured to be >5 tonnes!) Singapore Airlines planned to return them years ago and is, in fact, replacing them with new A380s. Other airlines don't want them because they are the worst A380s flying: their extra weight means they burn too much fuel.
Certainly the A380 program hasn't been quite as successful as Airbus would have hoped, but I'm not sure it was ever in any real danger of being scrapped. Those rumours may have just been put out by Airbus in order to pressure Emirates into moving ahead with their order.
There are still airlines like British Airways who have a lot of old B747s in service that are approaching their EOL. It seems likely that BA will order more A380s to replace at least some of these.
And in any case, there are still more than 100 unfulfilled A380 orders on Airbus's books, meaning there's enough demand to keep production running for quite a few years to come, even if there were no additional orders.
Certainly the A380 program hasn't been quite as successful as Airbus would have hoped, but I'm not sure it was ever in any real danger of being scrapped. Those rumours may have just been put out by Airbus in order to pressure Emirates into moving ahead with their order.
There are still airlines like British Airways who have a lot of old B747s in service that are approaching their EOL. It seems likely that BA will order more A380s to replace at least some of these.
And in any case, there are still more than 100 unfulfilled A380 orders on Airbus's books, meaning there's enough demand to keep production running for quite a few years to come, even if there were no additional orders.
It seems likely that BA will order more A380s to replace at least some of these.
They already bought their A380s. They're not buying any more. The 747 will most likely be replaced by A350-1000s or 777-9s.
They already bought their A380s. They're not buying any more. The 747 will most likely be replaced by A350-1000s or 777-9s.
BA wants to buy additional A380s - they just haven't yet been able to agree on the price. For an airline with a slot-constrained hub (Heathrow), it would be a step backwards to replace 747s with smaller aircraft as this would reduce their overall route capacity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/airbus-is...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/airbus-is...
They've been hollering about that for awhile now, the deal was supposed to close by Feb 15, then April 15, and now talks are suspended altogether. If it isn't dead I'd be surprised.
UK government just approved an extra runway at Heathrow, so capacity there (and onto NYC) will increase a fair bit.
It will, if it actually gets built. The Heathrow third runway will be subject to the mother of all protest movements and legal challenges, so it'll be a decade or more before it could possibly get built - well after the remaining 747s are due for retirement.
Maybe the A380 program will continue for many years, but it seems unlikely the program as a whole, including development costs, will ever earn a profit.
How does a plane end up being overweight? And how did the weight get reduced on later models?
The same thing happened with the first 787 examples, as well. What I read was wiring to support testing equipment that couldn't easily be removed
That's what I want to know, and why can't they be retrofitted to match the specs of the later models?
It's not always cheap to remove 5 tonnes of wiring. You need to count downtime and the cost of removal proper (disassembly, testing, reassembly, more testing) and compare it with the difference in price of scrapping it and replace with another model that's, perhaps, a better match for your desired capacity and the difference in the operational cost over the plane's lifetime. There are two-engine planes that promise to almost match the actual usage of the 380 for a lower operational cost.
Your last part there is wrong: as covered in many comments here, the A380 is still selling, in fact to the same carrier that's not renewing the leases on these early models. So it does still have a niche that it excels at; the problem is just that the early models have too much weight compared to current models.
This isn't about the A380 vs. other models, this is about old-A380 vs. new-A380. I was just asking why it wasn't feasible to retrofit the old ones to match the specs of the new ones, which these carriers do want and are buying. I could understand if we were talking about cars, where there's a well-tuned assembly line and it's almost never cost-effective to retrofit, and the unit cost is actually shockingly low when you consider the complexity and cost of components, but large aircraft aren't like cars. (Aircraft assembly plants make a few dozen a year, car plants make hundreds of thousands.)
This isn't about the A380 vs. other models, this is about old-A380 vs. new-A380. I was just asking why it wasn't feasible to retrofit the old ones to match the specs of the new ones, which these carriers do want and are buying. I could understand if we were talking about cars, where there's a well-tuned assembly line and it's almost never cost-effective to retrofit, and the unit cost is actually shockingly low when you consider the complexity and cost of components, but large aircraft aren't like cars. (Aircraft assembly plants make a few dozen a year, car plants make hundreds of thousands.)
Which is sad given they are the most comfortable planes I've been in. Lot of space, lots of entry points, very quiet, and almost zero vibration.
Emirates Economy on an a380 was the best economy class I have used.
Have to agree. It's the only flight I've been in that doesn't scream "economy".
Try to get in the back of the plane and sometimes you'll get 2-3 seats to enjoy! Best way to fly in the world in my opinion.
same here! 14 hours flight felt like 4 hours
I do think the A380 helped Airbus brand image a lot. It might not be worth the money invested.
Yep, I think the A380 helped both Airbus's and Europe's brand.
And that's why the government assistance in the form of launch aide might have been worth it.
And that's why the government assistance in the form of launch aide might have been worth it.
I think if the government is going to subsidize something, politically aerospace makes a lot of sense. It has jobs for engineering, technicians, and high-skill trades. It has a long planning horizon and lots of regulation (meaning less short term competitive forces at play). It has defense applications. The downside is that everyone else is also subsidizing it, so it is still hard to compete.
The 747 was not subsidized.
Boeing as a company is massively subsidized. People often like to play this game where they specifically mention a model number and make the claim that that specific model wasn't, while ignoring that the entire company, infrastructure, and apparatus is.
The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.
The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.
Boeing bought the land and built an entirely new plant and factory for the 747 (the Everett plant). No government funds were received for it.
Boeing lost money for the first 10 years on the 747, but then it started making massive amounts of money off of it. Those profits funded the 757, 767, etc.
Boeing lost money for the first 10 years on the 747, but then it started making massive amounts of money off of it. Those profits funded the 757, 767, etc.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/boeings-washington-tax-break-...
Tax breaks for companies are a subsidy. (Aside from the military cross-subsidisation.)
Tax breaks for companies are a subsidy. (Aside from the military cross-subsidisation.)
1. Your article is about 2016, 50 years after the 747 was developed.
2. Having the government take less of your money is not a subsidy.
3. Boeing 2016 revenue was $95.5 billion. The tax break is about a quarter of a percent of that.
4. I'm curious what you consider military technology that makes up the 747.
5. I'm curious what part of the Everett plant, which was built from scratch to build the 747, was built with government/military funding.
2. Having the government take less of your money is not a subsidy.
3. Boeing 2016 revenue was $95.5 billion. The tax break is about a quarter of a percent of that.
4. I'm curious what you consider military technology that makes up the 747.
5. I'm curious what part of the Everett plant, which was built from scratch to build the 747, was built with government/military funding.
Every government dollar (over)spent in Boeing-branded thing is a subsidy for every other Boeing-branded thing. The same way every dollar NASA spends with SpaceX's Falcon 9/Dragon systems subsidizes the development of further generations of Falcon/Dragon/BFR systems. It's really hard to assume this money is not spent thinking about the strategic side effects.
You'll need better evidence for comingling of funds than that. I'd have a better case for saying that the immense profits from BCAC are what enables Boeing to even bid on defense contracts.
This page makes the case that Boeing's large commercial aircraft division is subsidized in some detail: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/146484.htm
Thank you. What's glaringly missing is what timescale these figures cover. Annual? Aggregate? It's also pretty clear that the figures have no relevance to the 747.
Tax abatements are not subsidies.
Here's the rebuttal to your link:
http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...
In particular,
"The USG's defense against the charges noted that the NASA and DoD contracts in question were arms-length commercial transactions where Boeing was paid for research commissioned by the two government agencies. The USG further noted that the NASA research projects were undertaken for public benefit, and that the results and benefits were widely shared, including with Airbus."
Tax abatements are not subsidies.
Here's the rebuttal to your link:
http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations...
In particular,
"The USG's defense against the charges noted that the NASA and DoD contracts in question were arms-length commercial transactions where Boeing was paid for research commissioned by the two government agencies. The USG further noted that the NASA research projects were undertaken for public benefit, and that the results and benefits were widely shared, including with Airbus."
I guess the question if it could be answered would be can the profits and losses of civ vs military programmes be sussed out somehow? That would shed some light on whether subsidies play a role, discounting “pollination” from skunkworks.
It would be illegal for Boeing to funnel money for military contracts to the civil aviation side. In fact, BCAC (Boeing Commercial Airplane Company) and BMAC (Boeing Military Airplane Company) are separate accounting entities for this reason.
If there's a belief that BCAC is actually a money-losing operation propped up by money funneled from BMAC, there needs to be some strong evidence for this. BCAC is massively profitable.
If there's a belief that BCAC is actually a money-losing operation propped up by money funneled from BMAC, there needs to be some strong evidence for this. BCAC is massively profitable.
Interesting, so does that mean there is no merit to the accusation made by euros that Boeing commercial is subsidized by Boeing military? I mean, I keep hearing people say that as received knowledge, but perhaps they are just thinking about technological cross pollination which while important, doesn’t help that much in bringing new products to market.
There's not any merit in the accusation. The government did subsidize Boeing's SST program, but the technology developed for that wasn't usable for the subsonic jets. (For example, Boeing airliners use 3000 psi hydraulics, while the SST used 4500 psi to save weight. Such required a totally redesigned hydraulic system. 4500 psi is very dangerous, spray from a pinhole leak will cut right through you.)
But Boeing is - majorly. Cross-subsidisation essentially.
Military stuff, sure. The civil aviation stuff, no. Boeing did try to sell the military the 747 as a tanker, but that went nowhere and Boeing did not receive any government dev funding for it.
The 707 did have a tanker version, the KC-135, but that happened after the 707 was flying. The 707 was funded entirely out of profits.
The 707 did have a tanker version, the KC-135, but that happened after the 707 was flying. The 707 was funded entirely out of profits.
Walter, you didn't say the 747 wasn't profitable, you said it wasn't subsidized.
Boeing is subsidized by the USG, there's no realistic debate on that. That subsidy applies across their product line.
Boeing is subsidized by the USG, there's no realistic debate on that. That subsidy applies across their product line.
I'd appreciate it if you could be specific about government funding for the 747.
I'd appreciate if you could show how the credit rating, stocks, employee training and business management of the civilian part and the military part of Boeing are two things. Additionally it would be nice to show the R&D firewall between the military and civilian parts of Boeing.
The 747 only exists because of subsidies and defense contracts. If the US government were not heavily involved in the industry, we'd all be flying in Airbus jets.
These subsidies made the development of the 747 possible.
These subsidies made the development of the 747 possible.
You'll need some evidence for that.
Look at the history of Boeing [1]. It's all government contracts, with the technologies and designs developed for them being re-used in their commercial offerings.
Without cost-plus contracting paying for cutting-edge R&D, they would have been about as capable of building airplanes as I am, in my garage. Their entire business is built on millions of hours of engineering experience in building planes for the military, applied to the commercial sector.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#1930s_and_1940s
Without cost-plus contracting paying for cutting-edge R&D, they would have been about as capable of building airplanes as I am, in my garage. Their entire business is built on millions of hours of engineering experience in building planes for the military, applied to the commercial sector.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#1930s_and_1940s
> It's all government contracts ... Their entire business
That's not what your source says at all. Boeing, for example, developed the first modern airliner in the 1930's. Pretty much all airliners derive from that. In fact, you can reasonably argue the other way - Boeing's military designs derived from their airliners. This is certainly the case for the B-17 and the KC-135.
Please identify the military technology and subsidy in the 747, and where the money came from to build the Everett plant.
That's not what your source says at all. Boeing, for example, developed the first modern airliner in the 1930's. Pretty much all airliners derive from that. In fact, you can reasonably argue the other way - Boeing's military designs derived from their airliners. This is certainly the case for the B-17 and the KC-135.
Please identify the military technology and subsidy in the 747, and where the money came from to build the Everett plant.
The money came from corporate debt which was on very favorable terms because of the government cash flow for military contracts. The other part came from investors who invested into Boeing because of growing stock prices due to military contracts.
Well, I think kind of mixed results for the brand. It shows we can build the largest plane (good) and use subsidies for unprofitable stuff (less good).
Like everyone else, e.g. Boeing. IMHO better direct subsidies than indirect ones with 10% defence spending and trailer parks. But YMMV.
Why has it not caught on for cargo? Too inefficient? Too much investment in support facilities, tooling, staff required -- and/or too insecure? (Regarding the latter, no one's going to buy a couple of bargain basement priced planes, in the face of support requirements.)
IIRC the cargo doors are too small and the space is broken up by a structural component (the second floor). The 747 was designed from the outset to be converted to a cargo hauler (hence the cockpit mounted on top) so it's much easier for a heavy lifter to work with.
According to another comment [1], it's because their cargo mass is not as large as their volume, relatively to other planes.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17266194
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17266194
Both UPS and FedEX canceled their A380 orders decade ago because A380 was late and used 767's and 747s are cheap.
There will be another opportunity when existing fleets are used up and fuel costs continue to increase. Converting stripped A380s into freight might be a good option.
Couriers use spoke and hub model that A380 is well suited for.
There will be another opportunity when existing fleets are used up and fuel costs continue to increase. Converting stripped A380s into freight might be a good option.
Couriers use spoke and hub model that A380 is well suited for.
The problem with the A380 for freight is that it has a lower cargo density. That is, it has a much greater interior volume than other planes, but not as proportionately greater maximum cargo mass. This is great for passengers (more legroom, etc), but not so much for cargo. Unless it's a shipment of guitars.
To be fair, the A380F was delayed indefinitely before UPS and Fedex canceled their order. It was a bit of a "I broke up with you before you could break up with me" thing.
The current A380s are not a good fit for freight (lack of nose loading and crappy density), and ironically the freight logistics actually make the A380 harder to use. This is because the most efficient way to do overnight and freight traffic between Europe, Asia and America is to centralize traffic in places like anchorage with a fleet of smaller planes that go to smaller cities. (IE, traffic can go directly from Denver to Shenzhen via a 767 to Anchorage, and another 767 from Anchorage to Shenzhen). You can't put a A380 on each leg of that.
The current A380s are not a good fit for freight (lack of nose loading and crappy density), and ironically the freight logistics actually make the A380 harder to use. This is because the most efficient way to do overnight and freight traffic between Europe, Asia and America is to centralize traffic in places like anchorage with a fleet of smaller planes that go to smaller cities. (IE, traffic can go directly from Denver to Shenzhen via a 767 to Anchorage, and another 767 from Anchorage to Shenzhen). You can't put a A380 on each leg of that.
It's not popular on the used market because of the $40 million reconfiguration bill. This plane really only works well for Emirates flying people to a few airports.
A380 comfort level beats 787 and others. You will never feel the take off or landing and no turbulence either. I have flown with Emirates and I am hesitant to fly anything else. The business class experience was amazing with full recline seats. Fly them and try it out yourselves.
I respectfully vehemently disagree. I like EK and their A380s, but give me a 787, even on a budget carrier like Norwegian. Lower atmospheric pressure and higher humidity, plus a non-stop makes all the difference in the world.I'm fine, even on a old 777 from the US to Asia, but US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787.
I haven't flown a A350 yet, but my understanding is that the humidity is lower (due to the fact it's not a true composite frame) so I am more likely to get jet-lag.
I haven't flown a A350 yet, but my understanding is that the humidity is lower (due to the fact it's not a true composite frame) so I am more likely to get jet-lag.
I don't think you can really compare EK A380 with any 787, especially in Economy.
The problem with the 787 is that pretty much every operator has decided to cram as many seats in as possible. It's probably the worst plane to fly long haul in currently. The A380 is by far the quietest and smoothest plane operating at the moment. EK's A380 in particular have ample legroom and seat width.
I've flown on numerous 787, A350 and A380 flights on various operators and although I can definitely tell the difference between an A330/777/747 flight and the planes above in terms of jet-lagginess after a flight, I can not tell the difference between these newer planes. All three of them are much more comfortable and have better air.
The problem with the 787 is that pretty much every operator has decided to cram as many seats in as possible. It's probably the worst plane to fly long haul in currently. The A380 is by far the quietest and smoothest plane operating at the moment. EK's A380 in particular have ample legroom and seat width.
I've flown on numerous 787, A350 and A380 flights on various operators and although I can definitely tell the difference between an A330/777/747 flight and the planes above in terms of jet-lagginess after a flight, I can not tell the difference between these newer planes. All three of them are much more comfortable and have better air.
Agree. A380 economy is much better than any recent densified 777 (Eva air exception still 9 across), or 787 where airlines threw the Boeing design guidelines of 2/4/2 out the window and went for 3/3/3 (JAL exception).
> but US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787.
That gave me a pained laugh. I’m doing a 17 hour flight next week and expect to be feeling pretty bad.
That gave me a pained laugh. I’m doing a 17 hour flight next week and expect to be feeling pretty bad.
> US to Europe wrecks me on anything but a 787.
The from/to really matters here.
NYC-London is about 7 hours. LA-Rome is about 12 hours.
The from/to really matters here.
NYC-London is about 7 hours. LA-Rome is about 12 hours.
I've flown both Singapore's A380's and more 787's than I can count. You're right, the A380 is very comfortable, but that's not 100% about the plane. It's about how the airline outfits the cabin.
I will grant you that the A380 is super duper crazy quiet compared with most other large jets. But legroom and lie-flat seats are available on all kinds of jumbo jets.
Except the Concorde. I had the privilege of flying that once. It was significantly smaller and less comfortable than I'd imagined it would be. But it made up for it in flight time.
Short flight with less comfort > Long flight with more comfort.
I will grant you that the A380 is super duper crazy quiet compared with most other large jets. But legroom and lie-flat seats are available on all kinds of jumbo jets.
Except the Concorde. I had the privilege of flying that once. It was significantly smaller and less comfortable than I'd imagined it would be. But it made up for it in flight time.
Short flight with less comfort > Long flight with more comfort.
I can't imagine anything even approaching as small and uncomfortable as the Concorde. If anyone doesn't believe me, there's one at the Intrepid Museum.
I could barely board the thing and walk down an aisle, let alone try sitting in a seat. I can't imagine it being comfortable for anyone over 5'5".
I could barely board the thing and walk down an aisle, let alone try sitting in a seat. I can't imagine it being comfortable for anyone over 5'5".
The Museum of Flight at Boeing Field outside Seattle also has a Concorde you can walk through, it is so tight inside
>Early copies of a new plane tend to be less efficient and Singapore Airlines recently ordered some new A380s. However, overall demand is thinner than Airbus expected, forcing it to slow production to a trickle while looking for more business.
Boeing had sales difficulties with 787 aircraft early in the production run due to excess weight among other issues. [0] The rest of the article makes it seem this does not apply to the A380s in question, so it's more a reflection of weak market demand. The problem of reselling customized planes is an interesting issue--so far as I know Boeing 747s did not have the problem. This seems unique to the A380.
[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/internati...
Boeing had sales difficulties with 787 aircraft early in the production run due to excess weight among other issues. [0] The rest of the article makes it seem this does not apply to the A380s in question, so it's more a reflection of weak market demand. The problem of reselling customized planes is an interesting issue--so far as I know Boeing 747s did not have the problem. This seems unique to the A380.
[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/internati...
Boeing did go out of their way to make sure those "change incorporation" frames ended up in working condition and flying with customers. This spreadsheet shows what happened: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FH3Y2-vRUgojntPkCSJI... - look at the dates in the "Load"/"Delivered" columns up to LN 19. LN 10 spent almost 8 years before entering revenue service.
In Airbus's case, the equivalent might be to buy back the frames and place them with customers at a subsidy. There's definitely a marketing hit that they take when a 10 year old flagship airframe is scrapped.
In Airbus's case, the equivalent might be to buy back the frames and place them with customers at a subsidy. There's definitely a marketing hit that they take when a 10 year old flagship airframe is scrapped.
Wow! Where did these numbers come from? (This is what I love about HN.)
It's awesome you can see details like the distribution of RR vs. GE engines, just to pick one bit of interesting data out of that sheet.
It's awesome you can see details like the distribution of RR vs. GE engines, just to pick one bit of interesting data out of that sheet.
Someone very much into the 787 who follows their production very closely: http://nyc787.blogspot.com/
The A380 did have weight and other issues early on. The A380s that are being broken up were replaced with new ones (Singapore Airlines leased five early A380s for ten years, when the lease was ended they didn't renew, but instead bought five new ones from Airbus).
Five of the top 27 long haul flights are on A380. I was surprised to learn this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_flights
The top 5 are NZ and Australia - this possibly explains my hatred of airports and dislike for flying. I’m trying the longest one next week, with a child.
As others have said, these 2 airframes are the first two delivered, significantly overweight and a nightmare to maintain. The frames were essentially wired by hand, after the pre-made wiring harnesses were the wrong length (French/German Airbus facilities used different versions of CATIA, the lengths didn't match, 2 year delay costing billions)
An excellent Smithsonian documentary on the whole project for anyone interested.
https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/mighty-planes/airbu...
https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/mighty-planes/airbu...
It's sad, but such are economic realities. I've seen an A380 flying directly over my head at low altitude at a show a couple years ago. I was super-impressed at how agile, almost sports plane-like it was behaving.
It’s less impressive when it’s over your backyard. They have been trialing a more aggressive landing approach here in Auckland. It’s lower, faster and shorter and it’s very irritating. It’s been handled aggressively by the airport but I sort of admire their handling. They started with the more annoying option as a test, so any future route will seem like a concession to public pressure.
They have been encouraging people to complain, then producing stats showing that a high percentage of complaints relate to old flight paths.
https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/smart-approaches
They have been encouraging people to complain, then producing stats showing that a high percentage of complaints relate to old flight paths.
https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/smart-approaches
A major problem for the A380 is that it is too large for the gates at most airports and the airports have little incentive to build up for just a few flights.
Consumers preferring point-to-point air travel killed the A380.
Which is ironic as the self-proclaimed 'King of point to point', the 787, mainly flies between or from hubs.
It's the smaller and more mundane 737 Max and A320 Neo that are following the lead of the old 757 as hub-bypassers.
I also note that no reference was made to the fact that Boeing has broken-up two early, unsaleable, 787s and took a $1.25 billion charge for doing so. Billion.
It's the smaller and more mundane 737 Max and A320 Neo that are following the lead of the old 757 as hub-bypassers.
I also note that no reference was made to the fact that Boeing has broken-up two early, unsaleable, 787s and took a $1.25 billion charge for doing so. Billion.
The very early 787 production after those two units were sold to Ethiopian at a significant discount. They are far overweight and were plagued with a series of defects requiring warranty service.
Isn’t it in Boeing’s interest to have that figure as high as possible for tax reasons?
Unless list for a 787 is 600m and there no salvagable parts these figures see way wrong
I'm guessing, but they're probably unsellable because they're pre-production testbeds. Those will cost much more than a production plane.
It also tells you exactly nothing about the market for 787s...
It also tells you exactly nothing about the market for 787s...
It's a shame these didn't sell in the numbers that Airbus initially hoped for, but I also think breaking these down for parts make a lot of sense considering that updating the customer interior of such a large aircraft for a new operator is so expensive.
I hope Airbus can continue making this model, if they can keep bringing the cost down as manufacturing of this continues to improve, that should be possible.
I hope Airbus can continue making this model, if they can keep bringing the cost down as manufacturing of this continues to improve, that should be possible.
> I hope Airbus can continue making this model
The A380 was doomed from the start. It was built to compete with the 747, a jet which first flew in 1969 [1] and designed for hub-and-spoke "trunk" routes. In that narrow aim, the A380 succeeded. The problem is the entire A380/747 category peaked before the A380's first flight. High-efficiency engines mean long-and-skinny routes are now profitable. Instead of packing Chicago to London and D.C. to London passengers into a JFK-Heathrow megaflight, one runs Chicago-Heathrow and D.C.-Heathrow with medium jets.
At the end of the day, the A380 was designed to be impressive to European politicians more than to airline executives.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
The A380 was doomed from the start. It was built to compete with the 747, a jet which first flew in 1969 [1] and designed for hub-and-spoke "trunk" routes. In that narrow aim, the A380 succeeded. The problem is the entire A380/747 category peaked before the A380's first flight. High-efficiency engines mean long-and-skinny routes are now profitable. Instead of packing Chicago to London and D.C. to London passengers into a JFK-Heathrow megaflight, one runs Chicago-Heathrow and D.C.-Heathrow with medium jets.
At the end of the day, the A380 was designed to be impressive to European politicians more than to airline executives.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
I mean, British Airways flies a 747-400 and an A380 daily to Chicago. It's cities like Austin, TX, San Jose, CA and Portland, OR that are getting huge boosts of non-stop service to western europe.
While Heathrow to Austin did start on a 787, as seemed appropriate, it has become so successful that it upgraded to 777 and now actually a 747, amazing as that is.
http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-...
http://www.austintexas.gov/news/british-airways’-747-begins-...
That's remarkable, though a huge downgrade for passenger experience. Those 787s are really magnificent.
The bigger question which is still unaddressed is: with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win?
Even if the a380 is dead, food for thought: In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. That is hub and spoke
Even if the a380 is dead, food for thought: In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR. That is hub and spoke
For very long distance maybe. It isn't clear how many people BFR can actually carry, which is a big factor (you quote 300, but I don't see any source backing that up). 10 people for the amount of fuel implies that the trip is only for the insanely rich - CEOs will take it but the rest of us will stick to the current technology (24 hour flight). If they can get 1000 people, the costs are probably cheaper than a jet, but they need the hub/spoke model to fill it up.
However that is only good for very long routes. Chicago to London is faster with current jets after you consider all the time wasted transferring to the BFR. Chicago to London can scale down to a direct Milwaukee (Wisconsin) to Stockholm (Sweden), if there is just a small amount of demand.
However that is only good for very long routes. Chicago to London is faster with current jets after you consider all the time wasted transferring to the BFR. Chicago to London can scale down to a direct Milwaukee (Wisconsin) to Stockholm (Sweden), if there is just a small amount of demand.
> In 5-10 years we may have a 300 person 1 hr transport from sydney to New York by way of the BFR.
Is your average human's health and safety really compatible with the acceleration required for ballistic travel?
Is your average human's health and safety really compatible with the acceleration required for ballistic travel?
At one time people thought that any transport faster than a horse would cause the human body to fly apart.
Engineering finds a way.
Engineering finds a way.
We're in the opposite position from people that doubted whether the human body could cope with transport faster than a horse.
We have pretty good data for what very high G-forces do to the human body and what the failure rates of rocket launches are, and neither are compatible with routine commercial flight.
We have pretty good data for what very high G-forces do to the human body and what the failure rates of rocket launches are, and neither are compatible with routine commercial flight.
If you consider that the early jets (ie comet) had a tendency to disintegrate, and take a speculative view that rockets have largely been in the comet era for perhaps a prolonged period (40-50 years!) and take another speculative leap that current technology/space companies are going to improve this by orders of magnitude (lots of ifs) then it isn’t too far removed.
And the cost of a flight would be 300-400k in fuel, which means that tickets would be roughly premium economy cost or business cost. Business would eat up day trip returns from ny to shanghai in a heartbeat. Maybe people would have to wear a g force suit like pilots?
And the cost of a flight would be 300-400k in fuel, which means that tickets would be roughly premium economy cost or business cost. Business would eat up day trip returns from ny to shanghai in a heartbeat. Maybe people would have to wear a g force suit like pilots?
> with the growth in passenger traffic, will there be a return to hub and spoke, or can long and skinny win?
Long-and-skinny scales better than hub-and-spoke. Comparing the systems, you have identical origin and destination airport traffic. With long-and-skinny, however, traffic at congested hubs is avoided and reduced.
Long-and-skinny is purely a reality because of improved jet technology, in reliability and efficiency. What four engines could barely do in 1969 two engines comfortably manage today.
Long-and-skinny scales better than hub-and-spoke. Comparing the systems, you have identical origin and destination airport traffic. With long-and-skinny, however, traffic at congested hubs is avoided and reduced.
Long-and-skinny is purely a reality because of improved jet technology, in reliability and efficiency. What four engines could barely do in 1969 two engines comfortably manage today.
Hub and spoke scales poorly because you need more takeoffs and landings for the same route which means more airports.
It's an adaptation for lower overall traffic density and simplifies routing, but direct flights scale much better because you can more likely do A > X > D not just A > B > C > D.
It's an adaptation for lower overall traffic density and simplifies routing, but direct flights scale much better because you can more likely do A > X > D not just A > B > C > D.
It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics.
To be fair other Airbus models like the A32x line have been phenomenally successful.
To be fair other Airbus models like the A32x line have been phenomenally successful.
> It's interesting that Europeans also went live with the Concorde, another 'consortium' product whose technology hype did not match the economics
The Concorde was ahead of its time. Fun fact: the 747 was designed with its "hump" so it could be turned into a freighter once the Concorde's successors made it obsolete. The assumption was everyone would be flying supersonic by the new millennium. Unlike the A380, the Concorde was assumed to be a vision of the future.
The Concorde was ahead of its time. Fun fact: the 747 was designed with its "hump" so it could be turned into a freighter once the Concorde's successors made it obsolete. The assumption was everyone would be flying supersonic by the new millennium. Unlike the A380, the Concorde was assumed to be a vision of the future.
Not Concorde per se - The Boeing 2707 - which Boeing canceled as it became clear that the numbers just didn't make sense.
And the US government cut funding--which of course made the numbers make even less sense.
And also people complained about sonic booms which caused a bunch of rushed legislation and killed the potential market even harder.
Honestly, the extra fuel burn (carbon emissions!) from SSTs would be problematic even today. I'm not sad that aircraft manufacturers instead focused on boring but profitable fuel efficiency instead.
Honestly, the extra fuel burn (carbon emissions!) from SSTs would be problematic even today. I'm not sad that aircraft manufacturers instead focused on boring but profitable fuel efficiency instead.
I don't disagree with any of that. Honestly, with modern lie-flat seating (much less Emirates-class luxury) and communication/entertainment options, long-haul flights are still sort of boring but they're comfortable enough to a degree that they weren't when the Concorde was flying. I actually find them a good opportunity to catch up on reading books and watching some movies.
Even if one of these supersonic startups get off the ground (sorry), I expect they'll be in the province of CEOs and investment bankers billing by the hour hopping over to London to close a deal. It's hard to see the economics working for just about anyone else.
Even if one of these supersonic startups get off the ground (sorry), I expect they'll be in the province of CEOs and investment bankers billing by the hour hopping over to London to close a deal. It's hard to see the economics working for just about anyone else.
I'm still waiting for an airline with Fifth Element style beds for seating.
Lie flat seating is nice, but it takes up so much room that it ends up being quite expensive most of the time. I'd like to be able to lie down and take a nap at the price of a coach ticket.
Lie flat seating is nice, but it takes up so much room that it ends up being quite expensive most of the time. I'd like to be able to lie down and take a nap at the price of a coach ticket.
I'm not convinced that there are other sleeper configurations that are more efficient (from an airline space perspective), comfortable for passengers, and safe in terms of evacuation. It's possible, but even if it worked logistically I'm not sure how many takers you'd get where the choice was to get a coffin-like pod for an entire flight versus a seat. The lie-flat seating gives you the choice between a seat and a moderately comfortable bed.
Admittedly train sleepers do tend to take the coffin approach but the dimensions of the cabin are quite a bit different.
Admittedly train sleepers do tend to take the coffin approach but the dimensions of the cabin are quite a bit different.
The exact opposite is happening. They need a certain number of orders to keep the line efficient. Only the recent A380 order by EK keeps them above that line, and just barely at that.
The only reason Airbus is continuing is because of the large order from Emirates, and who knows what they hell they think they can do with over 100 A380s and 50+ more on order.
EK is still pushing on the global hub concept. They recently have been talking to Denver about a non-stop ther, but I don't see how you do that when there are already 7 non-stops to Europe (two Norwegian, one united, One Edelweiss, two Lufthansa, one Iceland Air) and one non-stop to Asia, plus connections on both sides of the country.
That's route fragmentation at work.
That's route fragmentation at work.
Denver+Boulder+Colorado Springs area is growing by quite a bit, however.
Since 2010 (to 2017) Colorado's population increased by more than 500K people.
And, since they all come from "somewhere else" that means that likelihood of them needing flights is possibly higher also.
Since 2010 (to 2017) Colorado's population increased by more than 500K people.
And, since they all come from "somewhere else" that means that likelihood of them needing flights is possibly higher also.
I think its 20 on the way with some more options. regardless of the economics the a380 is best in class in economy for Joe public since the densification program of the 777 started some years ago - Qatar used to be great in 9 across - 10 sucks, and the change to 3/3/3 on 787 vs initial guidelines of 2/4/2 which only JAL stuck to. Unless invested, or a 26" waist, or flying biz, one should be wishing a future success of a380. Economy sucks but a380 makes it bearable
This is why huge, govt-subsidized projects often fail. The people that conceive and plan these projects with govt. aid do not bear the full extent of its failure. They don't have skin in the game. Perversely, sometimes its better for their career to helm or participate in a failed large prestige project than it would be to participate in more successful smaller projects.
Europe isn't alone in these debacles. Military procurement in the USA is rife with the same BS.
And I don't want to pretend like private companies don't do the same thing on their own (Google Plus anyone?) ... but at least private companies pay the costs on their own and make the heads of failed projects feel the pain (or if they don't ... the companies go out of business or get cut down to size soon enough ... like HP).
Europe isn't alone in these debacles. Military procurement in the USA is rife with the same BS.
And I don't want to pretend like private companies don't do the same thing on their own (Google Plus anyone?) ... but at least private companies pay the costs on their own and make the heads of failed projects feel the pain (or if they don't ... the companies go out of business or get cut down to size soon enough ... like HP).
What I loved about the A380 was the cheap last minute business class seats on LA/Tokyo because they couldn’t fill it up otherwise, the whole upper deck was business. Good for me bad for the airline.
pgtan(4)
I was going to make a comment about the a380's efficiency, that it had a very low carbon emission per passenger-mile, but....
>>> Throwing the loss-making program a lifeline for a decade, Emirates recently ordered up to 36 more A380s and set out plans on Tuesday to install 56 Premium Economy seats.
Ya. If it is going to live on as a luxury liner, its upper deck wasted on a handfull of seats, it is an environmental nightmare.
>>> Throwing the loss-making program a lifeline for a decade, Emirates recently ordered up to 36 more A380s and set out plans on Tuesday to install 56 Premium Economy seats.
Ya. If it is going to live on as a luxury liner, its upper deck wasted on a handfull of seats, it is an environmental nightmare.
Emirates needs the A380. Its airport exists as an East-West hub. The modern trend, running long-and-skinny direct routes, cuts Dubai out. (Instead of Paris --> Dubai --> Delhi, one can now just fly Paris --> Delhi.)
Premium economy is still pretty dense, though a lot better than coach. The reason I flew BA for my last PDX-HYD visit was because BA has prem econ and Emirates doesn't. Otherwise I think I'd stick with Emirates. Nice to see them adding the option.
The problem with the A380 was that it was a prestige project formed around a core concept that never materialized, and was directly opposite of the trend over the last 30 years. Namely routes were becoming more fragmented, not less. The a380 required huge amounts of centralization for it to be effective. Places where that is true - Dubai primarily - it's worked well. Everyone else it simply is way to big. None of the passenger or cargo carriers in the United States, which has half of world wide lift, have received a A380.
Several studies have concluded that the only reason the A380 was feasible was because of Government launch aide. When you looked at it logically and with non-pollyannaish analysis, you do the same thing that Boeing did with the 747-600/700 and cancel it. (Boeing eventually built a scaled down 747-8i, which was also a failure, but it only cost them a few billion instead of tens of billions).