Knowing the state of things and the history of the project I'm not much surprised by this, yet I'm a bit taken aback that this indeed has come to pass. I always hate it when a serviceable, if not especially outstanding, aircraft gets shuttered well before it had a meaningful lifecycle in the industry.<p>But from everything I've read (am I'm no industry expert on the business side) it was a dick-swinging contest from the get-go. Boeing saw that a full-on new spec 4-engine plane was not going to pay itself back; if Airbus execs saw it, they didn't let it change their path.<p>"Build it and they will come," was perhaps the irrational source of motive for pressing on from the beginning. I don't recall the market (at the time the project was greenlit) clamoring for a bigger, more efficient, more pax friendly quad-jet. It's almost as if Airbus managed to upsell this beast to the carriers that did choose to purchase the ones they have.<p>The shifting winds of route topology from hub-n-spoke to point-to-point were already brewing, and the stair-step jumps in the ETOPS allowances for twins had obviously not yet reached its limit ... but still, they went for it.<p>Well, I hope the ones that are built, and those yet to be built, will run for decades more because they are mighty beasts to behold; that much is true. I know the international departure slots out of LAX and when I remember and the sky is clear I step out on my deck and get to watch them on initial climb-out (it's usually Emirates, but sometimes there are others). They look like freight trains in the sky and are really quiet, but the four engines together make a unique drone that will pull me outside even when I'm not even planning to take a peek.<p>Farewell, A380; we barely knew thee.
A shame. I've flown the A380 from SFO to Frankfurt, and man was that a nice flight. There was a noticeable difference in my jet lag. And when I first got on, I was sure the row number was wrong or there were skipped rows or something, but no, I just kept walking and walking and sure enough eventually I got to row 90!
I second the comments about this wonderful plane delivering a superior experience. I used to fly Manchester (UK) - DXB - Melbourne and loved every second of being in economy on one of these. Flying with Emirates even in the cheap seats is always exciting with great food and drink, so much so I'd arrive at my destination both drunk and hungover, but feeling good because of the nice clean air and quiet ride of the A380. Flying on the 777 or with a carrier like Etihad isn't even a comparable experience. The little things really count on a long-haul flight so that little bit more legroom, comfort, and class that the A380 gives makes flying on one a real treat, even if you are flying with 500 other people. Big shame there weren't more customers for Airbus, and more carriers couldn't make this plane work for them.
I flew first class on the Emirates A380 earlier this year. It's an experience like none other. It's completely absurd and unnecessary but simultaneously incredible and nearly unbeatable. It's an unreal feeling to take a shower at 40,000', or to drink a Manhattan over Iran, or to experience a lively cocktail bar at 3AM over Northern Greenland. Unless you own a Boeing Business Jet, you're probably not going to be able to do that. It's a taste of the 0.1% that's in reach for mere mortals if you know the right routes. The typical first class A380 ride from the US to or from the Middle East or most of Asia will run anywhere from $9,000-15,000 one-way. However, if you're willing to fly out of Colomobo, Sri Lanka, you can sometimes do this trip for less than $5,000. A flight from Bangkok to Houston via Dubai will get you a 777-300ER ride (itself an experience) plus a 16-hour A380 ride.<p>If you want to see what it's like, I posted some pics:<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/72157706663987055" rel="nofollow">https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721577066639...</a>
A380 is the smoothest and quietest aircraft I've flown in, and those things really make a difference if you're flying 16 hours from SFO to DXB.
A380 has three economic advantages:<p>1. Landing slot price per passenger is low. Congested airports are the economic reason for A380 to exist.<p>2. A380 is runway-friendly large aircraft due to its wheel load distribution and low load per wheel. Airfield pavement maintenance cost is 30-40 percent of the airfield maintenance. If the weight based pricing is changed to match actual runway damage, A380 will do really well.<p>3. Relative to 747-400, significantly better fuel efficiency.<p>Economically A380 starts to make sense again in 10-20 years after the traffic volumes in Asia skyrocket. When the demand exceeds the slots available, the value of existing A380s starts to increase.
Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a single United States airline orders the A380. At the time of the A380's introduction, more then half of world wide airlift was located in the United States. The numbers are less now, but it's still the largest seat market by a insane margin world wide. The US carriers were almost wiped out by the irrational exuberance when the initial 747 came out. They were always skeptical about their ability to fill consistently a A380, given market dynamics. It doesn't matter how much more efficient you are with a bigger plane, if you can't fill a seat, economically it simply spoills - you take all the cost of the airplane, the fuel, the pilots, etc (CASM) but none of the revenue (RASM). I've flown on enough empty upper decks on the A380 to know this is a huge issue.
I took the A380 probably more than 40 times on different routes altogether.<p>I hope that current companies (Lufthansa, Airfrance, Qantas) will keep it for a long time. It is always a pleasure to fly in it. And superior to the 787 in my opinion.
Another problem with the A380 is that although it could run more passengers through the same number of gates, airports had to rebuild the gates to accommodate the thing.<p>On economy long-hauls, I appreciate every config I've been on; they're roomy and the effective cabin altitude is very comfortable, so it makes flying easier.<p>That said, I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight. I wouldn't care so much about comfort if I could take my 18-hour flight and bring it down to 10. I don't know the economics of it, but flying on a smaller, faster, higher-altitude aircraft would be more comfortable. Planes haven't really gotten faster since the dawn of the jet age.
Is this surprising? The A380 uses nearly 50% more fuel per seat than a 787/A350. That's when its full! Then you have to fill it up too - and it doesn't go as far. It's just silly. Sure its innovative but that's not economical.
Stopped to watch one take off from Heathrow yesterday.<p>They're iconic but then so was the Concorde - being iconic is not a substitute for being commercially viable.
As someone with fear of flying, but who still has to fly from time to time, this is sad news. If I ever had to fly, I always tried to take an A380. They are so smooth in flight, take off and landing. Nothing compares.
Here in Reno, not far from the Mustang VOR, I've seen the Air France A380 flight to Paris from SFO coming over around 4pm local time on a nice warm sunny day, and even at pretty much full cruising altitude when they get out this far they are a sight to see through some good binoculars. On the ground (again for me at SFO) they look big enough to be built by aliens. RIP A380.
Inevitably in comments about the demise of the 747 or A380, people refer to the proliferation of point to point routes. But while point to point routes <i>have</i> grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. There is an illusion of the proliferation of point to point routes caused by the proliferation of new hubs. For example, Seattle now has ~20 more direct international destinations with a year round schedule than it did 15 years ago, which makes it seem like point to point routes are more common. But careful inspection shows that <i>every single direct international route</i> from SEA is a hub and spoke route for the airline flying it, with either the hub in Seattle, or the hub at the destination.<p>When these aircraft were conceived, all industry momentum was pointed toward superhubs, and <i>all</i> of the superhubs were capacity constrained. Landing and takeoff slots were constrained and airports were moving to auction models to sell the slots. Terminal space was becoming more and more expensive. These planes weren't more efficient because they could move more people, they were more efficient because they didn't cost as much to land and take off and load and unload. The reality of the matter is that Boeing and Airbus didn't incorrectly forecast the decline of hub and spoke models, they incorrectly forecasted the decline of superhubs.
I remember a youtube video explaining why big airplanes like the A380, while technically impressive, do not make economic sense to airlines because it's all about stopovers: it's more efficient to "ship" people with several airplanes because it allows them to land to many more airports.<p>Of course there are still very busy destinations, for example Los Angeles - New York, New York - London, but that's not enough air traffic so they don't need as many A380 as we would think.
I'm surprised they aren't going to bother with trying a freighter. The 747-8F is still being sold; it's got almost twice the payload weight lift capacity of the C-17 and 88% of the lift capacity of the decades-old Antanov An-124 (though the C-17 and An-124 can have taller and wider items, like tanks and helicopters, loaded into the cargo hold than the 747-8F can).
Sad sad day, economy on the upper deck of an AirFrance/KLM A380 is the most quiet, most space long haul flight you can get, my default way to go Europe
<--> Japan and Europe <--> US.
Airbus has new management, as the old management was wiped out by bribery scandals and retirement. They have more to come here - their is a new Indian investigation on their practices in that country, and management is keen to break with the previous regime. John Leahy - who crusaded for the plane internally at Airbus, recently retired, and with him, anyone else who had a stake in the A380 decide. The development costs of the A380 are not paid off - the launch aid - from the European governments was to be repaid in royalties per plane on a ongoing basis. The governments will find a way to sweep what remains under the covers.<p>Ironically, the group most at risk with this decision is Boeing. The A380 has been a total albatross and a anchor around the neck of Airbus. If Airbus hadn't been sinking in cash left and right to the A380 program, when Boeing had it's issue with the 787, Airbus could have really punished them in the market. Instead, Airbus went with a slightly warmed over A330, until the market forced them to the A350, which still wasn't as revolutionary as what the 787 brought to bear, once it finally got over it's development hurdles.<p>So good application of the Sunk cost fallacy here by the new Airbus leadership, and a message to Boeing that the new leadership at Airbus isn't going to be constrained by the decisions of the past.
Shame. Anyone who's flown from LAX to Sydney knows how much better the A380 is than the 7X7.<p>Fun dramatic video.<p>* Planes That Changed the World 3of3 Airbus A380 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org - YouTube || <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s</a>
DJ Aviation has a short video with some explanation and what replaced the A380. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o</a>
Obivously they didn't make as much money as projected then, but did they lose money on this project? Was it an acceptable product to launch, or what is airbus learning?
The Airbus 380 is the only passenger aircraft for which I have a strong preference. I dislike the toy aircraft (regional jets) that have become standard which are too small and constrained for modern adults. In contrast, at least in the Air France configuration, the A380 is roomy and comfortable. I am sad that Airbus has decided to deprecate the model.
This really interesting Business Week article from early 2017, "Is Emirates Airline Running Out of Sky?", is probably relevant:<p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirates-airline-running-out-of-sky" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirat...</a>
And so begins the death of the hub and spoke theory of aviation. It's slowly been invalidated for about a decade, but I'd say this is a mark of the end.<p>May the internet follow suit.
When it was conceived, it was the right aircraft. By the time it arrived, market conditions changed. So it became the wrong plane.<p>That's really to it. Really.
this kind of engineering undertaking, praising greatness over profit is what built our world. sad to see it put to an end just like the concorde was. america and western civilization became a nation of bankers and social networkers while it was a nation of engineers driven by innovation
Disappointing.<p>A very smooth, spacious, quiet plane ...<p>Easily the best ride experience ... at least on Emirates.<p>Reduced jet lag and brought a little joy back to the flying again.<p>Hopefully the existing planes last for some time yet.