Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code MENTOUR: North America & other countries: bit.ly/novium_mentour UK & Europe: bit.ly/noviumeu_mentour
I remember thinking, & it seemed to be what most people thought at the time, when Airbus was developing the A380, it was kind of like a car manufacturer's concept car. Unlike a concept car, it actually went into production, but like a concept car, it wasn't expected to make money directly, but was there to raise Airbus prestige & to show, what they could do.
Boeing has huge military Business Units that guzzle hundreds of billion of taxpayer money. They make state-of-the-art planes for the military and they don't have to care about profitability: taxpayer will pay. Nevertheless, the technologies & experience accumulated drip down to the civilian aviation BUs, which is structurally unfair for Airbus. Airbus turned into military programs as well, but is still a beginner in the field with almost no flagships to show (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security). Honestly, I still can't understand how a company which built the B52, the B2, bought the companies that made F15, F22 (etc), and launched the B737 during the sixties, is now being superseded by a coalition of small & scattered european aircraft builders. If it was not for big programs like 380 or Concorde, Airbus would have never stood a chance to compete with the skills and technologies of a giant like Boeing. Not only did they make a spectacular tech & exp° ramp-up, they also learned to work as one single company.
@sparky6086 as a passenger, I love the A380, it is a great aircraft! No Boeing comes close, not even the 747 that was my favorite aircraft before the A380.
@@MentourNow Not as bad as it seems. It lost about 10 Billion if at all. But without it the A350 would have never worked the same and would be a sgood as it is. There were a lot of young engineers which learned a lot from the A380, whole new toolsets really transformed it. And it also killed the 747-8. You just can't evaluate such a program only financially without also considering als this
@@Infiltator2 The A380 did not "kill" the B747. The same market forces doomed both aircraft - the B747 would have ended production regardless of whether the A380 was built or not.
@@Infiltator2 also... data... you can bet your backside off that Airbus engineers have every files relative to this beauty making, fixing, flying etc etc, in their computers and will use them for future endeavors... (like the A400M, costly, but errors made one time and fixed are a lesson for the next projects)
I see a couple people claiming that but I sort of wonder if that has played out in terms of business numbers. It certainly got them the attention of the wider public but the public doesn't buy aircraft, airlines and freight companies do. I wonder if there is any evidence of airlines buying more of aiibus's other aircraft.
@@Valpo2004i don’t think it will be immediate but when you see websites popping up allowing people to check if their aircraft will be a Boeing out of fear of a door falling off….
@@imonymous The first revenue flight of an A380 happened on October 25, 2007. That’s not even 17 years ago. Although 787s were grounded from January to April 2013 due to battery problems, Boeing‘s perception with the flying public didn’t take a hit from that. This changed for the worse after the 737 Max crashes in late 2018 and early 2019.
I’m an aircraft systems engineer and I can vouch that bored/underutilized engineers can come up with wild concepts, many of which probably shouldn’t be developed, let alone manufactured and produced. But good on Airbus for this magnificent aircraft. Having flown on them, they are truly remarkable in nearly every way.
The A380, while possibly being a financial blunder, is my absolute favourite plane ever. It's amazing. Usually, I fly from Korea to the UK with Emirates just to fly on it. Spacious, quiet and with layouts that aren't squashed together for monetary reasons. Amazing plane, end of.
Agree with axelBR1: My first A380 flight was Oct23 (Manchester - DXB - Kuala Lumpur). It was so quiet and comfortable I decided to fly Emirates again to Tokyo this year via Dubai rather than direct on Lufthansa 748.
And me as well. I'm flying to Europe in a couple of weeks - on a Emirates A380. They were the second lowest fare - lowest was Qatar with an A350 (which I'd like to fly on some time) but the A380 tempted me...
Same here, specifically picked the A380 over 777 when flying SIN-LHR last month on Singapore Airlines. It was a better experience than flying 777 long haul.
I had a chat with a flight attendant on an Emirates flight. She told me that even though she had to serve more passengers on the A380 she still preferred to fly on it over the 777 any day. What a praise for that aircraft.
The A380, whole a financial flop, was actually the aircraft that gave me as a customer confidence in Airbus as a manufacturer. Growing up, I had never heard of Airbus and when I first flew on one I was honestly a little shook. However, they shortly afterwards released the A380, which proved to me as a customer that they really had the same quality of engineering as Boeing. I don't know if anyone else had this kind of experience, but I can't imagine it didn't have some kind of indirect impact on their growth as a company.
Flying is a horrible experience no matter the aircraft type. Most customers haven't a clue what aircraft type they will fly on prior to boarding (anf many are oblivious for the entire flight). And, virtually no passenger would cancel a flight based on one aircraft type or another (737 Max is an exception).
@@charlesbruggmann7909nope. Boeing was always the quality standard until recently with the 737 max scandal. I was skeptical of Airbus until they released the A380.
We have flown from Australia to Europe or USA each year for the past 10 years. We have flown, in 747, 777, 787 and A380. The A380 is always comfortable excepting one occasion where the air conditioning failed to regulate. We also enjoy the A350. It’s interesting because when we first retired and started long haul holiday travel there was a saying. ‘If it’s not a Boeing I am not going” But believe me that has changed.
I remember the situation in the 1980's: Boeing had a monopoly on 4-engined widebodies, and many airlines paid a premium price to fly the "Queen of the skies". Boeing used this extra money to cross-subsidize their 737, 757, and 767 lineup in order to cut into the profit margins of the Airbus A310 and A320. Airbus tried to reverse this situation, unsuccessfully, but their A320, A330, and A350 are still selling well, maybe because they have continued to keep those engineers employed, instead of the firing and hiring mentality in the US?
The firing and hiring mentality has destroyed the American Aviation sector by making engineering knowledge through experience go down the drain by firing experienced and hiring young and inexperienced engineers with no mentors from the experienced ones just so they can save costs. The Jack Welsh mentality of American businesses is now slowly killing the American dream!
Don't forget Airbus' choices of engines usually pays off, except for the P&W geared fan. Considering the fact that newer Airbusmodels produce far less noise and are generally more economical for the money spent, it is an easy choice for non-American airlines to choose Airbus.
Boeing also had the development of the Stratocruiser and the B52 for the airforce, which paid for all the R&D.on the 707 and then the 747. Europe had nothing like this, thats why Airbus is produced by multiple countries, to cover the enormous costs in R&D. No one country, in Europe, could have afforded to go it alone. France assembles all the pieces for Airbus.
Aerospace Engineers are still employed in the US, but they tend to jump from company to company (starting after the cold war and deregulation). Its not hiring and firing, its mass layoffs and then mass hiring once a massive project starts up. Many of those engineers became contract workers because of that environment. They are supposed to be working about 6mo at a time before their contract gets renewed. If you play your cards right (overtime, per diem, choosing the right medical insurance, etc) the contract workers will make more than if you stuck it out with a company for the same amount of time. Why work years upon years just to have your promotion decided by a random group of peers, managers and higher ups, 3% nominal cost of living wage increases each year, and all of the bureaucracy when you can jump ship and command/negotiate your own salary and level.
THIS! People dont account for the huge gain in knowledge and the prevention of knowledge drain that Airbus enabled with this program. Meanwhile Boeing has the disaster with the 737-MAX and the whole company seems to be a huge mess. Their Starliner capsule that is supposed to go the the ISS was delayed for half a decade as well and still hasnt launched. The company is just rotting because they were too scared about taking some small losses. And yes I say 10-25B which is likely what Airbus lost on the whole program is small. Because Airbus has pretty consistent profits even with the A380 program. Lets assume Airbus would have had an extra ~500-700 million profits every year from 2000-2020.. Would the company be at a better place right now? Unlikely. Investors would have maybe gotten a slightly higher dividend. Thats it.
As a customer, I always appreciated the larger body size and quieter cabin. I always looked for an A380 fare over any other. The size was always mindboggling
As much of a financial failure it is, the plane will continue to cement its legacy as a marvel of amazing engineering and a favourite among most passengers who have flown on one. It’s a plane that still turns heads everywhere it goes. The A380 will always be my favourite plane for the fact it was unique. Full-double decker, quad-engined beauty that is a delight to fly on with its comfy, quiet and spacious cabin. I see as like the Concorde. Didn’t sell well but it always turned heads and it was a showcase of engineering at its finest. (Concorde was all about speed and style. The A380 is IMO, the epitome of class and luxury.)
The A380..what a beautiful joy to fly! On economy class is good, but the real experience is on Business class! The silence, the bar on the middle, the comfort! Exceptional! My dog approves it too! I believe there is no aircraft to beat the A380 in comfort for long distances fly! It changes the perspective of long haul flights! Just beautiful!
I was the ramp supervisor for Lufthansa for a couple years back when I got my start in aviation, and it never really sunk in just HOW massive she is. I'm 6' tall and always felt like an ant next to the engines 😂
@@cruisinguy6024 they do not, but the Rolls-Royce Trent 900s that power the A380 are larger than the Trent 800 that powers the B777 by a few inches. The only engine larger than that is the new GE9X on the B777X.
@@DAWesome_ I don’t think you’re comparing the Trents to the GE-90-115 on the 777-300ER, which has a max thrust in excess of 110,000lbf versus the Trent 900s with almost 40,000lbf less thrust (roughly 75k lbf). A 50% higher output from a smaller engine would be one hell of an engineering marvel. Given that the 777 is a twinjet is makes sense for the engines to be larger, just like the smaller 787 has physically larger engines than an A340 and 747.
@@Dirk-van-den-BergBoeing isn’t in shambles. Quit reading the bias headlines. My god, what a fool. I certainly invite a forensic inspection of Airbus. Boeings issues are industry wide and shared by all manufacturers. Testing, quality assurance and documentation are all challenges by all manufacturers.
@@thereissomecoolstuff Trying to insult someone else doesn't grant you a answer. Bye. Was planning to answer you, but you didn't plan to answer with respect.
My wife and I are flying across the pacific next month, I got us on an a330 then an a380 for the 13 hour leg. I’m very happy about this. Even managed to find tickets on a320/21 for short hauls. In the past I would have gone for Boeing planes especially the 787. Had to re evaluate.
The A380 may not have been the commercial success planned for, but it was the catalyst that changed the Airbus from the old GIE structure (four independent companies - Aérospatiale, Deutsch Airbus, BAE Systems and CASA each with its own and often competing political and commercial agendas), into a more typical company structure with a single management defining and driving its own strategy. Without this structure change, it’s very unlikely Airbus would have become the world beating company it is today.
Even thought the A380 was discontinues in 2021, Airbus has committed to supply parts and maintenance for at least 20 years. I am looking forward to fly on the A380 for many years to come.
The A380 problem were: 1) It was created having a strecth version in mind, so the -800 end up havier. 2) Engines were half generation behind. 3) The % destined for cargo is lower then the B773 for example.
Airbus also greatly overestimated demand, while underestimating the role that politics might play in keeping the A380 out of China. When production was stalled by the wiring problem, they should in hindsight have trimmed the plane's weight and updated the engines.
_"3) The % destined for cargo is lower then the B773 for example."_ quite obviously, because a 773 is a single-deck aircraft, so the cargo space is around half that of the passenger cabin (somewhat less in real terms) An A380 has two passenger decks positioned over a single cargo space, so the passenger-to-cargo area is 2/3 on an A380 and 1/2 on a 777.
@@theontologist If an A380 successor were launched today, it'd be a lot more viable. Global international travel demand has nearly doubled since the A380 was originally released, Amazon's overnight shipping has led to a sharp increase in demand for air freight, and India (a fifth of the world's population) has very congested runways, and premium carriers prefer double-decker jets for the superior customer experience.
THIS! The A380 was basically designed to get an upgrade relatively soon. That meant sadly that it was not really competitive and the benefits for airlines operating them just worth it. If they had started production and deliveries either a couple years earlier, when interest for such planes was higher in general, or later when better engines would have allowed for better fuel economy and decreased maintanance cost the A380 could have at least sold 400-500 units I think. The A380 we have today is basically the worst version it could be and it still sold 251 units and Emirates operates them with great success. They are just not feasable for many airlines sadly. Especially nowadays, where streamlining maintanance cost is much more important as well, which means most airlines operate only 1 type of aircraft, or have a limited range of aircrafts like using A319-321
I literally just flew in an Airbus 380 for the first time yesterday. I absolutely loved it! This was just after riding the same route (in reverse) in a 777 which was nowhere near as nice. The airbus was much quieter, the seats (though still economy and a 3, 4, 3 arrangement just like the 777) were wider with a significantly wider aisle. I don't have the luxury of choosing my aircraft when flying, but if I can ever select between an a380 vs a Boeing (even without all of the other issues Boeing is having) I would select the Airbus each time.
Just a thought - if the A380 was to keep airbus engineers busy, what are they doing now - A350 launch was several years ago now! I grew up near Hawrden and remember them dredging the Dee Estuary for the barges.
An A320 successor is in the early design phase, so are plans for multiple airplanes that run on hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel, with ideas floating around like using the CFM rise engines for the conventionally fueled ones.
Lot of incremental developments. Most notably the XLR, which is due to enter service soon. All aircraft are constantly undergoing design improvements and new minor variants. Alongside that there's a lot of development for future technologies such as hydrogen aircraft. Also not forgetting the 'aircraft of tomorrow' projects - the Wing of Tomorrow of which will begin testing in the UK soon of disruptive, advanced technologies!
Actually, the 747 started out to be a freighter. BA used early plans of what became the 747 as it's bid for an US Air Force Freighter. BA lost the contract; the C5A was chosen. So the 747 had freighter possibilities in its DNA.
Boeing did not lose the competition, there design was better and met the requirements, what became the C5A did not, it was over weight and they lightened the wing and fuselage to get weight down, then problems started and the early planes had to be reworked, heavier now. Certain people in Gov procurement had stated they would never give the contract to Boeing even if their design was better, and they paid for that ego trip, and Boeing did not waste the engineering time and money spent on the lost C5A contract, they built the more successful and capable 747...one of the first things Boeing did with the first 747 was to load it to its max capacity, which was more than the C5A and fly it to altitude to show the USAF they had F'd up choosing the other plane that became the C5A......
The first 747 deliveries were to PAN AM but Japan Airlines put in the first order. Most airlines were hesitant, thinking most major airports didn't want such a large plane and the sheer number of passengers in one hit... that is until the Japanese started ordering them!
The 747 shared nothing except for the engines with their proposed heavy transport aircraft for the military. For a start the wings are in a different place. Read the designer's book.
This is why the pilots sit on the upper deck of the 747. From the ground up, the 747 was designed to have a cargo door in the front that open vertically. A flight deck on the second floor was mechanically simpler than a flight deck that would pivot as the cargo door opened.
Actually Boeing never intend for the 747 to be so successful as supersonic jets like concord was expected to be the next big thing, it was meant to be a stopgap towards it. So when Pan Am came asking for a bigger jet than 707, the design team from the get go intended for 747 to be converted for cargo service later and with maximum cargo space.
I think that getting airports to adapt to the size of the A-380 was a flex by Airbus, if only in terms of marketing. In effect, airports had to take instructions from Airbus, even if indirectly via the airlines. I think that up to this point Airbus was seen as a builder of profitable commercial aircraft. After the A-380, Airbus was an indubitable leader in aerospace.
Could you look at the financial situation of the Boeing 787 in comparison? The programme has cost more than the A380 and despite selling over 1000.....they still haven't turned a profit
They had not made one for less than the sales price until about half way through the order book. The program cost was $34 billion by the time deliveries started. But the loss continued to grow. Call that 1000 aircraft and they need to make $34 million on each one. That's never going to happen.
Thats because the anticipated production cost was a lot lower than in reality. That meant on top of the 30billion of dev cost they lost 30billion on top for the first 1000 787.
Several years ago, just before the A380 started flying commercially, I was privileged to witness one of the best flying displays I've seen at the Farnborough Air Show. The A380 introduced herself coming in low and slow, climbing steeply then rolling out before completing a few circuits. She was huge, but performed incredibly.
I recall reading an article (perhaps in Business Week) sometime around the turn of the millennium, which argued that as long as Boeing had a monopoly on very large aircraft, that gave them a great deal of pricing power in that market, and they could undercut Airbus on prices of smaller jets, while charging more for 747s, since customers who needed an aircraft that large didn’t have any other choice. By launching a direct competitor to the 747, Airbus aimed to make their whole product lineup more competitive on price.
Without the A380, Airbus wouldn't have gathered all the experience it needed to make the rest of their aircrafts as competitive as they are today. The A380 was also some kind of very expensive marketing trick, that goes like: "look! we can do everything Boeing did, but even better. "
@@goldorakrak8939 This very true, the A320 was always successful but the massive numbers of the A320 have come from the Sharklet and NEO variants- both of which launched after the A380. The NEO is the fastest selling plane ever.
My first-ever plane ride was a Qantas 747-400 from here in Sydney, to Los Angeles. Setting aside the face-hurting grin from my first flight, first time overseas and first time meeting international friends, what I remember most was the thunderous noise from those four, mighty engines. That first trip exceeded all expectations and so the day I landed back in Sydney I began planning trip two and sixteen months later, I was on that same runway, this time in an A380. This time I was prepared for the massive roar of four huge turbofans and…. it never arrived. I felt the same push in the back, but the refinement was next-level. I could walk up and just grab snacks at the self-serve fridges, I had a large screen and decent space. To this day, it’s my go-to plane for long-haul flying and I’ve been on the A380 more than everything else combined (at the other end, shoutout to the wonderful little A220!). Whatever it failed to do on Airbus’s balance sheet, the A380 has delivered the best experience to and from many cherished memories and for that it’ll always be special to me. Now, if I could just afford to move upstairs….
In 1997, I attended a US DOT-sponsored symposium on these still paper-in-development aircraft types, where one of the events was a debate between Boeing and Airbus's product development and technical marketing people. Boeing had been asked to defend its no-go decision on the "Super-Jumbo." The aircraft that would compete with Airbus and be the follow-on to the retirement of the then classical Jumbo, the 747-400. Boeing's final argument was that its decision (to not build the super Jumbo) was based upon its analysis of the data that showed Boeing that notwithstanding any claimed analyses of the market (by Airbus et al.), the size of that market would not support two (2) manufacturers, furthermore, given the length of the development cycle (Boeing's) in the face of Airbus's clear lead in developing the Airbus plane and starting its manufacturing deliveries to operating customers. Boeing's competing product would be ready for marketing and sales deliveries precisely when it would have been recognized that no orders could be taken by a second airframe manufacturer. The market (in fact) was not there. Boeing was prescient in this calculation-based prediction. In the Airbus A-380 life cycle, the future customer base (fell to zero (0)) long before the last built aircraft was delivered. Regardless of the scale and scope of a Boeing Super-Jumbo program, Boeing's 1st-Quarter (1997) prediction of when (what year and Quarter) they would be able to open up firm-order books for such an aircraft turned out to have been exactly the year that Airbuses' A-380 ceased to receive new (virgin) firm orders.
This was one of the examples I had in a game theory class - since both Airbus and Boeing knew there was only room for one super jumbo, Airbus "won" by making an unbreakable commitment to build it, with the backing of EU gouvernements
With A380 Airbus has shown to be kings of the skies, and their care for passengers. That is the exact opposite to Boeing's insisting on B737 from the 1960-ies, withouth even stretching its landing gears, resulting in fatalities
@@grambo4436embraer? Bombardier(although I guess they did cuck to airbus). Comac(chinese). OAK the Russian one. The private jet market is pretty big. Honestly I think the jet market could be fixed with repealing IP law. It would allow smaller manufacturers to take shots at bigger manufacturers let alone making parts cheaper in general.
@@TheWizardGamez I mean its pretty clear he is talking about relevant passenger jets operated by affordable airlines. Surely he knows that he can buy a Cessna as well, but thats not really what this is about. Unless you are flying with "KLM Cityhopper" from UK to Netherlands, its unlikely you will fly anything but boeing or airbus in your life unless you of course actively want to and are willing to pay a premium to do so.
I watched this episode with interest as I used to work for Boeing at the time these events were unfolding. I was able to go to a "town hall" hosted by then CEO Phil Condit. By this time Airbus had not yet committed to the A380, and but they and Boeing had concluded their joint studies. I ask Condit, "Do you want Airbus to build that superjumbo?" He replied without a moment's hesitation, and a slight smile on his face, "Yes I do!" He then went on to say, "The easy thing to do would be to match them, but we don't think that's where the market is going. We think there will be increasing demand for point to point services like we're seeing domestically." Those are direct quotes and you can publish them for what it's worth. I knew from that moment on that the jig was up. Whether or not Boeing "tricked" Airbus not-with standing, it was clear to me that Boeing thought Airbus was making a big mistake - which they were. Boeing built the 787 instead and Airbus was years late with the A350. By the way, it's my recollection that Boeing expressed the expected market for an A380 to be about 550 planes - I don't recall a number as high as 800 coming from Boeing.
I mean at the end of the day it didnt matter much. Airbus started to massively eat up the Marketshare of the 737 since 2000. Boeing used to sell often 2-3x the amount of planes in a year from 1990 to 2000, but they started to deliver less planes throughout the next decade. the A380 can at worst be considered an expensive side project for Airbus. I don't think Airbus would have massively sped up the release of the A350 if they decided to drop the A380. And the A380 was always going to be a prestige project and Airbus knew this very well. Maybe it would have made Airbus a small amount of money if they were able to sell 500-1000 of them, but reality is that Airbus never expected to make much money here. Funny enought the A380 seems to have kinda revived the interest for the 747 for a while as well when Airbus started to deliver their them in relevantnumbers from 2012-2018 Reality is that the A320 and the 737 are the big cashcows for both Airbus and Boeing and all the other planes arent really making them a lot of profit. Thats true for the 787 and the A350 as well, and would still be true if the A350 was 2-3 years earlier. Especially in recent years they made up for ~75% of their sold planes and with high numbers you get better efficiency, thus better profit margins.
In my opinion, it is better to withdraw a working plane due to lack of customers than to forcefully keep a plane that is constantly plagued by service faults. Don't get me wrong, both manufacturers have phenomenal machines, but the lack of proper servicing and quality control at the expense of profits and human lives should not occur.
Of course people do. Basically they don't understand f.e. MCAS. And now every issue x with airbus is hardly talked about. The same issue with Boeing however...
@@RoelandJansen If you have proof that Airbus suffers from comparable mistakes/blunders/screwups, please start your own channel or join another channel or this one to present them.
I don't even know what this is a reference to. Manufacturers don't have the ability to force airlines to fly planes plagued by service faults and it is the operators/owners whom are ultimately responsible of maintaining the airworthiness of their aircraft through proper servicing.
Petter, you are truly a master of aviation. When it comes to aviation and aviation topics, it's really nice to sit back and listen to you talk and explain, like a true teacher and professional. Thank you for your time creating these videos.
As an AvGeek I Absolutely love the A380, and would very much like Global to succeed, however, I just can’t see how it business model work. With it high operating costs and not particularly good at filling cargo in the bellly, they have to solely relying upon passengers number to make a profit, it would be difficult to fill and other airlines won’t allow them to happens.
I also agree. As much as I love the A380 and the 747 but, I'm also unsure of how it would be successful with Global Airlines, thought I'd love it to succeed with Global Airlines. They actually axed the A380 Freighter wayyy back
This is why it will work: depreciation. Global's aircraft are dirt-cheap, meaning that the depreciation charges on their P&L will be next to nothing = profit. I'm sticking with my prediction that Global will grow up to about a dozen A380s, serving more than Trans-Atlantic routes. They'll need scale when, in 15 years' time, they'll need to replace their fleet, paying full-price.
Its operating costs and cargo is in proportion to its size, the point of it is to use in a hub-and-spoke airline model to reduce the number of airport slots required, which was the limiting factor for most large airlines when it was designed (and still is for several) by reducing the number of aircraft required. It failed financially because of the economic boom in east asia resulting in a lot of moderate traffic between a lot of new destinations, which results in heavy demand for new small aircraft, rather than continued growth in the west that would have lead to more demand for large aircraft. It's already predicted that a similar aircraft will be desired again in probably 10 years; it just was not worth maintaining A380 production facilities waiting for that opportunity decades away, versus retooling to increase A320 and A350 capacity. Whether it's worth designing a sequel aircraft when the demand starts to return is a different and very risky question to ask; I could imagine airbus coming out with something between A350 and A380 in 15-20 years, if they think the demand spike will be long-term, but that's a big if.
@@well-blazeredman6187Correct. Global is getting these A380s for pennies on the dollar because there’s a glut of used 380s on the market. It may be expensive to operate per hour, but the low acquisition costs can offset that. I can’t count out Global at this point.
@@well-blazeredman6187 just because an aircraft is cheaper to buy, does not mean that maintenance and the operating cost is a whole lot. You would definitely be the type of person to buy a 20 year old BMW or Mercedes because "if the price is so cheap, it must be cheap to own"
A380 is by far the best passenger aircraft ever built. It is an engineering marvel, man and machine in perfect harmony. I hope someday we get to see a successor from Airbus to the super jumbo.
Although it didn't sell as well as was hoped the A380 program was used to test so many new ideas like new manufacturing processes and new materials it drastically reduced the cost of the A350 development program and improved airbus manufacturing processes
@@davidgenie-ci5zl With Antonov effectively out of the game for the next decade, those freighter versions (a 900 variant) might be a good option for heavy cargo.
@@AppleGoodman Correct. Their business model is old-school full fare for the most part, and for those who have money and like to travel, they gladly pay it as it is faster, safer, and dramatically less money to fly this way than own your own jet.
No one is willing to spend the money to re-engine the A380, and it's very hard to imagine a scenario where this would change. There simply are not enough A380's in existance to make such a program financially viable.
Nobody will buy or use 4 engine planes anymore.... as they consume more fuel and more maintenance needed for 4 engines... Older 4 engine 747s are being scrapped and very few left on Cargo 747-400F... 7 or 8 years and last A380 will fly... I love A380 ...best travel experience and cabin comfort and quiet... But airlines don't care what passengers think. They will buy more 787s and add 9 seats per row... who knows Emirates and other middle eastern airlines may add 11 seats per row on 777-9X
Don’t really think Airbus lost on A380, A380 was truly a next generation aircraft and Airbus gained a lot from its development in terms of R&D, many of which innovations have been used in A350 and A320 Neo. Also cemented its name of a prominent manufacturer alongside Boeing.
I will endure slightly longer flight times from Korea to Europe and fly with Emirates just to be on this plane. Even in economy, A and K in 61 and 81 are worth paying a little extra for. But flying business, on the A380, with the bar, is something else.
They gained so much experience with the engineering, constructing and building the A380. They used their knowlege to build the superior A350. So they learned the very hard way, but now they are sold out for the next ten years and Boeing wants to fire 17.000 employes next year.
flown on an a380 one time and it was great. Sat in the middle of the middle seats and I'm larger than average guy, but I could've been on the aisle seat, I didn't feel cramped at all.
Sometimes, you have to show off your prestige to increase customer confidence Technically a financial bust, but marketably a success And marketing is an expensive department, never ever is a direct product you sell
Great video as always, with just a couple of corrections; you made it sound like the A320 was developed prior to the A310. Sadly that is not correct since the A310 flew a full five years before the world’s best narrow made its maiden flight. Nor do I think it was accurate to suggest that airports had to increase runway length to accommodate the A380. While it was still under development, there was a suggestion that the minimum runway width that the type could use would be 60 metres in order to prevent erosion from forward/reverse thrust use of the outboard engines that were an unprecedented distance apart. Ultimately though, Airbus conceded that that was probably too large an impost on airport operators. Since the outboard engines were high enough off the ground to mitigate significant erosion with forward thrust, Airbus decided to remove reverse thrust capability from those engines (as reverse thrust downward flow can cause significant erosion). This didn’t adversely affect runway performance since for most reject/landing situations, reverse thrust credit is not considered.
That sounds like you are referring to a330neo and a350 sharing a rating? It seems very unlikely that the original a330 series and the far newer a350 share a rating.
@@imrevadasz1086 this is a fact, and what is written in my EASA license😎 The type rating is common for A330 & A350, but not for the A340 which has 4 engines as you may know. I only fly 330 ATM
A380 sales weren't helped by ICAO creating new categories to apply to it. Airbus expected it to get the same ratings as the 747-400 (4E and Heavy), while the A380 was finally given the 4F and Super ratings, which required more separation. Airports had to make changes to taxiways and other on ground infrastructure because of that 4F rating, while the Super classification required additional spacing in the air because of wake turbulence, which then slowed down throughput at airports due to the increased gaps after an A380 movement. The 747-8 and 777-9 have also been given the 4F rating, but nothing else has (yet?) been given the Super rating.
I saw an A380 live. As in still wrapped in its airbus livery while doing the world tour I believe. It was majestic. Or atleast that's what my 12 y/o self thought looking out of the window of my tiny plane
I loved this plane before she ever flew, I remember checking the “A380 Navigator” for the latest announcements during development. Hope I will get to fly on her at least once more.
On which level? The 380 was meant for the hub-model, and to accomodate a larger number of passengers. Concorde was just a playtoy for the happy few. No matter the cost of a ticket, the rich and famous would buy tickets for a ride no matter what. The fatal accident sealed its fate. The 380 never has had a (near)fatal mistake.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg The A380 is still mostly for very rich customers. The main operator of the A380 is Emirates. Last time I checked they werent offering cheap tickets. And I think he meant that while both failed to stay relevant in the market they were both amazing technological achievments and are iconic and everyone on the planet knows these planes and is impressed by them (maybe not everyone in china/india/north korea, but you get what I'm trying to say). Making that connection isnt all that hard is it.
Well, karma bit them back hard if so. The initial 787 delays, the 737 Max crashes and production delays, the recent 787 production delays, and also the 777-9 delays. I'd say overall since 2006, they've been financially wounded in a way that Airbus have not.
U forgot about "magic smoke" in 787 right after deployment on line. 777X is delay now 3+ years, if they don't deliver first to Emirates it's possible they lost order. They have 20 bulid without counting proto/cert. (3 ANA, 5 LH, 3 Qatar, 9 Emirates)
The A380 would never have been built had Airbus been a fully publicly traided company answering to shareholders. Even the most optomistic analysis in the 90s showed that the overall lifetime market for an aircraft like the A380 would be around 800 planes, with a break even point of approximately 650 aircraft. Boeing guessed less wrong that the more profitable play would be smaller long range aircraft flying point to point, rather than super long range to large hubs. Unfortunately, Boeing has fumbled the ball after calling the right play.
You're right, so many people love the A380. I do too. I'd gladly pay a little extra for the ticket to fly on an A380 instead of the common A32 / B73. Also love the A35 for some reason.
Even though it wasn't profitable for Airbus, the A380 feels just overengineered enough that they could be in service for decades, doing just about anything asked of them. So from an airline point of view they could be a very good investment long-term.
No, they aren't. Not flying fully loaded they just drain money. I went to Lourdes some days ago and Tarmac has a lot of A380s from airlines standing around there.
Your leaving out the 4 engines and heavy weight and heavy fuel burn and limited number of gates and smaller airports hating the a380 because they were a hazard to taxi around the airport due to taxiways not designed for her. JFK had to stop traffic around the area of a taxing A380.
@@miskatonic6210 "Not flying fully loaded they just drain money." That goes for just about any commercial jet liner. It is true that the A380 needs a little higher occupancy rate than other airliners (from all manufacturers including Airbus and depending on ticket price), but the larger A380 operators make pretty decent money with them.
I was fortunate enough to have a guided tour of the A380 wing manufacture, packaging and transport at the UK plant in Broughton. It was an amazing experience. I was astonished to see how much human effort and how little automation and robotics were involved in the process.
It may have been a financial flop, but I think it at least established a reputation for Airbus among the flying public, of an Boeing competitor that was here to stay and willing to swim with the sharks. They were still relative newbies to the market when the A380 started development. It’s certainly worked for them as I often hear people waxing lyrical about the A380 passenger experience, so much so that having flown multiple A350s and several A380s, I think the A380 in that regard is a bit overhyped. The A350 is also roomy, quiet and smooth in flight, but I haven’t heard of anyone going out of their way to ensure their long-haul flight is on an A350, like they seem to do for the A380.
I was part of the VLA (Very Large Aircraft) Boeing/Airbus study, looking at passenger handling and airport infrastructure particularly. Boeing at the time as I remember was unconvinced that aircraft of the A380 size made sense. The market was evolving from hub/spoke to direct service as the end of government regulation worked it way through the industry. As I recall, something like 70% of long range 747 routes were less than daily service.
For all it’s worth…. I live in a city whose airport supports A380 landings and they look absolutely great in person. That said they don’t land here anymore because the only airline that sent them had been British Airways and they don’t anymore. Everyone who isn’t in charge of airline finances seem to love them. In fact our airport had a celebration the first time one landed. I think it helped to boost their company reputation. I would like go on a flight in one tho. I’m sure airlines make informed decisions about what is most efficient, but everytime I go visit relatives the flight is oversold by more than a dozen seats and we have to wait for them to find people wiling to accept vouchers. I’ve specifically tried to shop for it when going to Europe- because they do send them to another airport in our country that’s common for connecting flights. But they’re quite rare 😅
I guess Boeing hoped that A380 would become a big fail, but that didnt happen, in reality the A380 was a statement to show the equivalence of the industries in US and EU.
Still think ending A380 production was a mistake, at some point there's going to be a resurgence in airtraffic and slots at major airports are going to be congested being able to use large aircraft to make the most of them will be valuable, plus with more modern engines I think it could be efficient enough... the problem was that it took a whole world wide boom cycle to get around and build support for building it just in time for the economy to crash. Not engineering the A380 to work as a freighter was also a huge wasted oppourtunity!
I don't think so, the middle classes are fading into poverty as the owners shift the economy in favor of themselves. Where are the massive numbers of people going to come from to fund hi capacity operations in the future? The wealthy are going to give the economy back?
Nearly all of the world's population growth is in developing countries. The population of developed nations is near zero or negative (shrinking). So aside from China (which is approaching zero growth) and India, there isn't going to be much increase in passenger demand due to population growth. The increase in demand is going to come mostly from economic development - people become wealthier so more of them can afford to fly. But economic development means it becomes economical to build more airports. Meaning the point-to-point model is going to continue to win out over the hub-and-spoke model. Also note that the hub-and-spoke model actually aggravates limited landing slots - planes flying in on spokes still need to land. If there are limited slots, the only real fix is to shift traffic to another airport like the point-to-point model does (or build more runways). The freighter A380 doesn't work that well because it's difficult to load the upper deck. The 747 freighter is designed so the nose swings up, giving full access to the entire main fuselage for loading cargo. (In fact that was the original reason why the 747 put the cockpit on a second deck.)
Because airlines don’t want 4 engine airplanes and Airbus made a massive mistake by over engineering the wings so that they could stretch it even more in future variants. The A380 makes 0 financial sense due to its fuel burn and heavy weight and 4 engines.
A380 was perfect for the LHR-SİN route. Especially in the early days when they still had Premium Economy upstairs. (I think SQ refitted the upper cabin as Business Class, which put paid to that.) SQ321(!) or SQ319 were the best for outbound timing.
I was in the room when Alan Mullally announced the NLA (New Large Airplane) to R&D. When he mentioned the passenger capacity, there was a collective gasp.
Re-engine the A380 with no other changes made might be viable for Emirates to extend the life of their A380s and help Airbus to reduce the overall loss of the programme. There were odd occasions in history that an aircraft is only re-engine with no other changes, such as the 707 with CFM-56. Of course, most re-engine versions of aircrafts come with other changes as well, as we have seen in Neos from Airbus and many Boeing aircrafts. Probably, introducing other changes to the A380 would be too expensive and not financially viable as Emirates would be the only one to do it (though with its huge fleet of almost half of all A380s ever come into existence). Moreover, only re-engining with no other changes made is already more than sufficient enough to make huge efficiency gains to the A380. The Trent 900 was already outdated as it entered service, with the Trent 1000 miles ahead of it. The A380 came out at a wrong time in terms of engine technology. With the upcoming Rolls Royce UltraFan, we can expect 20-25% of efficiency gains just by changing the engines. It’s not exactly a bad idea to re-engine the A380.
A re-engine on such a large and technologically advanced aircraft costs a fortune, it needs to be re-certified and would require extensive changes for the engine control systems on the aircraft. It's a completely different situation to a much smaller and far more basic aircraft like a 707. There's simply too few of them built sadly, it would most likely just further increases losses. Efficiency improvements would be on the order of a few % The ultrafan is still a long way off.
@@iannitert8849 The only changes in the engine control systems need to be in the new engines, thus giving complete compatibility as far as the aircraft itself is concerned (same thrust for the same settings in the cockpit, just less fuel burned so less fuel that needs to be loaded and lifted).
Aside from a PPL, I’m a mechanical design engineer who works in aerospace. About 16 years ago I worked for a company on Long Island who was one of the sub contracted vendors for many of the frozen planning/safety critical components of the A388. In particular we Methodized and manufactured the upper/lower Lock Links and Upper/Lower Drag brace assemblies for the main body gear… yeah at the time we thought we’d have that contract in perpetuity for a good 25 years 😣.
The issue with a NEO is it wouldn't solve the underlying issue of the plane being quadjet in an era where quadjets are not viable. Would have needed a massive redesign to turn it into a twin. Plus a huge efficiency / weight saving program (likely with a new wing & perhaps folding tips to increase the wingspan).
I worked for Boeing in the 2000's and the feeling in the office was that Boeing was trying to sucker Airbus into launching the A380 program. Airbus just couldn't stop the program once it got started without losing face, which is what we in the office was thinking Boeing management wanted. The fact that Airbus started the A350 program makes me think they knew early on that the A380 wasn't going to be the cash cow they hoped for. The A350 is a wonderful plane and Airbus should have concentrated on that all along.
Obviously, the A380 was no mistake. It should have trickled down by now, that Airbus is playing the long game. The A380 was basically a case study. It was also the endgame in one of the largest p*****g contests ever, and the A380 is the very reason it was ultimately won by Airbus. Looking at Airbus now, its hard to imagine that they have been the underdog for so long. But when they decided to build the A380, they still were the inferior contender compared to Boeing. People were unsure if they could actually pull something to the extent of the 747 off. To overtake Boeing, they needed to show the world that basically there is nothing they could not build. They needed to show, that they could "one up" Boeing if they wanted to. They needed to show that they were capable of building the best aircraft in the world. And boy did they do that. The A380, might not have been a huge financial success on its own, but it sits at the very core of what Airbus is today, and by that account it really is priceless in the best possible sense. It is an absolutely iconic airframe, and there is good reason that it is the one plane in the world that people are really connecting to. Not only is it bigger than the 747, it is a classic Airbus, in the sense that the vast space inside actually benefits the people flying in it. It is a plane that shows what modern aviation is capable of in terms of comfort and refinement. For that very reason its the one plane that people were actually missing when it went out of commission during the corona crisis. And there is good reason it got resurrected. What a story. There literally is no airplane like it. To truly become the prime aircraft manufacturer, Airbus needed the A380. And it did perform exactly as planned. If in doubt, look at where they are now.
@@iannitert8849 Funny you should say that, since that's exactly how a money focused company like Boeing would see it. Don't get me wrong, Airbus wants to earn money too, there is no doubt about that. But their focus is different and ultimately closer to reality. Running a business is only in part a numbers game, and in return, those numbers will only tell you so much. Sure, if you look what the development did cost and how many planes they sold, there is a gap there. But that's not how it works. Running a succesful business requires the art of using mixed calculations. Yes, the project in itself "burned" money if you will. But if you factor in what Airbus learned in terms of engineering expertise, how many customers Airbus convinced since then to make the switch to the manufactuer who indeed "can do it all and do it all better than Boeing", what Airbus learned about their customers and their own portfolio by being in a position to offer a full spectrum of planes, then the picture changes drastically. That "burned" money now is nothing more but an investment in the future of the company, made with money that Airbus did allocate for that very purpose, and by now it paied for itself 10 times over. And again, if you don't believe me, look at where Airbus is now.
@iannitert8849 Funny you should say that, since that's exactly how a money focused company like Boeing would see it. Don't get me wrong, Airbus wants to earn money too, there is no doubt about that. But their focus is different and ultimately closer to reality. Running a business is only in part a numbers game, and in return, those numbers will only tell you so much. Sure, if you look what the development did cost and how many planes they sold, there is a gap there. But that's not how it works in the long run. Next to a good company culture, good payment of the employees etc etc., running a succesful business requires the art of using mixed calculations. Yes, the project in itself burned money. But if you factor in what Airbus learned in terms of engineering expertise, how many customers Airbus convinced since then to make the switch to the manufactuer who indeed "can do it all and do it all better than Boeing", what Airbus learned about their customers and their own portfolio by being in a position to offer a full spectrum of planes, then the picture changes drastically. That "burned" money now is nothing more but an investment in the future of the company, and by now it paied for itself 10 times over. And again, if you don't believe me, look at where Airbus is now.
Also even the A380 could not sell in high numbers but it became the passengers favorite and it earned Airbus a reputation. With boeing now in trouble and is unable to deliver planes, Airbus is booking big orders and delivering planes so that would compensate for their earlier efforts, you may disagree with this but thats just what I think.
I've been saying this since when the A380 was first proposed. The 747 wasn't a double-decker to add more passenger capacity. Boeing put the cockpit on a second deck so the freighter version could be quickly loaded from the front by swinging the nose up. The extra passenger seats on the second deck were an afterthought (usually only 10-12 seats), which airlines eventually grew to like (who would've guessed that first class passengers liked being separated from the riff raff). Almost since the 747 was first introduced, every few years Boeing would ask the airlines if they wanted a full double-decker version of the 747. And every time the airlines would tell them no. Then suddenly the A380 was proposed, and a half dozen airlines "enthusiastically" signed up for a full double-decker? That made no sense. It seemed more likely that the tail was wagging the dog - Airbus wanted to build the A380, and was probably using kickbacks and bribes to "convince" airlines that they wanted it. This breaks the cardinal rule that "the customer is always right (about what they want to buy)." The weak demand for the A380 bore this out. In contrast, the initial proposal for the A350 was as a 787 competitor. The airlines rebelled. They wanted a 777 competitor, since the A340 was completely non-competitive. So Airbus went back to the drawing board, and redesigned the A350 a little bigger to slot between the 787 and 777. As a result the A350 has been a massive success. Things simply work better when you listen to what your customers say they want to buy, rather than telling your customers what they should buy.
I love the A380. My wife and I have flown from Manchester UK to Auckland NZ return a total of 14 times now, always with Emirates via Dubai on their A380s. Originally with one stop on the second leg in Australia, but since Emirates introduced their direct service from Dubai to Auckland we've taken that route. This 17 hour leg is tolerable in economy only because the A380 is such a comfortable roomy plane, and Emirates cabin staff are second to none.
Does anyone know how YT determines how often one gets ads.....the time of day? The popularity of the channel? How many people are watching? It must be a pretty amazing algorithm that does that (and determining which ads to show to who of course).
The A380 is a marvel of engineering and a pleasure to travel on. In marketing we talk of the halo effect, when a flagship model enhances the brand/company image. This is such an example.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code MENTOUR:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/novium_mentour
UK & Europe: bit.ly/noviumeu_mentour
The A380 makes the B52, BUFF, look like a beauty queen!
I remember thinking, & it seemed to be what most people thought at the time, when Airbus was developing the A380, it was kind of like a car manufacturer's concept car. Unlike a concept car, it actually went into production, but like a concept car, it wasn't expected to make money directly, but was there to raise Airbus prestige & to show, what they could do.
Do a video about the controls in the A380 that was my dream plane
Boeing has huge military Business Units that guzzle hundreds of billion of taxpayer money. They make state-of-the-art planes for the military and they don't have to care about profitability: taxpayer will pay. Nevertheless, the technologies & experience accumulated drip down to the civilian aviation BUs, which is structurally unfair for Airbus.
Airbus turned into military programs as well, but is still a beginner in the field with almost no flagships to show (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Defense,_Space_%26_Security).
Honestly, I still can't understand how a company which built the B52, the B2, bought the companies that made F15, F22 (etc), and launched the B737 during the sixties, is now being superseded by a coalition of small & scattered european aircraft builders.
If it was not for big programs like 380 or Concorde, Airbus would have never stood a chance to compete with the skills and technologies of a giant like Boeing. Not only did they make a spectacular tech & exp° ramp-up, they also learned to work as one single company.
@sparky6086 as a passenger, I love the A380, it is a great aircraft! No Boeing comes close, not even the 747 that was my favorite aircraft before the A380.
Airbus might have lost money with the A380
But it's stellar records helped airbus' reputation and made it a passenger favourite.
Yes, but it’s a financial disaster.. but I agree, it’s a wonderful aircraft
@@MentourNow Not as bad as it seems. It lost about 10 Billion if at all. But without it the A350 would have never worked the same and would be a sgood as it is. There were a lot of young engineers which learned a lot from the A380, whole new toolsets really transformed it. And it also killed the 747-8. You just can't evaluate such a program only financially without also considering als this
@@Infiltator2 The A380 did not "kill" the B747. The same market forces doomed both aircraft - the B747 would have ended production regardless of whether the A380 was built or not.
@@Infiltator2 also... data... you can bet your backside off that Airbus engineers have every files relative to this beauty making, fixing, flying etc etc, in their computers and will use them for future endeavors... (like the A400M, costly, but errors made one time and fixed are a lesson for the next projects)
@@kolerick I know that they did. And it helped massivly on the A350. with only 2 years of delay for the first flight
Airbus may have lost money with the A380, but they gained a great reputation and a great brand image; which holds more value imo
I see a couple people claiming that but I sort of wonder if that has played out in terms of business numbers. It certainly got them the attention of the wider public but the public doesn't buy aircraft, airlines and freight companies do. I wonder if there is any evidence of airlines buying more of aiibus's other aircraft.
No they didnt. Stop lying. They got butts kicked
This may have helped in that, but I think Airbus' current position and fortunes benefitted more from Boeing self-destructing.
@@Valpo2004i don’t think it will be immediate but when you see websites popping up allowing people to check if their aircraft will be a Boeing out of fear of a door falling off….
@@imonymous The first revenue flight of an A380 happened on October 25, 2007. That’s not even 17 years ago. Although 787s were grounded from January to April 2013 due to battery problems, Boeing‘s perception with the flying public didn’t take a hit from that. This changed for the worse after the 737 Max crashes in late 2018 and early 2019.
I’m an aircraft systems engineer and I can vouch that bored/underutilized engineers can come up with wild concepts, many of which probably shouldn’t be developed, let alone manufactured and produced. But good on Airbus for this magnificent aircraft. Having flown on them, they are truly remarkable in nearly every way.
The A380, while possibly being a financial blunder, is my absolute favourite plane ever. It's amazing. Usually, I fly from Korea to the UK with Emirates just to fly on it. Spacious, quiet and with layouts that aren't squashed together for monetary reasons. Amazing plane, end of.
Wow, that's dedication to the A-380 😀👍🏻
Agree with axelBR1: My first A380 flight was Oct23 (Manchester - DXB - Kuala Lumpur). It was so quiet and comfortable I decided to fly Emirates again to Tokyo this year via Dubai rather than direct on Lufthansa 748.
Me2... the most comfortable aircraft for long haul will always be the amazing A380
And me as well. I'm flying to Europe in a couple of weeks - on a Emirates A380. They were the second lowest fare - lowest was Qatar with an A350 (which I'd like to fly on some time) but the A380 tempted me...
Same here, specifically picked the A380 over 777 when flying SIN-LHR last month on Singapore Airlines.
It was a better experience than flying 777 long haul.
I had a chat with a flight attendant on an Emirates flight. She told me that even though she had to serve more passengers on the A380 she still preferred to fly on it over the 777 any day. What a praise for that aircraft.
I heard some say the same thing a few days ago. Everyone loves to fly on the A380.
@@Beensash Its so quiet and comfortable, I love that plane
@@Beensashand I have heard the opposite. /shrug
The A380, whole a financial flop, was actually the aircraft that gave me as a customer confidence in Airbus as a manufacturer. Growing up, I had never heard of Airbus and when I first flew on one I was honestly a little shook. However, they shortly afterwards released the A380, which proved to me as a customer that they really had the same quality of engineering as Boeing. I don't know if anyone else had this kind of experience, but I can't imagine it didn't have some kind of indirect impact on their growth as a company.
Surely you mean « a better quality of engineering » than Boeing?
Yes correct. A380 gave airbus pride and lot of us started following airbus or even started following aviation world only after leaning about A380
Flying is a horrible experience no matter the aircraft type. Most customers haven't a clue what aircraft type they will fly on prior to boarding (anf many are oblivious for the entire flight). And, virtually no passenger would cancel a flight based on one aircraft type or another (737 Max is an exception).
@@charlesbruggmann7909nope. Boeing was always the quality standard until recently with the 737 max scandal. I was skeptical of Airbus until they released the A380.
Although passengers aren't really Airbus or Boeing customers, I do get what you mean.
We have flown from Australia to Europe or USA each year for the past 10 years. We have flown, in 747, 777, 787 and A380. The A380 is always comfortable excepting one occasion where the air conditioning failed to regulate. We also enjoy the A350. It’s interesting because when we first retired and started long haul holiday travel there was a saying. ‘If it’s not a Boeing I am not going” But believe me that has changed.
I remember the situation in the 1980's: Boeing had a monopoly on 4-engined widebodies, and many airlines paid a premium price to fly the "Queen of the skies". Boeing used this extra money to cross-subsidize their 737, 757, and 767 lineup in order to cut into the profit margins of the Airbus A310 and A320. Airbus tried to reverse this situation, unsuccessfully, but their A320, A330, and A350 are still selling well, maybe because they have continued to keep those engineers employed, instead of the firing and hiring mentality in the US?
The firing and hiring mentality has destroyed the American Aviation sector by making engineering knowledge through experience go down the drain by firing experienced and hiring young and inexperienced engineers with no mentors from the experienced ones just so they can save costs. The Jack Welsh mentality of American businesses is now slowly killing the American dream!
Don't forget Airbus' choices of engines usually pays off, except for the P&W geared fan. Considering the fact that newer Airbusmodels produce far less noise and are generally more economical for the money spent, it is an easy choice for non-American airlines to choose Airbus.
Boeing also had the development of the Stratocruiser and the B52 for the airforce, which paid for all the R&D.on the 707 and then the 747. Europe had nothing like this, thats why Airbus is produced by multiple countries, to cover the enormous costs in R&D. No one country, in Europe, could have afforded to go it alone. France assembles all the pieces for Airbus.
Aerospace Engineers are still employed in the US, but they tend to jump from company to company (starting after the cold war and deregulation). Its not hiring and firing, its mass layoffs and then mass hiring once a massive project starts up. Many of those engineers became contract workers because of that environment. They are supposed to be working about 6mo at a time before their contract gets renewed. If you play your cards right (overtime, per diem, choosing the right medical insurance, etc) the contract workers will make more than if you stuck it out with a company for the same amount of time. Why work years upon years just to have your promotion decided by a random group of peers, managers and higher ups, 3% nominal cost of living wage increases each year, and all of the bureaucracy when you can jump ship and command/negotiate your own salary and level.
THIS! People dont account for the huge gain in knowledge and the prevention of knowledge drain that Airbus enabled with this program.
Meanwhile Boeing has the disaster with the 737-MAX and the whole company seems to be a huge mess. Their Starliner capsule that is supposed to go the the ISS was delayed for half a decade as well and still hasnt launched. The company is just rotting because they were too scared about taking some small losses.
And yes I say 10-25B which is likely what Airbus lost on the whole program is small. Because Airbus has pretty consistent profits even with the A380 program. Lets assume Airbus would have had an extra ~500-700 million profits every year from 2000-2020.. Would the company be at a better place right now? Unlikely. Investors would have maybe gotten a slightly higher dividend. Thats it.
As a customer, I always appreciated the larger body size and quieter cabin.
I always looked for an A380 fare over any other.
The size was always mindboggling
As much of a financial failure it is, the plane will continue to cement its legacy as a marvel of amazing engineering and a favourite among most passengers who have flown on one. It’s a plane that still turns heads everywhere it goes.
The A380 will always be my favourite plane for the fact it was unique. Full-double decker, quad-engined beauty that is a delight to fly on with its comfy, quiet and spacious cabin.
I see as like the Concorde. Didn’t sell well but it always turned heads and it was a showcase of engineering at its finest. (Concorde was all about speed and style. The A380 is IMO, the epitome of class and luxury.)
True.But 747 changed History and remains the 🐐.
ETOPS "Engine Turns Or Passengers Swim"
Bro that is the first comment in a long time that actually made me laugh out load
😂😂😂
😅
Four engine airliners are a thing of the past.
Twins can fly safely anywhere in the world.
@@alanstevens1296 nobody said otherwise. But if one engine fails, when it comes to that remaining engine - "Engine Turns Or Passengers Swim"
The A380..what a beautiful joy to fly! On economy class is good, but the real experience is on Business class! The silence, the bar on the middle, the comfort! Exceptional! My dog approves it too!
I believe there is no aircraft to beat the A380 in comfort for long distances fly! It changes the perspective of long haul flights! Just beautiful!
Couldn't agree with you more! Had back to back A380 and 777 BC flights, and the A380 was in a class of its own.
@@WillemFickswitching from A380 to 777 on consecutive legs is just cruel, I've been there
I was the ramp supervisor for Lufthansa for a couple years back when I got my start in aviation, and it never really sunk in just HOW massive she is. I'm 6' tall and always felt like an ant next to the engines 😂
Does Lufthansa operate 777-300ERs? Her engines are quite a bit larger.
@@cruisinguy6024 No they don’t, LH Cargo operates the 77F and Lufthansa ordered 777X but well…
@@cruisinguy6024 they do not, but the Rolls-Royce Trent 900s that power the A380 are larger than the Trent 800 that powers the B777 by a few inches. The only engine larger than that is the new GE9X on the B777X.
@@DAWesome_ I don’t think you’re comparing the Trents to the GE-90-115 on the 777-300ER, which has a max thrust in excess of 110,000lbf versus the Trent 900s with almost 40,000lbf less thrust (roughly 75k lbf). A 50% higher output from a smaller engine would be one hell of an engineering marvel.
Given that the 777 is a twinjet is makes sense for the engines to be larger, just like the smaller 787 has physically larger engines than an A340 and 747.
@@cruisinguy6024 you're right, my apologies. I was misinformed.
Airbus seem to learn a lot from the development of the A380 and it seems to have helped them make better informed choices moving forward
Absolutely right. I kind of alluded to that in response to a previous comment.
With Boeing being in shambles now, Airbus could try to develop the freigtherversion.
@@Dirk-van-den-BergBoeing isn’t in shambles. Quit reading the bias headlines. My god, what a fool. I certainly invite a forensic inspection of Airbus. Boeings issues are industry wide and shared by all manufacturers. Testing, quality assurance and documentation are all challenges by all manufacturers.
@@thereissomecoolstuff Trying to insult someone else doesn't grant you a answer. Bye. Was planning to answer you, but you didn't plan to answer with respect.
Wasting $25B will give you a lot of perspective.
380 is by far the best aeroplane I have ever experienced. Next generation
My wife and I are flying across the pacific next month, I got us on an a330 then an a380 for the 13 hour leg. I’m very happy about this. Even managed to find tickets on a320/21 for short hauls. In the past I would have gone for Boeing planes especially the 787.
Had to re evaluate.
The A380 may not have been the commercial success planned for, but it was the catalyst that changed the Airbus from the old GIE structure (four independent companies - Aérospatiale, Deutsch Airbus, BAE Systems and CASA each with its own and often competing political and commercial agendas), into a more typical company structure with a single management defining and driving its own strategy. Without this structure change, it’s very unlikely Airbus would have become the world beating company it is today.
Even thought the A380 was discontinues in 2021, Airbus has committed to supply parts and maintenance for at least 20 years.
I am looking forward to fly on the A380 for many years to come.
The A380 problem were:
1) It was created having a strecth version in mind, so the -800 end up havier.
2) Engines were half generation behind.
3) The % destined for cargo is lower then the B773 for example.
Airbus also greatly overestimated demand, while underestimating the role that politics might play in keeping the A380 out of China.
When production was stalled by the wiring problem, they should in hindsight have trimmed the plane's weight and updated the engines.
Engines are often behind.
_"3) The % destined for cargo is lower then the B773 for example."_
quite obviously, because a 773 is a single-deck aircraft, so the cargo space is around half that of the passenger cabin (somewhat less in real terms)
An A380 has two passenger decks positioned over a single cargo space, so the passenger-to-cargo area is 2/3 on an A380 and 1/2 on a 777.
@@theontologist If an A380 successor were launched today, it'd be a lot more viable.
Global international travel demand has nearly doubled since the A380 was originally released, Amazon's overnight shipping has led to a sharp increase in demand for air freight, and India (a fifth of the world's population) has very congested runways, and premium carriers prefer double-decker jets for the superior customer experience.
THIS! The A380 was basically designed to get an upgrade relatively soon. That meant sadly that it was not really competitive and the benefits for airlines operating them just worth it.
If they had started production and deliveries either a couple years earlier, when interest for such planes was higher in general, or later when better engines would have allowed for better fuel economy and decreased maintanance cost the A380 could have at least sold 400-500 units I think.
The A380 we have today is basically the worst version it could be and it still sold 251 units and Emirates operates them with great success.
They are just not feasable for many airlines sadly. Especially nowadays, where streamlining maintanance cost is much more important as well, which means most airlines operate only 1 type of aircraft, or have a limited range of aircrafts like using A319-321
I literally just flew in an Airbus 380 for the first time yesterday. I absolutely loved it! This was just after riding the same route (in reverse) in a 777 which was nowhere near as nice. The airbus was much quieter, the seats (though still economy and a 3, 4, 3 arrangement just like the 777) were wider with a significantly wider aisle. I don't have the luxury of choosing my aircraft when flying, but if I can ever select between an a380 vs a Boeing (even without all of the other issues Boeing is having) I would select the Airbus each time.
Just a thought - if the A380 was to keep airbus engineers busy, what are they doing now - A350 launch was several years ago now! I grew up near Hawrden and remember them dredging the Dee Estuary for the barges.
They have several new projects in the pipeline. I actually covered one of them in a recent video.
An A320 successor is in the early design phase, so are plans for multiple airplanes that run on hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel, with ideas floating around like using the CFM rise engines for the conventionally fueled ones.
They're out-Boeing Boeing. Boeing used to design new planes. Boeing is a walking corpse until everyone from the director level up gets fired.
Lot of incremental developments. Most notably the XLR, which is due to enter service soon. All aircraft are constantly undergoing design improvements and new minor variants. Alongside that there's a lot of development for future technologies such as hydrogen aircraft. Also not forgetting the 'aircraft of tomorrow' projects - the Wing of Tomorrow of which will begin testing in the UK soon of disruptive, advanced technologies!
A321XlR, which is a complex roll out, A350F and the constant refinements and improvements on all aircraft.
Actually, the 747 started out to be a freighter. BA used early plans of what became the 747 as it's bid for an US Air Force Freighter. BA lost the contract; the C5A was chosen.
So the 747 had freighter possibilities in its DNA.
Boeing did not lose the competition, there design was better and met the requirements, what became the C5A did not, it was over weight and they lightened the wing and fuselage to get weight down, then problems started and the early planes had to be reworked, heavier now. Certain people in Gov procurement had stated they would never give the contract to Boeing even if their design was better, and they paid for that ego trip, and Boeing did not waste the engineering time and money spent on the lost C5A contract, they built the more successful and capable 747...one of the first things Boeing did with the first 747 was to load it to its max capacity, which was more than the C5A and fly it to altitude to show the USAF they had F'd up choosing the other plane that became the C5A......
The first 747 deliveries were to PAN AM but Japan Airlines put in the first order. Most airlines were hesitant, thinking most major airports didn't want such a large plane and the sheer number of passengers in one hit... that is until the Japanese started ordering them!
The 747 shared nothing except for the engines with their proposed heavy transport aircraft for the military. For a start the wings are in a different place.
Read the designer's book.
This is why the pilots sit on the upper deck of the 747. From the ground up, the 747 was designed to have a cargo door in the front that open vertically. A flight deck on the second floor was mechanically simpler than a flight deck that would pivot as the cargo door opened.
Actually Boeing never intend for the 747 to be so successful as supersonic jets like concord was expected to be the next big thing, it was meant to be a stopgap towards it. So when Pan Am came asking for a bigger jet than 707, the design team from the get go intended for 747 to be converted for cargo service later and with maximum cargo space.
I think that getting airports to adapt to the size of the A-380 was a flex by Airbus, if only in terms of marketing. In effect, airports had to take instructions from Airbus, even if indirectly via the airlines. I think that up to this point Airbus was seen as a builder of profitable commercial aircraft. After the A-380, Airbus was an indubitable leader in aerospace.
Could you look at the financial situation of the Boeing 787 in comparison? The programme has cost more than the A380 and despite selling over 1000.....they still haven't turned a profit
They had not made one for less than the sales price until about half way through the order book. The program cost was $34 billion by the time deliveries started. But the loss continued to grow. Call that 1000 aircraft and they need to make $34 million on each one. That's never going to happen.
Thats because the anticipated production cost was a lot lower than in reality. That meant on top of the 30billion of dev cost they lost 30billion on top for the first 1000 787.
@@Infiltator2same with A350. The gains are in the small planes. 737s and 320s
Boeing is a mess
@@jayvee8502 A350 started making a profit in 2019 though
If Boeing had tried to trick Airbus on purpose, I don't think they would have developed the 747-8, and stretched the 777 earlier.
Boeing can't even keep door plugs in, so thinking they could trick Airbus into building a whole aircraft gives Boeing undeserved credit.
It's just Johnson measuring competition, who got bigger.....
Several years ago, just before the A380 started flying commercially, I was privileged to witness one of the best flying displays I've seen at the Farnborough Air Show. The A380 introduced herself coming in low and slow, climbing steeply then rolling out before completing a few circuits. She was huge, but performed incredibly.
I recall reading an article (perhaps in Business Week) sometime around the turn of the millennium, which argued that as long as Boeing had a monopoly on very large aircraft, that gave them a great deal of pricing power in that market, and they could undercut Airbus on prices of smaller jets, while charging more for 747s, since customers who needed an aircraft that large didn’t have any other choice. By launching a direct competitor to the 747, Airbus aimed to make their whole product lineup more competitive on price.
Would the A350 have been as successful as it is without the technology and lessons learnt from the A380?
Without the A380, Airbus wouldn't have gathered all the experience it needed to make the rest of their aircrafts as competitive as they are today. The A380 was also some kind of very expensive marketing trick, that goes like: "look! we can do everything Boeing did, but even better. "
Are you serious ?? You should review the A320 program...😂 30 years of a success story which led to the 737 disaster...
@@goldorakrak8939 This very true, the A320 was always successful but the massive numbers of the A320 have come from the Sharklet and NEO variants- both of which launched after the A380. The NEO is the fastest selling plane ever.
My first-ever plane ride was a Qantas 747-400 from here in Sydney, to Los Angeles. Setting aside the face-hurting grin from my first flight, first time overseas and first time meeting international friends, what I remember most was the thunderous noise from those four, mighty engines.
That first trip exceeded all expectations and so the day I landed back in Sydney I began planning trip two and sixteen months later, I was on that same runway, this time in an A380.
This time I was prepared for the massive roar of four huge turbofans and…. it never arrived. I felt the same push in the back, but the refinement was next-level. I could walk up and just grab snacks at the self-serve fridges, I had a large screen and decent space.
To this day, it’s my go-to plane for long-haul flying and I’ve been on the A380 more than everything else combined (at the other end, shoutout to the wonderful little A220!).
Whatever it failed to do on Airbus’s balance sheet, the A380 has delivered the best experience to and from many cherished memories and for that it’ll always be special to me.
Now, if I could just afford to move upstairs….
In 1997, I attended a US DOT-sponsored symposium on these still paper-in-development aircraft types, where one of the events was a debate between Boeing and Airbus's product development and technical marketing people. Boeing had been asked to defend its no-go decision on the "Super-Jumbo." The aircraft that would compete with Airbus and be the follow-on to the retirement of the then classical Jumbo, the 747-400.
Boeing's final argument was that its decision (to not build the super Jumbo) was based upon its analysis of the data that showed Boeing that notwithstanding any claimed analyses of the market (by Airbus et al.), the size of that market would not support two (2) manufacturers, furthermore, given the length of the development cycle (Boeing's) in the face of Airbus's clear lead in developing the Airbus plane and starting its manufacturing deliveries to operating customers. Boeing's competing product would be ready for marketing and sales deliveries precisely when it would have been recognized that no orders could be taken by a second airframe manufacturer. The market (in fact) was not there.
Boeing was prescient in this calculation-based prediction. In the Airbus A-380 life cycle, the future customer base (fell to zero (0)) long before the last built aircraft was delivered. Regardless of the scale and scope of a Boeing Super-Jumbo program, Boeing's 1st-Quarter (1997) prediction of when (what year and Quarter) they would be able to open up firm-order books for such an aircraft turned out to have been exactly the year that Airbuses' A-380 ceased to receive new (virgin) firm orders.
This was one of the examples I had in a game theory class - since both Airbus and Boeing knew there was only room for one super jumbo, Airbus "won" by making an unbreakable commitment to build it, with the backing of EU gouvernements
You forgot the fact that Boeing pitched updated and lengthen 747-500, 747-600, and747-700 to customers as feeler, the result wasn't great.
With A380 Airbus has shown to be kings of the skies, and their care for passengers. That is the exact opposite to Boeing's insisting on B737 from the 1960-ies, withouth even stretching its landing gears, resulting in fatalities
I want to live in a world where the A380-900 exists. Everyone gets lay flat seats!
I want to live in a world thier is more than two aviation manufacture.
@@grambo4436 well, you're in it
@@grambo4436embraer? Bombardier(although I guess they did cuck to airbus). Comac(chinese). OAK the Russian one. The private jet market is pretty big. Honestly I think the jet market could be fixed with repealing IP law. It would allow smaller manufacturers to take shots at bigger manufacturers let alone making parts cheaper in general.
@@TheWizardGamez I mean its pretty clear he is talking about relevant passenger jets operated by affordable airlines.
Surely he knows that he can buy a Cessna as well, but thats not really what this is about.
Unless you are flying with "KLM Cityhopper" from UK to Netherlands, its unlikely you will fly anything but boeing or airbus in your life unless you of course actively want to and are willing to pay a premium to do so.
I’ll take a world where yoy can pay £30 for a 30min nap/lay down in a sleep pod on a long haul flight.
it's still a technical achievement they can parlay to other aircraft. perhaps they can help rebuild the AN225 and upgrade it.
I watched this episode with interest as I used to work for Boeing at the time these events were unfolding. I was able to go to a "town hall" hosted by then CEO Phil Condit. By this time Airbus had not yet committed to the A380, and but they and Boeing had concluded their joint studies. I ask Condit, "Do you want Airbus to build that superjumbo?" He replied without a moment's hesitation, and a slight smile on his face, "Yes I do!" He then went on to say, "The easy thing to do would be to match them, but we don't think that's where the market is going. We think there will be increasing demand for point to point services like we're seeing domestically." Those are direct quotes and you can publish them for what it's worth.
I knew from that moment on that the jig was up. Whether or not Boeing "tricked" Airbus not-with standing, it was clear to me that Boeing thought Airbus was making a big mistake - which they were. Boeing built the 787 instead and Airbus was years late with the A350. By the way, it's my recollection that Boeing expressed the expected market for an A380 to be about 550 planes - I don't recall a number as high as 800 coming from Boeing.
I mean at the end of the day it didnt matter much. Airbus started to massively eat up the Marketshare of the 737 since 2000.
Boeing used to sell often 2-3x the amount of planes in a year from 1990 to 2000, but they started to deliver less planes throughout the next decade.
the A380 can at worst be considered an expensive side project for Airbus. I don't think Airbus would have massively sped up the release of the A350 if they decided to drop the A380. And the A380 was always going to be a prestige project and Airbus knew this very well. Maybe it would have made Airbus a small amount of money if they were able to sell 500-1000 of them, but reality is that Airbus never expected to make much money here.
Funny enought the A380 seems to have kinda revived the interest for the 747 for a while as well when Airbus started to deliver their them in relevantnumbers from 2012-2018
Reality is that the A320 and the 737 are the big cashcows for both Airbus and Boeing and all the other planes arent really making them a lot of profit. Thats true for the 787 and the A350 as well, and would still be true if the A350 was 2-3 years earlier.
Especially in recent years they made up for ~75% of their sold planes and with high numbers you get better efficiency, thus better profit margins.
A380 also brought Airbus in to the spotlight for many passengers. I didn’t knew about them much.
In my opinion, it is better to withdraw a working plane due to lack of customers than to forcefully keep a plane that is constantly plagued by service faults. Don't get me wrong, both manufacturers have phenomenal machines, but the lack of proper servicing and quality control at the expense of profits and human lives should not occur.
what are you talking about?
you are connecting two totally different and unconnected things!
Assuming you solely mean Boeing in this comment.
Of course people do. Basically they don't understand f.e. MCAS. And now every issue x with airbus is hardly talked about. The same issue with Boeing however...
@@RoelandJansen If you have proof that Airbus suffers from comparable mistakes/blunders/screwups, please start your own channel or join another channel or this one to present them.
I don't even know what this is a reference to. Manufacturers don't have the ability to force airlines to fly planes plagued by service faults and it is the operators/owners whom are ultimately responsible of maintaining the airworthiness of their aircraft through proper servicing.
Petter, you are truly a master of aviation. When it comes to aviation and aviation topics, it's really nice to sit back and listen to you talk and explain, like a true teacher and professional. Thank you for your time creating these videos.
As an AvGeek I Absolutely love the A380, and would very much like Global to succeed, however, I just can’t see how it business model work.
With it high operating costs and not particularly good at filling cargo in the bellly, they have to solely relying upon passengers number to make a profit, it would be difficult to fill and other airlines won’t allow them to happens.
I also agree. As much as I love the A380 and the 747 but, I'm also unsure of how it would be successful with Global Airlines, thought I'd love it to succeed with Global Airlines. They actually axed the A380 Freighter wayyy back
This is why it will work: depreciation. Global's aircraft are dirt-cheap, meaning that the depreciation charges on their P&L will be next to nothing = profit. I'm sticking with my prediction that Global will grow up to about a dozen A380s, serving more than Trans-Atlantic routes. They'll need scale when, in 15 years' time, they'll need to replace their fleet, paying full-price.
Its operating costs and cargo is in proportion to its size, the point of it is to use in a hub-and-spoke airline model to reduce the number of airport slots required, which was the limiting factor for most large airlines when it was designed (and still is for several) by reducing the number of aircraft required. It failed financially because of the economic boom in east asia resulting in a lot of moderate traffic between a lot of new destinations, which results in heavy demand for new small aircraft, rather than continued growth in the west that would have lead to more demand for large aircraft. It's already predicted that a similar aircraft will be desired again in probably 10 years; it just was not worth maintaining A380 production facilities waiting for that opportunity decades away, versus retooling to increase A320 and A350 capacity.
Whether it's worth designing a sequel aircraft when the demand starts to return is a different and very risky question to ask; I could imagine airbus coming out with something between A350 and A380 in 15-20 years, if they think the demand spike will be long-term, but that's a big if.
@@well-blazeredman6187Correct. Global is getting these A380s for pennies on the dollar because there’s a glut of used 380s on the market. It may be expensive to operate per hour, but the low acquisition costs can offset that. I can’t count out Global at this point.
@@well-blazeredman6187 just because an aircraft is cheaper to buy, does not mean that maintenance and the operating cost is a whole lot. You would definitely be the type of person to buy a 20 year old BMW or Mercedes because "if the price is so cheap, it must be cheap to own"
A380 is by far the best passenger aircraft ever built. It is an engineering marvel, man and machine in perfect harmony. I hope someday we get to see a successor from Airbus to the super jumbo.
Too bad it's so ugly.
" Fuselage envy". Love it! 🤣
There’s this ongoing joke with me and my buddy that the A380 saga was Airbus having a d*ck measuring contest with Boeing 😂
Although it didn't sell as well as was hoped the A380 program was used to test so many new ideas like new manufacturing processes and new materials it drastically reduced the cost of the A350 development program and improved airbus manufacturing processes
The A380 is such a gorgeous plane that I'd love to see Global succeed and bring it back on stream.
the 380 is ugly, very ugly, a big fat ugly plane, no grace, just oversized garbage.
@@davidgenie-ci5zl With Antonov effectively out of the game for the next decade, those freighter versions (a 900 variant) might be a good option for heavy cargo.
A380 is a pig.
The A380 surely is gorgeous. Those massive wings are a piece of art.
Dude why is there hate on a380 and beluga c'mon you don't have to like it but 380 is prettier than 747
funny how post pandemic nearly every airline with A380s are having them all back in service and some are wishing they could get more
I read once that the gulf states airlines are all heavily subsidized for national prestige reasons and none of them make money.
@@PaulTomblinEmirates made around $5 billion in profits last year
@@AppleGoodman Correct. Their business model is old-school full fare for the most part, and for those who have money and like to travel, they gladly pay it as it is faster, safer, and dramatically less money to fly this way than own your own jet.
@@PaulTomblinshit. They got good service and offer a wide range of destinations. And that’s before you get into the alliances
But not enough to make the plane economically viable.
Airports often have limits on the number of aircraft movements. This can favour the A380 especially for traditional hubs.
Breaks my heart to hear A380 referred to as a mistake. My all time favourite aircraft
The truth is often heartbreaking sadly.
I want so badly to see an A380 with GE9X engines
That would be cool
That'd be the coolest
No one is willing to spend the money to re-engine the A380, and it's very hard to imagine a scenario where this would change. There simply are not enough A380's in existance to make such a program financially viable.
two-engine 380 offshoot when?
Nobody will buy or use 4 engine planes anymore.... as they consume more fuel and more maintenance needed for 4 engines... Older 4 engine 747s are being scrapped and very few left on Cargo 747-400F... 7 or 8 years and last A380 will fly... I love A380 ...best travel experience and cabin comfort and quiet... But airlines don't care what passengers think. They will buy more 787s and add 9 seats per row... who knows Emirates and other middle eastern airlines may add 11 seats per row on 777-9X
Don’t really think Airbus lost on A380, A380 was truly a next generation aircraft and Airbus gained a lot from its development in terms of R&D, many of which innovations have been used in A350 and A320 Neo. Also cemented its name of a prominent manufacturer alongside Boeing.
They lost a hell of a lot. Can you name any of these innovations directly used on the 320neo and 350?
A380, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL BEHEMOTH OF THE SKY
It is a wonderful beast!
I will endure slightly longer flight times from Korea to Europe and fly with Emirates just to be on this plane. Even in economy, A and K in 61 and 81 are worth paying a little extra for. But flying business, on the A380, with the bar, is something else.
@@gentleken7864 sorry to those who have never experienced this Jet. I'll compare it to BMW M5 CS🥰. beautiful machine to be experienced @mentorpilot
its a technical marvel but i wouldnt say its a beautiful plane
@@animegamingdude may I ask why?
Thank you for adjusting the position of the subtitles when there’s on-screen text! Much appreciated!
They gained so much experience with the engineering, constructing and building the A380. They used their knowlege to build the superior A350. So they learned the very hard way, but now they are sold out for the next ten years and Boeing wants to fire 17.000 employes next year.
flown on an a380 one time and it was great. Sat in the middle of the middle seats and I'm larger than average guy, but I could've been on the aisle seat, I didn't feel cramped at all.
11:16 POV the amount of seats if Ryanair had an A380:1000+ seats💀
840 is max from Airbus information.
Ryanair CEO's would have a tantrum if he couldn't feet a1.000+ in an A380 😂😂😂
Sometimes, you have to show off your prestige to increase customer confidence
Technically a financial bust, but marketably a success
And marketing is an expensive department, never ever is a direct product you sell
Great video as always, with just a couple of corrections; you made it sound like the A320 was developed prior to the A310. Sadly that is not correct since the A310 flew a full five years before the world’s best narrow made its maiden flight.
Nor do I think it was accurate to suggest that airports had to increase runway length to accommodate the A380. While it was still under development, there was a suggestion that the minimum runway width that the type could use would be 60 metres in order to prevent erosion from forward/reverse thrust use of the outboard engines that were an unprecedented distance apart. Ultimately though, Airbus conceded that that was probably too large an impost on airport operators. Since the outboard engines were high enough off the ground to mitigate significant erosion with forward thrust, Airbus decided to remove reverse thrust capability from those engines (as reverse thrust downward flow can cause significant erosion). This didn’t adversely affect runway performance since for most reject/landing situations, reverse thrust credit is not considered.
I love the A380. ✈️
It’s a beautiful beast!
Petter, the quality of your videos is top notch. The depth of the information and your presentation are second to none. Keep up the excellent work
Airbus is definitely more Trustworthy and not corrupt nor as dangerous than Boeing has become in recent years
Boeing didn't trick AIrbus with the A380 ... Boeing was too busy tricking themselves with the 737 Max.
🙄 You’re tricking yourself if you think the 737 Max was a preoccupation of Boeing when the A380 was conceived, designed and launched.
sitting on the 2nd floor on an A380 is absolutely the best flying experience I have had a few times.
It is a lovely plane to fly with
Actually the A340 and A330 do NOT share the same Type rating, but the A330 & A350 do, at least under EASA rules.
That sounds like you are referring to a330neo and a350 sharing a rating? It seems very unlikely that the original a330 series and the far newer a350 share a rating.
@@imrevadasz1086 this is a fact, and what is written in my EASA license😎
The type rating is common for A330 & A350, but not for the A340 which has 4 engines as you may know. I only fly 330 ATM
@@JacquesZahar As I understand it, the difference is/was a one hour upgrade course with pilots allowed to hold dual type ratings.
I am an aerospace worker and I find I agree with your info 100%. Great video and I look forward to the next video. Very entertaining and informative.
The best aviation group on TH-cam, equally with your pilot project, thanks for releasing top quality content along all your channels.
I think the A380 was the best PR you could get.
They learned much, builded a legend which will always give them prestige.
I’ve flown on both the 747-400 and the A380. Both are excellent aircraft!
A380 sales weren't helped by ICAO creating new categories to apply to it.
Airbus expected it to get the same ratings as the 747-400 (4E and Heavy), while the A380 was finally given the 4F and Super ratings, which required more separation.
Airports had to make changes to taxiways and other on ground infrastructure because of that 4F rating, while the Super classification required additional spacing in the air because of wake turbulence, which then slowed down throughput at airports due to the increased gaps after an A380 movement.
The 747-8 and 777-9 have also been given the 4F rating, but nothing else has (yet?) been given the Super rating.
I saw an A380 live. As in still wrapped in its airbus livery while doing the world tour I believe. It was majestic. Or atleast that's what my 12 y/o self thought looking out of the window of my tiny plane
Thank you Tucker as ever and thank you Anthony for sharing. As a PPG pilot I am so grateful to you both for this.
Oh yes! can't wait to see a video about Hi Fly Malta!
Greetings from LMML!
I loved this plane before she ever flew, I remember checking the “A380 Navigator” for the latest announcements during development. Hope I will get to fly on her at least once more.
As a mistake, the A-380 falls in a category similar to that of the Concorde.
On which level? The 380 was meant for the hub-model, and to accomodate a larger number of passengers. Concorde was just a playtoy for the happy few. No matter the cost of a ticket, the rich and famous would buy tickets for a ride no matter what. The fatal accident sealed its fate.
The 380 never has had a (near)fatal mistake.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg On which level? Because it's iconic. Don't overthink.
@@l.d.t.6327 Looks to me like you are comparing apples and oranges. Both planes don't have anything in common. Unless you can name a common aspect.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Both planes can fly, but like I said: don't overthink. It's the internet.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg The A380 is still mostly for very rich customers. The main operator of the A380 is Emirates. Last time I checked they werent offering cheap tickets.
And I think he meant that while both failed to stay relevant in the market they were both amazing technological achievments and are iconic and everyone on the planet knows these planes and is impressed by them (maybe not everyone in china/india/north korea, but you get what I'm trying to say).
Making that connection isnt all that hard is it.
I didn't realize that B767 entered service almost a decade after A300 - that is, what a revolutionary plane the first Airbus was.
Well, karma bit them back hard if so.
The initial 787 delays, the 737 Max crashes and production delays, the recent 787 production delays, and also the 777-9 delays.
I'd say overall since 2006, they've been financially wounded in a way that Airbus have not.
U forgot about "magic smoke" in 787 right after deployment on line.
777X is delay now 3+ years, if they don't deliver first to Emirates it's possible they lost order. They have 20 bulid without counting proto/cert. (3 ANA, 5 LH, 3 Qatar, 9 Emirates)
I really really enjoy the videos going into depth about the development of planes, and nitty gritty details on the aspecs of aviation
The A380 would never have been built had Airbus been a fully publicly traided company answering to shareholders. Even the most optomistic analysis in the 90s showed that the overall lifetime market for an aircraft like the A380 would be around 800 planes, with a break even point of approximately 650 aircraft.
Boeing guessed less wrong that the more profitable play would be smaller long range aircraft flying point to point, rather than super long range to large hubs. Unfortunately, Boeing has fumbled the ball after calling the right play.
You're right, so many people love the A380. I do too. I'd gladly pay a little extra for the ticket to fly on an A380 instead of the common A32 / B73. Also love the A35 for some reason.
Even though it wasn't profitable for Airbus, the A380 feels just overengineered enough that they could be in service for decades, doing just about anything asked of them. So from an airline point of view they could be a very good investment long-term.
No, they aren't. Not flying fully loaded they just drain money. I went to Lourdes some days ago and Tarmac has a lot of A380s from airlines standing around there.
Your leaving out the 4 engines and heavy weight and heavy fuel burn and limited number of gates and smaller airports hating the a380 because they were a hazard to taxi around the airport due to taxiways not designed for her. JFK had to stop traffic around the area of a taxing A380.
@@miskatonic6210 "Not flying fully loaded they just drain money." That goes for just about any commercial jet liner. It is true that the A380 needs a little higher occupancy rate than other airliners (from all manufacturers including Airbus and depending on ticket price), but the larger A380 operators make pretty decent money with them.
I was fortunate enough to have a guided tour of the A380 wing manufacture, packaging and transport at the UK plant in Broughton. It was an amazing experience. I was astonished to see how much human effort and how little automation and robotics were involved in the process.
It may have been a financial flop, but I think it at least established a reputation for Airbus among the flying public, of an Boeing competitor that was here to stay and willing to swim with the sharks. They were still relative newbies to the market when the A380 started development. It’s certainly worked for them as I often hear people waxing lyrical about the A380 passenger experience, so much so that having flown multiple A350s and several A380s, I think the A380 in that regard is a bit overhyped. The A350 is also roomy, quiet and smooth in flight, but I haven’t heard of anyone going out of their way to ensure their long-haul flight is on an A350, like they seem to do for the A380.
Just view it is a (rather large) tuition fee resulting in better planes.
I was part of the VLA (Very Large Aircraft) Boeing/Airbus study, looking at passenger handling and airport infrastructure particularly. Boeing at the time as I remember was unconvinced that aircraft of the A380 size made sense. The market was evolving from hub/spoke to direct service as the end of government regulation worked it way through the industry. As I recall, something like 70% of long range 747 routes were less than daily service.
As someone that has been a passenger on many larger legacy aircraft (707, DC-10, 747) I hope to one day fly on the A380.
It does look amazing.
For all it’s worth…. I live in a city whose airport supports A380 landings and they look absolutely great in person. That said they don’t land here anymore because the only airline that sent them had been British Airways and they don’t anymore. Everyone who isn’t in charge of airline finances seem to love them.
In fact our airport had a celebration the first time one landed. I think it helped to boost their company reputation.
I would like go on a flight in one tho. I’m sure airlines make informed decisions about what is most efficient, but everytime I go visit relatives the flight is oversold by more than a dozen seats and we have to wait for them to find people wiling to accept vouchers. I’ve specifically tried to shop for it when going to Europe- because they do send them to another airport in our country that’s common for connecting flights. But they’re quite rare 😅
The A380 makes the B52, BUFF, look like a beauty queen!
Sort of like an R35 Nissan GT-R next to an NA1 Honda NSX.
@@SwapBlogRUWe're not racing here...
Not a race or a beauty contest! While the A380 is an awesome piece of engineering, I don't think she's pretty in the way the Queen of the Skys is.
@@andrewmounsey5030 There is something about the aesthetics of the short upper deck 747-100 / 747-200 that will never be matched. It just 'worked'.
@@miskatonic6210 nah, I'm speaking in terms of their exterior styling.
I guess Boeing hoped that A380 would become a big fail, but that didnt happen, in reality the A380 was a statement to show the equivalence of the industries in US and EU.
Still think ending A380 production was a mistake, at some point there's going to be a resurgence in airtraffic and slots at major airports are going to be congested being able to use large aircraft to make the most of them will be valuable, plus with more modern engines I think it could be efficient enough... the problem was that it took a whole world wide boom cycle to get around and build support for building it just in time for the economy to crash. Not engineering the A380 to work as a freighter was also a huge wasted oppourtunity!
I don't think so, the middle classes are fading into poverty as the owners shift the economy in favor of themselves. Where are the massive numbers of people going to come from to fund hi capacity operations in the future? The wealthy are going to give the economy back?
The thing I see with airlines. Some years they want it and then they don't. So knowing what airlines really need most of the time is key. Imo
Yes just keep losing money on Eurojunk
Nearly all of the world's population growth is in developing countries. The population of developed nations is near zero or negative (shrinking). So aside from China (which is approaching zero growth) and India, there isn't going to be much increase in passenger demand due to population growth. The increase in demand is going to come mostly from economic development - people become wealthier so more of them can afford to fly. But economic development means it becomes economical to build more airports. Meaning the point-to-point model is going to continue to win out over the hub-and-spoke model. Also note that the hub-and-spoke model actually aggravates limited landing slots - planes flying in on spokes still need to land. If there are limited slots, the only real fix is to shift traffic to another airport like the point-to-point model does (or build more runways).
The freighter A380 doesn't work that well because it's difficult to load the upper deck. The 747 freighter is designed so the nose swings up, giving full access to the entire main fuselage for loading cargo. (In fact that was the original reason why the 747 put the cockpit on a second deck.)
Because airlines don’t want 4 engine airplanes and Airbus made a massive mistake by over engineering the wings so that they could stretch it even more in future variants. The A380 makes 0 financial sense due to its fuel burn and heavy weight and 4 engines.
A380 was perfect for the LHR-SİN route. Especially in the early days when they still had Premium Economy upstairs. (I think SQ refitted the upper cabin as Business Class, which put paid to that.) SQ321(!) or SQ319 were the best for outbound timing.
I was in the room when Alan Mullally announced the NLA (New Large Airplane) to R&D. When he mentioned the passenger capacity, there was a collective gasp.
LOL your typo made me imagine a hangar full of people all farting simultaneously. 😅
@@imonymous All were shaken up enough by the Boeing CEO's announcement that they simultaneously passed gas?
1:04 when he says wide body put it into English auto translate 😅
Re-engine the A380 with no other changes made might be viable for Emirates to extend the life of their A380s and help Airbus to reduce the overall loss of the programme.
There were odd occasions in history that an aircraft is only re-engine with no other changes, such as the 707 with CFM-56. Of course, most re-engine versions of aircrafts come with other changes as well, as we have seen in Neos from Airbus and many Boeing aircrafts. Probably, introducing other changes to the A380 would be too expensive and not financially viable as Emirates would be the only one to do it (though with its huge fleet of almost half of all A380s ever come into existence). Moreover, only re-engining with no other changes made is already more than sufficient enough to make huge efficiency gains to the A380. The Trent 900 was already outdated as it entered service, with the Trent 1000 miles ahead of it. The A380 came out at a wrong time in terms of engine technology. With the upcoming Rolls Royce UltraFan, we can expect 20-25% of efficiency gains just by changing the engines. It’s not exactly a bad idea to re-engine the A380.
A re-engine on such a large and technologically advanced aircraft costs a fortune, it needs to be re-certified and would require extensive changes for the engine control systems on the aircraft. It's a completely different situation to a much smaller and far more basic aircraft like a 707. There's simply too few of them built sadly, it would most likely just further increases losses. Efficiency improvements would be on the order of a few %
The ultrafan is still a long way off.
@@iannitert8849 The only changes in the engine control systems need to be in the new engines, thus giving complete compatibility as far as the aircraft itself is concerned (same thrust for the same settings in the cockpit, just less fuel burned so less fuel that needs to be loaded and lifted).
Aside from a PPL, I’m a mechanical design engineer who works in aerospace. About 16 years ago I worked for a company on Long Island who was one of the sub contracted vendors for many of the frozen planning/safety critical components of the A388. In particular we Methodized and manufactured the upper/lower Lock Links and Upper/Lower Drag brace assemblies for the main body gear… yeah at the time we thought we’d have that contract in perpetuity for a good 25 years 😣.
Great Video Petter!
Glad you enjoyed it!! 💕💕
Such a bad decision but the best plane in human history... Neo would be nice one day by just changing engines...
Impossible. There is no production line or supply chain available anymore
@@Infiltator2 they can reinstate it if there will be at least 90% of existing A380's orders for renewal to make financial sense...
@@UgapikuYou can't all the space is now covered with SA assemblies. You have to build everything from the ground
The issue with a NEO is it wouldn't solve the underlying issue of the plane being quadjet in an era where quadjets are not viable.
Would have needed a massive redesign to turn it into a twin. Plus a huge efficiency / weight saving program (likely with a new wing & perhaps folding tips to increase the wingspan).
I worked for Boeing in the 2000's and the feeling in the office was that Boeing was trying to sucker Airbus into launching the A380 program. Airbus just couldn't stop the program once it got started without losing face, which is what we in the office was thinking Boeing management wanted. The fact that Airbus started the A350 program makes me think they knew early on that the A380 wasn't going to be the cash cow they hoped for. The A350 is a wonderful plane and Airbus should have concentrated on that all along.
Obviously, the A380 was no mistake. It should have trickled down by now, that Airbus is playing the long game. The A380 was basically a case study. It was also the endgame in one of the largest p*****g contests ever, and the A380 is the very reason it was ultimately won by Airbus. Looking at Airbus now, its hard to imagine that they have been the underdog for so long. But when they decided to build the A380, they still were the inferior contender compared to Boeing. People were unsure if they could actually pull something to the extent of the 747 off. To overtake Boeing, they needed to show the world that basically there is nothing they could not build. They needed to show, that they could "one up" Boeing if they wanted to. They needed to show that they were capable of building the best aircraft in the world. And boy did they do that. The A380, might not have been a huge financial success on its own, but it sits at the very core of what Airbus is today, and by that account it really is priceless in the best possible sense. It is an absolutely iconic airframe, and there is good reason that it is the one plane in the world that people are really connecting to. Not only is it bigger than the 747, it is a classic Airbus, in the sense that the vast space inside actually benefits the people flying in it. It is a plane that shows what modern aviation is capable of in terms of comfort and refinement. For that very reason its the one plane that people were actually missing when it went out of commission during the corona crisis. And there is good reason it got resurrected. What a story. There literally is no airplane like it. To truly become the prime aircraft manufacturer, Airbus needed the A380. And it did perform exactly as planned. If in doubt, look at where they are now.
Except a key part of that plan was to sell 1000+ of them.
@@iannitert8849 Funny you should say that, since that's exactly how a money focused company like Boeing would see it. Don't get me wrong, Airbus wants to earn money too, there is no doubt about that. But their focus is different and ultimately closer to reality. Running a business is only in part a numbers game, and in return, those numbers will only tell you so much. Sure, if you look what the development did cost and how many planes they sold, there is a gap there. But that's not how it works. Running a succesful business requires the art of using mixed calculations. Yes, the project in itself "burned" money if you will. But if you factor in what Airbus learned in terms of engineering expertise, how many customers Airbus convinced since then to make the switch to the manufactuer who indeed "can do it all and do it all better than Boeing", what Airbus learned about their customers and their own portfolio by being in a position to offer a full spectrum of planes, then the picture changes drastically. That "burned" money now is nothing more but an investment in the future of the company, made with money that Airbus did allocate for that very purpose, and by now it paied for itself 10 times over. And again, if you don't believe me, look at where Airbus is now.
@iannitert8849 Funny you should say that, since that's exactly how a money focused company like Boeing would see it. Don't get me wrong, Airbus wants to earn money too, there is no doubt about that. But their focus is different and ultimately closer to reality. Running a business is only in part a numbers game, and in return, those numbers will only tell you so much. Sure, if you look what the development did cost and how many planes they sold, there is a gap there. But that's not how it works in the long run. Next to a good company culture, good payment of the employees etc etc., running a succesful business requires the art of using mixed calculations. Yes, the project in itself burned money. But if you factor in what Airbus learned in terms of engineering expertise, how many customers Airbus convinced since then to make the switch to the manufactuer who indeed "can do it all and do it all better than Boeing", what Airbus learned about their customers and their own portfolio by being in a position to offer a full spectrum of planes, then the picture changes drastically. That "burned" money now is nothing more but an investment in the future of the company, and by now it paied for itself 10 times over. And again, if you don't believe me, look at where Airbus is now.
absolutely loved your take on the A380.
Also even the A380 could not sell in high numbers but it became the passengers favorite and it earned Airbus a reputation. With boeing now in trouble and is unable to deliver planes, Airbus is booking big orders and delivering planes so that would compensate for their earlier efforts, you may disagree with this but thats just what I think.
I've been saying this since when the A380 was first proposed. The 747 wasn't a double-decker to add more passenger capacity. Boeing put the cockpit on a second deck so the freighter version could be quickly loaded from the front by swinging the nose up. The extra passenger seats on the second deck were an afterthought (usually only 10-12 seats), which airlines eventually grew to like (who would've guessed that first class passengers liked being separated from the riff raff).
Almost since the 747 was first introduced, every few years Boeing would ask the airlines if they wanted a full double-decker version of the 747. And every time the airlines would tell them no. Then suddenly the A380 was proposed, and a half dozen airlines "enthusiastically" signed up for a full double-decker? That made no sense. It seemed more likely that the tail was wagging the dog - Airbus wanted to build the A380, and was probably using kickbacks and bribes to "convince" airlines that they wanted it. This breaks the cardinal rule that "the customer is always right (about what they want to buy)." The weak demand for the A380 bore this out.
In contrast, the initial proposal for the A350 was as a 787 competitor. The airlines rebelled. They wanted a 777 competitor, since the A340 was completely non-competitive. So Airbus went back to the drawing board, and redesigned the A350 a little bigger to slot between the 787 and 777. As a result the A350 has been a massive success. Things simply work better when you listen to what your customers say they want to buy, rather than telling your customers what they should buy.
"...and was probably using kickbacks and bribes to "convince" airlines that they wanted it." Or probably not. Stick to what you can prove.
I love the A380. My wife and I have flown from Manchester UK to Auckland NZ return a total of 14 times now, always with Emirates via Dubai on their A380s. Originally with one stop on the second leg in Australia, but since Emirates introduced their direct service from Dubai to Auckland we've taken that route. This 17 hour leg is tolerable in economy only because the A380 is such a comfortable roomy plane, and Emirates cabin staff are second to none.
9 adverts during this 22 minute programme. It’s getting unwatchable…..
TH-cam premium
@@kylei20 You spelled "uBlock Origin" wrong
No. Use adblock
You always need Adblock
Does anyone know how YT determines how often one gets ads.....the time of day? The popularity of the channel? How many people are watching? It must be a pretty amazing algorithm that does that (and determining which ads to show to who of course).
The A380 is a marvel of engineering and a pleasure to travel on. In marketing we talk of the halo effect, when a flagship model enhances the brand/company image. This is such an example.
11:39 nice shot of a 747 ferrying a 5th engine
747 - Queen of the skies, A380 - KING of the skies...