I remember in April 1998 British Airways had two 747s departing LHR Terminal 4 to Tokyo within an hour of each other. The A380 certainly was a wise choice for that route.
i remember flying from hongkong to london with BA and there were 2 flights scheduled with 10 minutes difference, and 1 of those was already an a380, still not enough :-)
Having flown on both the 747 and the 380 I can honestly say the 380 is without doubt more comfortable to travel on as a passenger. If a 380 is flying between LHR and New York I will always choose the flight operated by a 380
@@einwildesmexi6211 I went by first flight date. The 747 first flew in 1969. The A380 in 2005. That’s a 37 year difference on initial first flight. The A380 should be a more comfortable product regardless of when the 748 was made just due to the era it was developed in
Delta has a huge hub at ATL but most of their planes flying to or from there aren’t widebodies, except maybe on international flights. When the A380 was introduced, I think they were thinking, “We might as well fly a few 777s between ATL and LHR or CDG or wherever. More flexibility!”
@@1EnZBosS1ATL is the busiest airport on earth and has been for many years (other than during the Covid lockdowns, but became #1 again after normal flights restarted.)
@@abhigyakhandelwal9215 Yeah, but only for -400 though, The 747-8i doesn’t have any orders or any operated from airlines in the USA. Somewhat the 747-8F does.
I don't think any passengers would say that they didn't want to see the A380 flying with their carriers anywhere in the world. It was unparalleled in terms of space and luxury, but passengers don't make the buying decisions of an airline. And it seems only middle-eastern airlines had the perfect model for using the A380.
US airlines mainly fly to Europe which are driven by business class passengers, frequency and the busy summer travel time for Americans who vacation in Europe (a normal A330, 767, 777, 757, A321 XLR etc world do) , Latin America and the Caribbean for shorter family vacations (777, 767, 757, 737, A320, A321 would do), visiting relatives and friends to Asian destinations are heavily served by US carriers and Asian airlines which is driven by cost with onward journeys via major airline hubs in Asia a priority so partnering is the key to success. So there is no need to have a big A380 when existing planes are more than enough to perform the duties the US carriers required. With the few exceptions to Africa, the Middle East and India that require US airlines metals on specific profitable routes, their alliance group airlines can fulfill the missions beyond what US carriers deem financially sound for them.
Korean Airlines has a bunch of them, they are very nice for long-haul since de facto they are pressurized higher than most and have around 6k ft effective altitude in pressurization.
@@Tpr_1808 i think 4 was for the replacement of the 747-200 Doomsday plens edit: the 747-200 is being replaced with the newer 747-8i (for those who may get confused)
@@RichardsAV No, 747-8 replaced the 747-400. The -200 is a classic 747 with older engines such as JT9D and analog cockpit. The -400 was the first 747 variant to come with a digital cockpit and continued production until 2005.
It doesn’t bother me that US carriers have shied away from the A380. The A350 in the Delta livery looks fabulous. I’d like to see more US carriers add 350s to their fleets.
The MD-12 was never even seriously considered and by then US airlines had announced they were getting rid of 747s. Airbus knew they wouldn't see a single A380 sale to a US airline.
I believe the biggest reason after the concern of filling those 500+ seats each flight is the massive amount of money that would've needed to be spent to upgrade airport infrastructure in order for it to be equipped to handle the A380. I believe only 4 airports in the U.S. have the capability to support the A380, and they had to spend money on new facilities and expand runways in order for it to work. Which is crazy to think about
@@devon896None of those airports serve as a base for A380 operations, however, and the retrofit costs to accommodate the planes were massive. If U.S. carriers attempted to operate a fleet of A380s out of those airports, it would’ve required billions in additional retrofitting that would need to come out of their pockets:
The increased range of smaller aircraft like the 787 makes point-to-point long haul travel possible, ....diminishing the need for a hub-and-spoke system. Rather than the need to fly from major city to major city, like JFK to LHR ..one can fly non-stop from PHL to Manchester, London, Edinburgh, etc
yes in some cases, but with the ‘long and skinny routes’ - such as the one you mention - from east coast us/ canada to smaller uk/ european airports they tend to operate with smaller planes such stretched to the edge of there range: eg a321neo (JetBlue, SAS, TAP portugal), b737 max (eg westjet) as a 787 is would be too much capacity for these routes hopping the pond.
@@alicelund147 from the large hubs in Europe (eg Heathrow, Munich, Frankfurt) with plenty of infrastructure for the a380 in just one airport, with plenty of demand from connections from smaller regional feeder flights
@@justdontworrybehappy yes but special gates for them etcetera are in all airports they land in. Obviously Americans fly on this flights from the US so why couldn't US airlines do it? I don't think it has to do with "hub-and-spoke", probably more factors that they prefer more flights, maybe they have less congested airports (More slots) because they have more airports to choose from in the same metropolitan area. Or even business philosophy and tradition.
@@alicelund147 The TL;DR is that the US airlines are domestic airlines first and foremost and do very little business in the international connection market. The vast majority of international airline traffic in the US is either originating or terminating there and gets spread among more airports rather than funneling everything through a single international gateway hub.
US carriers have HUGE domestic networks, the A380 is too much plane for a Newark to Cincinnati red-eye. And the decline of Hub and spoke in America has led to jets like the 747 and A380 making less and less sense. Especially when a Triple 7 or a 787 can give you greater flexibility without being so unwieldy. Still, it would have been neat to see. Delta does fly the A350 though! so that's cool.
This has already been covered by the short-form channel. A380 doesn’t work well with the hub & spoke system the big 3 US carriers operate, but it works great for single hub airlines like SQ, QR, BA, EK.
Actually two US carriers ordered the A380, with FedEx and UPS both ordering 10. With delays on even starting on a freighter version, both cancelled their orders within a couple,e of weeks.
@@AnotherPointOfView944 Unfortunately by the time the A380 started being delivered, the reasons for its existence faded away. Carriers changed their routings.
I would have given Delta or American more of my Business, if they had flow the A380 nonestop to Europe from California. But 9 out of 10 times they wanted me to change planes in Dallas, Atlanta or NY.
The A380 didn't fail in America for geopolitical reasons, but for economical reasons. The narrator himself correctly stated that US airlines didn't order the passenger variant of the 748 either. Even though the aircraft is produced in France, Air France was the first European airline to retire the aircraft, and unlike BA and Lufthansa, they never brought theirs back and instead chose to fill the gap with their 777s. The A380 is an aircraft that arrived too late to the market, much like the 757 arrived well ahead of its time.
@@sainnt I thought you're disagreeing with somebody that said it's geopolitical reasons. Thank you for clearing up the mystery I was confused by the way you started your comment 😅
just that ANA never bought the A380. they are only using it since a japanese low cost airline ordered them but then went bankrubbed before getting them. and since ANA wanted more Slots into HND they said they are gonna take it and well here we are with those 3 gorgeous flying turtle
@@charleskaiser6709 well then it was Narita, not haneda. I wasn't quite sure on where they fly from but I'm a hundred percent sure that it's because of more slots for ANA
I flew the A380 only once on British - Heathrow to SFO. I sat in the upper deck at it was only 25% full at best and have no idea what happened on the lower deck. The odd thing was the arm rests. With so few passengers, people would try to lift the arm rests to spread out but couldn't because they would only go up about 1/3 of the way. I looked around and they all seemed that way. People is the middle sections were able to push them up just enough to crawl under and lie down. Those of us on the 3-seat sides couldn't do that. I always wondered if that was a fluke on this particular plane or if that was common.
BA currently don't have enough capacity and pretty much all the A380s are full. The economy seat armrest do go up they are made by Recaro and are also used on the 787 fleet.
I also doubt B777X will sell well in the USA, too big & too expensive when compared to A350-1000. Delta are the first to order the -1000 & I`d imagine other US carriers may well follow suit considering not just it`s size & price but it`s excellent economics & reliabilty. As alluded with the A380 there could be pressures not to buy `foreign` but the -1000 is a very attractive business model which is difficult to ignore, in essence the defacto replacement for the B777-300ER.
United is the only US airline that I can see ordering the 777-9, but American may order the 777-8 later on. I doubt American will ever buy a 777-9. No other airline in the US will buy an A350-1000. Delta did because they already have the maintenance infrastructure in place for the type. The 1000 engine differs from the 900, and I'm sure Delta got hefty discounts to order it. United has the A350-900 on order but they keep deferring the delivery schedules. Neither United nor American have any appetite for Airbus widebodies, and Hawaiian has also made the shift from them. As much as people love Airbus planes, they cost more to maintain due to more frequent maintenance cycles, and in most cases their fuel efficiencies don't make up for that.
@@sainnt Very bold statement on Airbus particularly in light of Boeing`s continuing troubles. The fact is Delta`s AB fleet work for them & the rest of the world too, just because United & American haven`t gone for A350 or A330Neo yet doesn`t mean they won`t in the near future, scaremongering stories like `maintenance infrastructure` & `frequent maintenance` are typical, & in particular `hefty discounts` are another popular quote to disparage Delta`s WB choice. A350 is doing fine without United & American on board, but it`ll be a fact that they both are looking to grow their routes & that aircraft will be given fair & due consideration as it`s a compelling package both in terms of economics & reliability.
@@edwardwilcox6606 I appreciate the passion, but I do back my bold statements. Emirates has been able to see how Qatar Airways is doing with the A350-1000, which is why they're apprehensive about getting them, and also why Rolls Royce is working on upgrading the engine. I know this even if you don't. Also, regarding United and American Airlines, all you have to do is look at their order books. United cancelled their Continental A330neo order when they merged, and American Airlines got rid of its A330 fleet when they merged with US Airways. These are facts, not bold statements. Airbus fans love to say that Boeing is only selling aircraft because of discounts, but the fact is, both planemakers offer big discounts to certain customers, especially when convincing them to go in a different direction. Delta has been operating the A350-900 for years, but never wanted the 1000. It's reasonable to assume that, given Delta's propensity to order aircraft based on deep discounts Airbus likely gave them a sweet deal on the 1000. I actually think that the A350-900 is one of the best airliners ever built, so this is not some Airbus shade. Just stating my humble opinion.
@@edwardwilcox6606also oddly, UA & AA both have identical 50 plane order of a321XLR’s, but Delta hasn’t ordered a single one yet, despite having over 150 a321neo on order… 🤯🤷🏻♂️
Despite being mired by various challenges and problems, the Airbus A380 is an engineering marvel. I have flown that jet, and it is incomparable, as far as an experience goes. The article that read "The Plane that never should have been built" is such a short-sighted outlook on it. Humans being able to propel itself to such levels of ingenuity is something that we should never shy away from. The A380 has been a workhorse for the Middle Eastern carrier Emirates - they knew how to make it work. I guess it takes a tough visionary to see the success through. The A380 still has a viable market, given how Ultra Long Haul flights are a reality these days where I can clearly see that passengers in the economy could do with a little more leg space.
You can say the same reasons apply to why none of the US carriers have ordered the 777X. Too much passenger capacity and so many US hubs. Unlike Dubai, Tokyo, London or Singapore, the hub & spoke model doesn’t work in the US.
"The hub and spoke model doesn't work in the US." REALLY?? Look at Southwest's software fiasco. They don't use hub and spoke patterns. Point to point caused a chain reaction that brought down the entire airline.
I didn't know US law requires international travellers to be registered through Immigration and Customs officials, even if they're only transiting on their way to Asia or Europe. That's why American flight carriers aren't as motivated to attract international passengers as Middle Eastern or Asian ones.
Routes through the US are also remarkably inconvenient for travel anywhere but South America. If you’re in Asia and trying to go to Europe (or vice versa), routing through the U.S. makes little sense versus flying direct or through the Middle East.
The best part about the big boy planes like the B747 and the A380 is that it lessens the chances of overbooking. That tends to happen a lot when you fly the little bitty aircrafts like uh, a B737 or A319 or the E175. ✈️🛩
Airlines across the entire Americas tend to shy away from very large aircraft nowadays. No airline in the Americas bought the A380 or the 747-8. And right now, no airline in the Americas are on the list to order the 777-8 or 777-9. I think Delta, American, Air Canada, LATAM, and/or United might eventually order the 777-8/9. But I wouldn't be surprised if they wait a long time to do so...if ever.
I don’t think American protectionism is a factor at all. Delta operates a majority Airbus fleet, especially in its newest widebody acquisitions (exclusively A350s). If there was a US market suitable for the A380, Delta would be operating it there.
The infrastructure required to accommodate a 380 in the U.S. is a non-starter. Airbus knew that when production started. It was never going to be popular in the U.S. especially since most U.S. airlines have mothballed their 747 fleet. 777/787 is the sweet spot. It can be used for both domestic long haul (NYC/LAX) and international at a better operating cost.
I've flown in an A380 several times on Emirates JFK-MXP route. It is such a nice plane to ride in. While I understand why US Carriers haven't adopted it, I still think it's a shame. I'd take a ride in an A380 over a 777 or 747 anytime.
@@christophermcdonald1122 - Yes, I do. DFW = hub. When the A380 came out, the economics of the U.S. airline market did not support an A380. However, since then the demand for long-haul has changed, and a small fleet of A380's on AA's Hong Kong & Australia routes could have worked.
@@JDFloyd It's interesting that you mentioned Hong Kong. It's always intrigued me that Cathay Pacific never bought the plane, which might have worked on heavy routes like Hong Kong-Heathrow or Hong Kong-Narita.
Agreed. As an Executive AAdvantage passenger it was inconvenient to have to fly Quantas, but they provided excellent service and the A380 is a wonderful plane to fly in. Given the choice I always select an Airbus over a Boeing when planning my flight schedule. They are quieter and ride more smoothly. Some Boeing aircraft feel more like an AmTrak than an aircraft these days.
United was the only US airline that took part in the early A3XX working group meetings and did not seem very interested. I think they stopped attending after a few meetings. Even my employer never ordered A380's.
The A380 is like a Ferrari or an Alfa-Romeo. When performing at its peak it is an unparalleled machine. But when things are even a little off, it becomes an expensive albatross. If an airline can pack an A380 between two capacity constrained airports, then the A380 works brilliantly. But if the carrier can't fill every seat consistently, the economics quickly sink the plane.
Bro I know all this and I’m not even an air travel fanatic… how does airbus not understand that it was not going to be a hit in the US. Even the 747 is not that popular here
Airbus is a European organization and sees things from a European point of view. Also as noted in the video it was also significantly politically driven.
The A380 is one of the best aircraft I have flown in. Whichever airline it’s BC was always roomy and the lounges on board fantastic. The 747 couldn’t hold a candle to it. It got to a stage when I would choose an airline based on the ability to fly an A380.
When I was a teenager in the early 2000s livingin The USA, my mouth watered at the idea of potentially flying in an a380. Now that I'm an adult that loves to travel and can afford to, they're getting rid of them. It's kind of upsetting.
it was a d88k measuring contest. in the late 80s, boring, airbutt, and the mcdonnell douglas corporation polled their customer base about a large capacity airplane. they all got the same response. not interested. so why did airbutt go ahead and build the plane? to measure the size of their d88k. that's all it is pure and simple. in the US market, an a380 will take up three gates due to it's wingspan. as the turn around time is at a minimum of 6 hours, that ties up three gates. the airports have a say in this as well. they can turn around a 737/a320 in an hour each from those three gates.
Some European airports (like Heathrow) are at max capacity for flight operations. The only way to get more people in is by using bigger airplanes, hence why the A380 is a good choice on a lot of high capacity routes that go into Heathrow. Pre-Covid there were I think 8 A380s per day between Heathrow and Dubai. If US airports still have capacity (or can more easily expand), they don't need the type so much.
Delta should've got a few by principle since they seem to have everything else. They have an interesting variety of planes, even though my favorite Delta plane is the Boeing 757.
From a logistic perspective if non-US carriers can fly into key cities (i.e. JFK, LAX, ATL, DFW, ORD) then US carriers could certainly have flown those same routes with A380's, which would have helped reduce the number of flights on these routes by smaller size planes. Over the next decade, the number of planes flying the skies worldwide will certainly double based on airline purchases we are seeing, emergence of new carriers, as well as increase in passenger and cargo (on passenger planes) demand. This will result in greater airport congestion, an increase in gate charges, a need to increase the number of gates thus airport expansion, in turn more operating expense, longer wait times for departure and arrival. I forsee a need for a larger size plane within the next 10-20 years and if not A380NEO then something else of similar size. There will always be demand between major hubs sufficient to fill larger size planes. I think a primary reason why US carriers rejected A380's is more along the lines they could buy something like 10 777's, 787's compared to 5 A380's and this would allow them to fly to more destinations and increase their earnings with contemplated less pressure to fill each A380 - however this is likely to change and become less important over the next 2 decades for the reasons stated above.
Generally the wide body aircraft stay on a gate for about 3 hours, while the smaller narrow body aircraft are on the gate for about 1 hour. So if anything it's much faster to depart and arrive. In that same time they can get 3 narrow body planes in and out to different destinations.
The biggest reason the A380 didn’t meet revenue expectations is that it was produced my the wrong company. Pre Boeing scandals, this would have been a resounding success as a Boeing airframe as some of the highest volume passenger routes are served by Boeing shop airlines (like JAL). Also, logistics would have been much simpler with one or two factories for Boeing compared with 5 something for Airbus. That being said, JetBlue could fly the A380 with its mint class if it wants to expand its overseas routes…
The United States is larger than the whole European continent! It wouldn’t make sense to have just one international hub, ATL being the largest domestic hub and it is also the busiest airport on earth!
True but that space and capacity could have possibly been used for something creative by providing the flying experience similar to that provided in the Golden Age of Jets when Pan Am was still flying. Dining Hall with Gourmet Food cooked onboard anyone? Luxury and comfort that could have eclipse what the current Mid-Eastern Carriers are providing. But understandably economics and keeping in the black for financial reasons is what drove this plane really to its doom.
The need for the info structure was just too expensive. Thickening and enlarging of the runways and taxiways and reworking all the terminals to handle a super jumbo!
The 787 and A350 are more efficient than the A380 unless the A380 is configured for a >600 seat flight. And the upcoming 777X is more fuel efficient than the A380.
Simple reason is American carriers negotiate with Airbus and then threaten Boeing to give them more discounts. Also, US govt would step into any deal that affects Boeing.
No 380s for US market, they're not worthy (Wayne's World). They didn't support Concord and getting any American airline to purchase Airbus aircraft proved such a real tuff nut to crack. The blinkered vision of Americans means that they overlook the fact that an A380 can have four profit laden American GE engines on its wings, American avionics and heaven knows how many components and systems they could embody providing prosperity to Americans.
American carriers should primarily buy American built aircraft. Unfortunately, given the consolidation of the American aviation industry, US airlines need more options and suppliers than Boeing can provide, alone.
I'm not up to date with US hub strateg for US carriers but most carries do have hubs in the US as well for cost reasons, its not a Middle East "invention" and having higher capacity on certain routes would make a difference. But we can't compare carriers who are DOMESTIC to large hub international carriers like Lufthansa or Qatar. It's like saying Lufthansa will fly A380 between Frankfurt and Munich. Not even within Europe does it make sense. 747 was never an alternative for any domestic market.
Im still of the opinion that airports with limited landing slots like heathrow should start dramatically increasing fees for multiple flights from the same city with smaller planes. For example London to NY 3 flights on a 787 should cost double 2 flights on a A380.
The A380 didn’t sell at all in the US for the same reasons it didn’t sell well (or at all) anywhere else. Too big of an aircraft at the wrong time. This story isn’t unique to the US. Look at AF/KL - they only ever bought the A380 for political reasons and are now far better off flying smaller aircraft from their hubs at CDG, AMS, and very soon, CPH/ARN. The only airlines for which it genuinely works is EK, BA, and SQ. Perhaps LH and EY as well. That’s it.
Most people are provincial and don't fly long-haul like 1% me does. In fact, in the medieval ages most people didn't travel more than one day's walk (about 25 miles) from where they were born. Not that much different today except they might move to a city within 1 hour's flight from where they were born. Sigh, such primitive people, Americans. ;)
To be honest i think this will change. More so due to limited airport slots but needing to carry more passengers per trip to make up for it. Now they could go with just making a extra a350/777x making that trip, or get a bigger aircraft if the seats could be filled. But that hinges on airbus making a neo of the a380 which i doubt right now.
US carriers they are just not efficient. Having more flights doesn't always mean more money nor cheaper maintenance, as multiple flights mean more tear and wear on the aircraft, therefore less money to be made
![[DRIP] ‘Love, Maybe’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7hwHp95m1k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[DRIP] ‘CLIK CLAK’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bcxkcOSbpac/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember in April 1998 British Airways had two 747s departing LHR Terminal 4 to Tokyo within an hour of each other. The A380 certainly was a wise choice for that route.
i remember flying from hongkong to london with BA and there were 2 flights scheduled with 10 minutes difference, and 1 of those was already an a380, still not enough :-)
Having flown on both the 747 and the 380 I can honestly say the 380 is without doubt more comfortable to travel on as a passenger. If a 380 is flying between LHR and New York I will always choose the flight operated by a 380
I would hope so. The A380 is 37 years younger 😅
@@shinyamichimi114 The 747 400 entered service 35 years ago. the 747 8I just 14 years ago. so youre wrong
@@einwildesmexi6211 I went by first flight date. The 747 first flew in 1969. The A380 in 2005. That’s a 37 year difference on initial first flight. The A380 should be a more comfortable product regardless of when the 748 was made just due to the era it was developed in
@@shinyamichimi114 But not the particular 747 that is compared to A380 flew in 1969
I still say the 777 is the ultimate over the 380 and 747.
Delta has a huge hub at ATL but most of their planes flying to or from there aren’t widebodies, except maybe on international flights. When the A380 was introduced, I think they were thinking, “We might as well fly a few 777s between ATL and LHR or CDG or wherever. More flexibility!”
Isn't atl more of a domestic hub? Iirc more the 65% of the flights from that one are domestic
@@1EnZBosS1 both. It's a mega hub for both Domestic & International
😊
@@1EnZBosS1ATL is the busiest airport on earth and has been for many years (other than during the Covid lockdowns, but became #1 again after normal flights restarted.)
That Delta livery on the A380 looks good
Delta and American liveries really look good on the A380
And probably Hawaiian Airlines
Even 747-8i and 777X have no orders from Airlines in America
Atlas air?
@@diow142it uses 747s for mostly cargo purposes thought they do have some 747s for passenger use
@@abhigyakhandelwal9215 Yeah, but only for -400 though, The 747-8i doesn’t have any orders or any operated from airlines in the USA. Somewhat the 747-8F does.
@@diow142
I think they have only 5 passenger ones. Not exactly sure on the number though.
Right!
I feel so lucky to have flown the a380 twice and once more in a month it's lovely to be on
I don't think any passengers would say that they didn't want to see the A380 flying with their carriers anywhere in the world. It was unparalleled in terms of space and luxury, but passengers don't make the buying decisions of an airline. And it seems only middle-eastern airlines had the perfect model for using the A380.
Those mock ups of US legacy carrier liveries look good on the A380
The old silver AA livery would have been awesome
@@counterfit5 Impossible to make that.
That A380 with Delta livery in the thumbnail looks just SPECTACULAR AND GORGEOUS!!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The A380 has got to be one of the most comfortable air liners ever built. Even in economy there is nothing like it. To bad it will soon be fazed out.
FedEx placed an order for the freighter version of the A380, but it ended up canceling the 10-plane order.
Because Airbus abandoned plans for a freighter version. Due to the final design the A380 is totally unsuited to use as a freighter
@@timberry1135yup! The 747 was designed from the beginning as a freighter and passenger airplane. That’s why it has the hump for front loading!
FedEx went with the used MD-11s and converted Dc-10s, one A380 would cost the same as 20 of those
This was a particularly interesting and informative video.
The A380 is a beautiful plane! Riding it is a joy!!! Between the 747 and the A380, I would chose the A380 any say of the week!
US airlines mainly fly to Europe which are driven by business class passengers, frequency and the busy summer travel time for Americans who vacation in Europe (a normal A330, 767, 777, 757, A321 XLR etc world do) , Latin America and the Caribbean for shorter family vacations (777, 767, 757, 737, A320, A321 would do), visiting relatives and friends to Asian destinations are heavily served by US carriers and Asian airlines which is driven by cost with onward journeys via major airline hubs in Asia a priority so partnering is the key to success.
So there is no need to have a big A380 when existing planes are more than enough to perform the duties the US carriers required. With the few exceptions to Africa, the Middle East and India that require US airlines metals on specific profitable routes, their alliance group airlines can fulfill the missions beyond what US carriers deem financially sound for them.
Fly from U.S. to Indonesia please 🇮🇩🇺🇸🦅
This is why the passenger 747-8i also didnt get orders
Korean Airlines has a bunch of them, they are very nice for long-haul since de facto they are pressurized higher than most and have around 6k ft effective altitude in pressurization.
@@raylopez99 i mean the American passenger carriers
@raylopez99 Well they did sell 5 of them
@@Tpr_1808 i think 4 was for the replacement of the 747-200 Doomsday plens
edit: the 747-200 is being replaced with the newer 747-8i (for those who may get confused)
@@RichardsAV No, 747-8 replaced the 747-400. The -200 is a classic 747 with older engines such as JT9D and analog cockpit. The -400 was the first 747 variant to come with a digital cockpit and continued production until 2005.
It doesn’t bother me that US carriers have shied away from the A380. The A350 in the Delta livery looks fabulous. I’d like to see more US carriers add 350s to their fleets.
The MD-12 was never even seriously considered and by then US airlines had announced they were getting rid of 747s. Airbus knew they wouldn't see a single A380 sale to a US airline.
I believe the biggest reason after the concern of filling those 500+ seats each flight is the massive amount of money that would've needed to be spent to upgrade airport infrastructure in order for it to be equipped to handle the A380. I believe only 4 airports in the U.S. have the capability to support the A380, and they had to spend money on new facilities and expand runways in order for it to work. Which is crazy to think about
LAX, SFO, DEN, IAD, JFK, BOS, DAL, MIA can all handle an A380.
@@devon896None of those airports serve as a base for A380 operations, however, and the retrofit costs to accommodate the planes were massive. If U.S. carriers attempted to operate a fleet of A380s out of those airports, it would’ve required billions in additional retrofitting that would need to come out of their pockets:
The increased range of smaller aircraft like the 787 makes point-to-point long haul travel possible,
....diminishing the need for a hub-and-spoke system.
Rather than the need to fly from major city to major city, like JFK to LHR
..one can fly non-stop from PHL to Manchester, London, Edinburgh, etc
But the A380 fly to USA. Just not with US airlines.
yes in some cases, but with the ‘long and skinny routes’ - such as the one you mention - from east coast us/ canada to smaller uk/ european airports they tend to operate with smaller planes such stretched to the edge of there range: eg a321neo (JetBlue, SAS, TAP portugal), b737 max (eg westjet) as a 787 is would be too much capacity for these routes hopping the pond.
@@alicelund147 from the large hubs in Europe (eg Heathrow, Munich, Frankfurt) with plenty of infrastructure for the a380 in just one airport, with plenty of demand from connections from smaller regional feeder flights
@@justdontworrybehappy yes but special gates for them etcetera are in all airports they land in. Obviously Americans fly on this flights from the US so why couldn't US airlines do it? I don't think it has to do with "hub-and-spoke", probably more factors that they prefer more flights, maybe they have less congested airports (More slots) because they have more airports to choose from in the same metropolitan area. Or even business philosophy and tradition.
@@alicelund147 The TL;DR is that the US airlines are domestic airlines first and foremost and do very little business in the international connection market. The vast majority of international airline traffic in the US is either originating or terminating there and gets spread among more airports rather than funneling everything through a single international gateway hub.
US carriers have HUGE domestic networks, the A380 is too much plane for a Newark to Cincinnati red-eye. And the decline of Hub and spoke in America has led to jets like the 747 and A380 making less and less sense. Especially when a Triple 7 or a 787 can give you greater flexibility without being so unwieldy. Still, it would have been neat to see. Delta does fly the A350 though! so that's cool.
This has already been covered by the short-form channel. A380 doesn’t work well with the hub & spoke system the big 3 US carriers operate, but it works great for single hub airlines like SQ, QR, BA, EK.
It actually works very well for the hub and spoke system. America is generally point to point.
But A380 fly from hubs in the US; only they are not operated by US airlines.
Hub and Spoke is exactly what the A380 was designed for.
@@alicelund147 They fly to hubs in the US, not from.
@@kahsjdkahddf1258 Of course they fly back FROM US hubs. They don't return empty.
I wonder had Pan Am and TWA still flown would they have chosen A380
Actually two US carriers ordered the A380, with FedEx and UPS both ordering 10. With delays on even starting on a freighter version, both cancelled their orders within a couple,e of weeks.
US doesn't really do hub and spoke and focus on more point to point... easy reason.
Used to a few decades ago. The 747 and subsequently the A380 were designed for it.
@@AnotherPointOfView944 Unfortunately by the time the A380 started being delivered, the reasons for its existence faded away. Carriers changed their routings.
I would have given Delta or American more of my Business, if they had flow the A380 nonestop to Europe from California. But 9 out of 10 times they wanted me to change planes in Dallas, Atlanta or NY.
Literally all mainline carriers and regionals in the US do hub and spoke...
The A380 didn't fail in America for geopolitical reasons, but for economical reasons. The narrator himself correctly stated that US airlines didn't order the passenger variant of the 748 either.
Even though the aircraft is produced in France, Air France was the first European airline to retire the aircraft, and unlike BA and Lufthansa, they never brought theirs back and instead chose to fill the gap with their 777s.
The A380 is an aircraft that arrived too late to the market, much like the 757 arrived well ahead of its time.
who are you arguing against ?
@@The-CatI wasn't making an argument. I was making a comment.
@@sainnt I thought you're disagreeing with somebody that said it's geopolitical reasons.
Thank you for clearing up the mystery I was confused by the way you started your comment 😅
@@The-CatThe video did mention geopolitical reasons too, but it has nothing to do with why no US airlines wanted the A380.
If ANA can buy three A380 for one route purpose (HND to HNL), surely Delta, etc could have done similar like LAX to SYD / MEL...? 🤔
just that ANA never bought the A380. they are only using it since a japanese low cost airline ordered them but then went bankrubbed before getting them. and since ANA wanted more Slots into HND they said they are gonna take it and well here we are with those 3 gorgeous flying turtle
No. United recently deployed much of the 787 fleet intended for Chinese routes to Australia, and has had a terrible time filling them.
You underestimate the demand for the TYO > HNL route. Japanese tourists really love Hawaii.
@@anticooperativ8398also, ANA operates the Flying Honu out of Narita, not Haneda
@@charleskaiser6709 well then it was Narita, not haneda. I wasn't quite sure on where they fly from but I'm a hundred percent sure that it's because of more slots for ANA
I flew the A380 only once on British - Heathrow to SFO. I sat in the upper deck at it was only 25% full at best and have no idea what happened on the lower deck. The odd thing was the arm rests. With so few passengers, people would try to lift the arm rests to spread out but couldn't because they would only go up about 1/3 of the way. I looked around and they all seemed that way. People is the middle sections were able to push them up just enough to crawl under and lie down. Those of us on the 3-seat sides couldn't do that. I always wondered if that was a fluke on this particular plane or if that was common.
BA currently don't have enough capacity and pretty much all the A380s are full. The economy seat armrest do go up they are made by Recaro and are also used on the 787 fleet.
I also doubt B777X will sell well in the USA, too big & too expensive when compared to A350-1000. Delta are the first to order the -1000 & I`d imagine other US carriers may well follow suit considering not just it`s size & price but it`s excellent economics & reliabilty. As alluded with the A380 there could be pressures not to buy `foreign` but the -1000 is a very attractive business model which is difficult to ignore, in essence the defacto replacement for the B777-300ER.
🥱🥱
United is the only US airline that I can see ordering the 777-9, but American may order the 777-8 later on. I doubt American will ever buy a 777-9.
No other airline in the US will buy an A350-1000. Delta did because they already have the maintenance infrastructure in place for the type. The 1000 engine differs from the 900, and I'm sure Delta got hefty discounts to order it. United has the A350-900 on order but they keep deferring the delivery schedules.
Neither United nor American have any appetite for Airbus widebodies, and Hawaiian has also made the shift from them. As much as people love Airbus planes, they cost more to maintain due to more frequent maintenance cycles, and in most cases their fuel efficiencies don't make up for that.
@@sainnt Very bold statement on Airbus particularly in light of Boeing`s continuing troubles. The fact is Delta`s AB fleet work for them & the rest of the world too, just because United & American haven`t gone for A350 or A330Neo yet doesn`t mean they won`t in the near future, scaremongering stories like `maintenance infrastructure` & `frequent maintenance` are typical, & in particular `hefty discounts` are another popular quote to disparage Delta`s WB choice. A350 is doing fine without United & American on board, but it`ll be a fact that they both are looking to grow their routes & that aircraft will be given fair & due consideration as it`s a compelling package both in terms of economics & reliability.
@@edwardwilcox6606 I appreciate the passion, but I do back my bold statements. Emirates has been able to see how Qatar Airways is doing with the A350-1000, which is why they're apprehensive about getting them, and also why Rolls Royce is working on upgrading the engine. I know this even if you don't.
Also, regarding United and American Airlines, all you have to do is look at their order books. United cancelled their Continental A330neo order when they merged, and American Airlines got rid of its A330 fleet when they merged with US Airways. These are facts, not bold statements.
Airbus fans love to say that Boeing is only selling aircraft because of discounts, but the fact is, both planemakers offer big discounts to certain customers, especially when convincing them to go in a different direction. Delta has been operating the A350-900 for years, but never wanted the 1000. It's reasonable to assume that, given Delta's propensity to order aircraft based on deep discounts Airbus likely gave them a sweet deal on the 1000.
I actually think that the A350-900 is one of the best airliners ever built, so this is not some Airbus shade. Just stating my humble opinion.
@@edwardwilcox6606also oddly, UA & AA both have identical 50 plane order of a321XLR’s, but Delta hasn’t ordered a single one yet, despite having over 150 a321neo on order… 🤯🤷🏻♂️
Despite being mired by various challenges and problems, the Airbus A380 is an engineering marvel. I have flown that jet, and it is incomparable, as far as an experience goes. The article that read "The Plane that never should have been built" is such a short-sighted outlook on it. Humans being able to propel itself to such levels of ingenuity is something that we should never shy away from. The A380 has been a workhorse for the Middle Eastern carrier Emirates - they knew how to make it work. I guess it takes a tough visionary to see the success through. The A380 still has a viable market, given how Ultra Long Haul flights are a reality these days where I can clearly see that passengers in the economy could do with a little more leg space.
The A380 is such a cool plane, 2nd only to the 747 as the coolest plane ever. It's a shame it's already out of production
You can say the same reasons apply to why none of the US carriers have ordered the 777X. Too much passenger capacity and so many US hubs. Unlike Dubai, Tokyo, London or Singapore, the hub & spoke model doesn’t work in the US.
"The hub and spoke model doesn't work in the US." REALLY?? Look at Southwest's software fiasco. They don't use hub and spoke patterns. Point to point caused a chain reaction that brought down the entire airline.
@@largol33t1during the 99.9% of times that they don't have a software glitch, Southwest does quite well
US airlines didn't order the 747-8 either.
I didn't know US law requires international travellers to be registered through Immigration and Customs officials, even if they're only transiting on their way to Asia or Europe. That's why American flight carriers aren't as motivated to attract international passengers as Middle Eastern or Asian ones.
Routes through the US are also remarkably inconvenient for travel anywhere but South America. If you’re in Asia and trying to go to Europe (or vice versa), routing through the U.S. makes little sense versus flying direct or through the Middle East.
The best part about the big boy planes like the B747 and the A380 is that it lessens the chances of overbooking. That tends to happen a lot when you fly the little bitty aircrafts like uh, a B737 or A319 or the E175. ✈️🛩
Airlines across the entire Americas tend to shy away from very large aircraft nowadays. No airline in the Americas bought the A380 or the 747-8. And right now, no airline in the Americas are on the list to order the 777-8 or 777-9. I think Delta, American, Air Canada, LATAM, and/or United might eventually order the 777-8/9. But I wouldn't be surprised if they wait a long time to do so...if ever.
I don’t think American protectionism is a factor at all. Delta operates a majority Airbus fleet, especially in its newest widebody acquisitions (exclusively A350s). If there was a US market suitable for the A380, Delta would be operating it there.
The infrastructure required to accommodate a 380 in the U.S. is a non-starter. Airbus knew that when production started. It was never going to be popular in the U.S. especially since most U.S. airlines have mothballed their 747 fleet. 777/787 is the sweet spot. It can be used for both domestic long haul (NYC/LAX) and international at a better operating cost.
I've flown in an A380 several times on Emirates JFK-MXP route. It is such a nice plane to ride in. While I understand why US Carriers haven't adopted it, I still think it's a shame. I'd take a ride in an A380 over a 777 or 747 anytime.
U.S. carriers don’t operate the 747 either, and the 777 is a dying breed as well.
@@kpro8908the new 777 varient is approching nearly 400 orders and American and United have a big fleet of them
The A380 was a failure in Europe too. When you set aside Emirates' purchase, hardly anyone in Europe wanted it either.
I think that American Airlines could have taken advantage (pun intended) of A380's based out of DFW to Australia, Hong Kong, and London.
You really think the AA380 would have been AAdvantageous for AA out of DFW?
@@christophermcdonald1122 - Yes, I do. DFW = hub. When the A380 came out, the economics of the U.S. airline market did not support an A380. However, since then the demand for long-haul has changed, and a small fleet of A380's on AA's Hong Kong & Australia routes could have worked.
@@JDFloyd It's interesting that you mentioned Hong Kong. It's always intrigued me that Cathay Pacific never bought the plane, which might have worked on heavy routes like Hong Kong-Heathrow or Hong Kong-Narita.
Agreed. As an Executive AAdvantage passenger it was inconvenient to have to fly Quantas, but they provided excellent service and the A380 is a wonderful plane to fly in. Given the choice I always select an Airbus over a Boeing when planning my flight schedule. They are quieter and ride more smoothly. Some Boeing aircraft feel more like an AmTrak than an aircraft these days.
I love the A380!!. I usually fly out of the West Coast to Europe , I prefer to fly Nonestop and the A380 is much more comfortable than even the 777.
Not going to lie, the a380 Delta livery looks amazing
United was the only US airline that took part in the early A3XX working group meetings and did not seem very interested. I think they stopped attending after a few meetings. Even my employer never ordered A380's.
The A380 is like a Ferrari or an Alfa-Romeo. When performing at its peak it is an unparalleled machine. But when things are even a little off, it becomes an expensive albatross. If an airline can pack an A380 between two capacity constrained airports, then the A380 works brilliantly. But if the carrier can't fill every seat consistently, the economics quickly sink the plane.
Yes absolutely by far the most comfortable economy class experience. I want the A380
They could have tried a single leased A380 from LAX and JFK but it was better to leave that to the foreign airlines.
A single aircraft of any type in a fleet would be extremely expensive to operate.
@@timberry1135 Especially if it an Airbus and you normally operate Boeing.
Bro I know all this and I’m not even an air travel fanatic… how does airbus not understand that it was not going to be a hit in the US. Even the 747 is not that popular here
Airbus is a European organization and sees things from a European point of view. Also as noted in the video it was also significantly politically driven.
The A380 is one of the best aircraft I have flown in. Whichever airline it’s BC was always roomy and the lounges on board fantastic. The 747 couldn’t hold a candle to it. It got to a stage when I would choose an airline based on the ability to fly an A380.
LAS has direct flights to LHR and AMS
Still haven't had the chance to fly on one but hoping to do so in the next year or so
You'd think LAX - NYC or LAX - Denver would work for A380. Like how Japan uses 777 for domestic.
When I was a teenager in the early 2000s livingin The USA, my mouth watered at the idea of potentially flying in an a380. Now that I'm an adult that loves to travel and can afford to, they're getting rid of them. It's kind of upsetting.
it was a d88k measuring contest.
in the late 80s, boring, airbutt, and the mcdonnell douglas corporation polled their customer base about a large capacity airplane. they all got the same response. not interested. so why did airbutt go ahead and build the plane? to measure the size of their d88k. that's all it is pure and simple.
in the US market, an a380 will take up three gates due to it's wingspan. as the turn around time is at a minimum of 6 hours, that ties up three gates. the airports have a say in this as well. they can turn around a 737/a320 in an hour each from those three gates.
Boring , airbutt????? 😂😂😂😂😂
Some European airports (like Heathrow) are at max capacity for flight operations. The only way to get more people in is by using bigger airplanes, hence why the A380 is a good choice on a lot of high capacity routes that go into Heathrow. Pre-Covid there were I think 8 A380s per day between Heathrow and Dubai. If US airports still have capacity (or can more easily expand), they don't need the type so much.
Delta should've got a few by principle since they seem to have everything else. They have an interesting variety of planes, even though my favorite Delta plane is the Boeing 757.
I think it would've been cool for US carriers to operate the A380. I flew on it with Lufthansa from MUC-IAD and it was very comfortable and big.
That would mean prioritizing passenger comfort. American corporations would never
From a logistic perspective if non-US carriers can fly into key cities (i.e. JFK, LAX, ATL, DFW, ORD) then US carriers could certainly have flown those same routes with A380's, which would have helped reduce the number of flights on these routes by smaller size planes. Over the next decade, the number of planes flying the skies worldwide will certainly double based on airline purchases we are seeing, emergence of new carriers, as well as increase in passenger and cargo (on passenger planes) demand. This will result in greater airport congestion, an increase in gate charges, a need to increase the number of gates thus airport expansion, in turn more operating expense, longer wait times for departure and arrival. I forsee a need for a larger size plane within the next 10-20 years and if not A380NEO then something else of similar size. There will always be demand between major hubs sufficient to fill larger size planes. I think a primary reason why US carriers rejected A380's is more along the lines they could buy something like 10 777's, 787's compared to 5 A380's and this would allow them to fly to more destinations and increase their earnings with contemplated less pressure to fill each A380 - however this is likely to change and become less important over the next 2 decades for the reasons stated above.
Generally the wide body aircraft stay on a gate for about 3 hours, while the smaller narrow body aircraft are on the gate for about 1 hour. So if anything it's much faster to depart and arrive. In that same time they can get 3 narrow body planes in and out to different destinations.
The A380 could have worked for JetBlue as they only operate a fleet of Airbus aircraft
No lol
I have the feeling a US carrier could take a chance on it now that the 380 is making a bit of a comeback in the post-COVID world
Interesting video thanks SF
Same results with the 747-8i.same reasons
Spirit Airlines missed out on NYC - > Miami - > Las Vegas A380 loop.
The A380 was an extremely niche aircraft...plain and simple.
Simple??!! OMG little you know about planes..
@@jakub_qba Lol. The A380 isn't plain and simple. However, the explanation for its relatively poor/disappointing sales is. Hope that helps. ;)
The biggest reason the A380 didn’t meet revenue expectations is that it was produced my the wrong company. Pre Boeing scandals, this would have been a resounding success as a Boeing airframe as some of the highest volume passenger routes are served by Boeing shop airlines (like JAL). Also, logistics would have been much simpler with one or two factories for Boeing compared with 5 something for Airbus. That being said, JetBlue could fly the A380 with its mint class if it wants to expand its overseas routes…
It is simply because the A380 is a bit large for them
The plane doesn’t fit most airports and would impact ground movements, requiring millions in airport construction.
The United States is larger than the whole European continent! It wouldn’t make sense to have just one international hub, ATL being the largest domestic hub and it is also the busiest airport on earth!
True but that space and capacity could have possibly been used for something creative by providing the flying experience similar to that provided in the Golden Age of Jets when Pan Am was still flying. Dining Hall with Gourmet Food cooked onboard anyone? Luxury and comfort that could have eclipse what the current Mid-Eastern Carriers are providing. But understandably economics and keeping in the black for financial reasons is what drove this plane really to its doom.
Why did it not work as Big City interconnect? How many People fly NY to LA every day?
Because they are a vanity project by Airbus. A monstrosity that is way too big
The need for the info structure was just too expensive. Thickening and enlarging of the runways and taxiways and reworking all the terminals to handle a super jumbo!
there also no orders for the 777x out of America
Yes there is British Airways
Etihad, Ethiopian, Qatar, and Lufthansa all have outstanding 777X orders
I would love if US carriers had the A 380. But alas, the aircraft does not quite fit our market. Maybe flights from JFK to Honolulu?
The 787 and A350 are more efficient than the A380 unless the A380 is configured for a >600 seat flight. And the upcoming 777X is more fuel efficient than the A380.
Even airlines from the U.S. are going no bigger than 787s or even A350s.
Spain and Iberia is a big Airbus partner and never ordered the A380 which would have been perfect for it's South American routes.
No quadjets after the 747-400 were welcome in the US
Two simple reasons
-Cost
-Maintenance
I wish USA Air Carriers would had at least a couple A380’s.
Yes I would
Simple reason is American carriers negotiate with Airbus and then threaten Boeing to give them more discounts. Also, US govt would step into any deal that affects Boeing.
It's LOV is up before it's paid for.... Leasing companies hate it...
It's also useless for cargo so no second hand value
That’s where it could’ve fit in American market but your spot on it reaches MTOW way before it’s close to capacity. Airbus dropped the ball there
“Why” you ask ? To make money with that airplane you have to be SUBSIDIZED !
I'm sure US carriers would have managed to make the A380 passenger experience miserable if they had ordered it!
No 380s for US market, they're not worthy (Wayne's World). They didn't support Concord and getting any American airline to purchase Airbus aircraft proved such a real tuff nut to crack. The blinkered vision of Americans means that they overlook the fact that an A380 can have four profit laden American GE engines on its wings, American avionics and heaven knows how many components and systems they could embody providing prosperity to Americans.
No US carrier has ordered the 777X, they are no longer Globel carriers, like BA they can only make money in protected markets.
I always thought Honolulu would have made a good A380 hub.
Would make zero sense for US carriers.
American carriers should primarily buy American built aircraft. Unfortunately, given the consolidation of the American aviation industry, US airlines need more options and suppliers than Boeing can provide, alone.
I'm not up to date with US hub strateg for US carriers but most carries do have hubs in the US as well for cost reasons, its not a Middle East "invention" and having higher capacity on certain routes would make a difference.
But we can't compare carriers who are DOMESTIC to large hub international carriers like Lufthansa or Qatar. It's like saying Lufthansa will fly A380 between Frankfurt and Munich. Not even within Europe does it make sense.
747 was never an alternative for any domestic market.
Hi
No, I will never ever see US Carriers including Delta fly the a380
It brings to the mediocrity of all American Airlines flags and how they “shine” in a bad way…. Poor way
Im still of the opinion that airports with limited landing slots like heathrow should start dramatically increasing fees for multiple flights from the same city with smaller planes. For example London to NY 3 flights on a 787 should cost double 2 flights on a A380.
O. Absolutely no.
It will be as if the US carriers stabbing Boeing's back.
The A380 didn’t sell at all in the US for the same reasons it didn’t sell well (or at all) anywhere else. Too big of an aircraft at the wrong time. This story isn’t unique to the US. Look at AF/KL - they only ever bought the A380 for political reasons and are now far better off flying smaller aircraft from their hubs at CDG, AMS, and very soon, CPH/ARN.
The only airlines for which it genuinely works is EK, BA, and SQ. Perhaps LH and EY as well. That’s it.
Most people are provincial and don't fly long-haul like 1% me does. In fact, in the medieval ages most people didn't travel more than one day's walk (about 25 miles) from where they were born. Not that much different today except they might move to a city within 1 hour's flight from where they were born. Sigh, such primitive people, Americans. ;)
To be honest i think this will change. More so due to limited airport slots but needing to carry more passengers per trip to make up for it. Now they could go with just making a extra a350/777x making that trip, or get a bigger aircraft if the seats could be filled. But that hinges on airbus making a neo of the a380 which i doubt right now.
@@1EnZBosS1 There will never be an A380 neo. Supply chains, factory etc are long gone.
US carriers they are just not efficient. Having more flights doesn't always mean more money nor cheaper maintenance, as multiple flights mean more tear and wear on the aircraft, therefore less money to be made
Funny to see that only a video geared towards Americans recognises the USA as the worlds biggest market ....