[Closed] A380 production to end in 2021

It’s a real shame ... nice ‘planes to fly on. But apparently expensive to run ....

Wrong plane at the wrong time, they seem to be limited to the long hub routes and don't even have exclusivity on those routes. A shame but airbus needs it's next plan.

Boeing always said it was the wrong aircraft (size). That a lot of money down the drain with all the setup costs, maintenance stuff to keep going!

As above shame though. The quietest most stable aircraft I have flown in

It’s an shame and a step back in air travel in a similar vein to Concorde going out of service as the levels of comfort in the cabin are far nicer than any other aircraft flying. A380’s will be in service for another 50 years though. Just not enough demand right now, a lot of overcapacity in the market and the A380 was highly exposed to a small number of large airlines like Emirates and Singapore Airlines, and now those airlines are feeling the pinch and looking to reduce capacity this decision was inevitable.

It’s looking like the larger quantity of smaller point to point jets isn’t winning out.

Yeah impressive engineering for a problem that didn't exist.

Great plane to fly on but another Concorde vanity project. When the British and French gave us Concorde Boeing gave us the 747, when Airbus gave us the the 380 Boeing came up with the 787. Totally outthought again.

Not really. Airbus also make the A350 so they are providing the type of jet that is making the A380 less relevant

I'd agree that long haul the A380 are fabulous (the only plane where I don't wear noise cancelling headphones) although the A350 seem just as good in terms of quiet/enviroment and seem a better buy for airlines.

Not really. Airbus also make the A350

Boeing just went straight to the model that would make it less relevant, they even said at the time that they wouldn't build a 380 equivalent as that wasn't the future of aviation. Looks like they were right.

It’s an shame and a step back in air travel in a similar vein to Concorde going out of service

Not really, that's why it got canned. I've flown on A380 once, with Singapore Airlines. I expected it would be horrible, just hundreds of people jammed into economy class and crap service, but Singapore are great to fly with so no different to B777 or B747. Problem is, the airlines have done the sums and the A380 business model obviously doesn't work for most routes. Same for Concorde, looked cool but a huge business mistake. At least Concorde looked cool, the A380 is pretty awful looking. An ugly plane that customers don't want is not a step forward.

Despite working in Aviation for 16 years, I couldn't tell you what planes I've flown on, similarly what buses or trains I've been on. 🙂

Despite working in Aviation for 16 years, I couldn’t tell you what planes I’ve flown on,

Not what you want to hear over the intercom

Not important enough for intercoms, just tested the engines fella.

Not what you want to hear over the intercom

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking, welcoming you aboard this.. umm..." *paper shuffling* "Boeing...?" *more shuffling* "... plane?"

I've always understood the capacity only works on a limited number of routes. I've still never flown in one - I was supposed to be on one from Bangkok to London last night (seats were booked on a A380) but the plane got changed to a 777.

Bus? 🙂

I think the A380 was ten years too early. But that point of view depends on whether people would accept that airports will need to increase capacity, (whether that is more airports built or aircraft landing 24hrs a day) for the increasing number of smaller aircraft coming and going to more destinations than ever before.

Air travel passenger numbers and the subsequent numbers of aircraft to carry them are only going one way.

Not important enough for intercoms, just tested the engines fella.

I'd rather be on a plane without pilots than one that didn't have the engines tested.

I think the A380 was ten years too early.

Or 10 years too late!!

Big planes like this are inflexible and hard to get around, for every one of these that lands 4 or 5 others meet it and head off somewhere else.
Long Haul the Perth London route shows that the middle east/far east can be bypassed for some stuff too.

I think the A380 was ten years too early. But that point of view depends on whether people would accept that airports will need to increase capacity

Yet 12 years later it's being scrapped. There was no need for it when there were cheaper aircraft capable of of doing the job.

Hub and spoke model is outdated, hence the WhaleJet is outdated. Airlines can fill 787s and 350s and fly to more destinations rather than hubs.

But that point of view depends on whether people would accept that airports will need to increase capacity, (whether that is more airports built or aircraft landing 24hrs a day) for the increasing number of smaller aircraft coming and going to more destinations than ever before.

The airports for smaller aircraft are already there, but they can't handle an A380. To take an A380, you need to travel to a hub that can handle it, fly to another hub on the A380, then travel to your final destination, so probably 3 flights. If your home city and destination can handle a B787 or similar, then you might be able to take a direct flight. That means less airport capacity needed overall because a lot of people will take a single direct flight instead of multiple connecting flights, but the capacity will be distributed differently.

That means less airport capacity needed overall because a lot of people will take a single direct flight instead of multiple connecting flights, but the capacity will be distributed differently.

Point taken, to a point. The more direct flights, the more capacity required at those airports now that those aircraft can get there(ETOPS changes after all)?

A case in point could be a certain airport in the London region gaining a third runway?

I guess now twin engined planes can be certified for long haul away from land it makes it look less economical.

That was happening a very long time before the A380 was even conceived. The 767 was doing intercontinental flights from the mid-80s.

In some ways it's a shame, IMO it's nothing like the 'loss' that Concorde was, it's just a bit bigger than other things, it's not got the same uniqueness that Concorde did. I would draw the comparison that Boeing backed the right horse again though with the 787, just as they did in the 60s with big, not fast.

It's interesting that the 747 freighter continues to be turned out, although there haven't been any passenger carrying ones for a few years (nor are there any remaining US registered passenger ones surprisingly), yet the A380 freighter never garnered enough interest to make it worthwhile.

The "hub and spoke" model is not going to disappear soon. People still need to get from Vienna to Dallas, or Edinburgh to Singapore. They might be doing it in a more efficient 787 or A350 though.

With the growth of air travel and the lack of capacity at some major airports, the A380 still has a future but not as successful as they first imagined it to be.

I expected it would be horrible, just hundreds of people jammed into economy class and crap service, but Singapore are great to fly with so no different to B777 or B747

You're wrong...they are different. That's my point. A380 cabin environment is nicer than the 30 yer old 777 and 60 year old 747...it's quieter, better air quality, larger space, less vibration more light etc...just better in every way than those two old crates. Typical capacity for an A380 is about 470 passengers (originally sold as 555 PAX in 3 class config) so not that much more than the big 777's and 747's so more space per passenger than those aircraft = more comfort...so much better even in economy. Its the best aircraft to fly on by a stretch...and I've flown them all. SIA A380 is much nicer to fly on than their 777, Emirates A380 is much nicer to fly on than their 777's etc.

The A380 was only ever designed to service 5% of the worlds biggest and most constrained airports. It's achieved and exceeded that goal...the market was always a niche one and never infinite...the end was inevitable. Emirates bought 150 of them (ordered 200, but reduced their order). Aircraft lifecycles are getting shorter as new technology is coming faster and faster and airlines want to exploit that new technology for fuel savings and fleet optimisation.

Yeah impressive engineering for a problem that didn’t exist.

The problem did exist and still does and will do in the future....the airline industry is cyclical...airlines still want to fly out of big airports like LHR which are slot constrained...you can't fly any more aircraft in or out of them, so if you are an airline and you want to fly more passengers rather than letting the competition fly them and probably losing them forever, then you need larger aircraft. This problem is not going away as air travel is forecast to continue to grow. There is massive over capacity in the airline industry right now as there are too many airlines with too many aircraft, and most ailrines can't fill A380's twice a day day, 7 days a week, so no demand for very large aircraft for the foreseeable. A lot of airlines are struggling even those who don't operate A380's so expect some consolidation over the next 10 years or so.

I'm just lamenting the reduction in cabin comfort compared to the alternative aircraft - hence my comment about a step back in the same way Concorde was. The A350 comes close, but its physical size means it can never be as comfortable as an A380. The 777 is just a very old aircraft so can never be as nice, and the 787 is as noisy as 777 generation aircraft. But A380's will be flying around for the next 30 years so i'll have to be a bit choosy with who I fly with. But my job has recently changed so looks like i'll be doing a lot less flying...thankfully.

The “hub and spoke” model is not going to disappear soon. People still need to get from Vienna to Dallas, or Edinburgh to Singapore. They might be doing it in a more efficient 787 or A350 though.

I think you misunderstand hub and spoke, that's the point. Hub and spoke is having to go Edinburgh - London and then then London - Singapore (on an A380), whereas what's happening increasnigly is just flying Edinburgh - Singapore direct on an 787/A350. The A380 doesn't support that because, even if it could fit into Edinburgh easily there aren't 500+ people wanting to make that journey regularly.

The A380 will continue to exist because there are nearly 400 of them out there, so yes it "has a future", but not really if they stop making them...

A380 cabin environment is nicer than the 30 yer old 777 and 60 year old 747

B777 entered service in 1995. B747 in 1970. Airlines like SIA won't be flying the first generation planes anymore so they won't have any 30 year aircraft in their fleet, let alone 60 years old. They're all just big flying buses when you get down to it. I didn't see much difference between B777 and A380, I'd take whichever got me to my destination the quickest.

It’s interesting that the 747 freighter continues to be turned out, although there haven’t been any passenger carrying ones for a few years (nor are there any remaining US registered passenger ones surprisingly), yet the A380 freighter never garnered enough interest to make it worthwhile.

That's because the freight carriers can use the same kit they use for every other aircraft to load them up. The 380 would need specialist kit.

Also the 747 was designed from the word go to be a multi use aircraft, so it's easy (cheaper) to convert.

I've only flown on a 380 once (Singapore) and it was lovely to fly in, but the sheer size of the thing vs the not huge increase in numbers doesn't make it the most 'efficient' of planes at all. Given it was designed to be stretched, a ~700 capacity plane would have probably made more sense if it could have been filled.

The problem did exist and still does and will do in the future….the airline industry is cyclical…airlines still want to fly out of big airports like LHR which are slot constrained…you can’t fly any more aircraft in or out of them, so if you are an airline and you want to fly more passengers rather than letting the competition fly them and probably losing them forever, then you need larger aircraft.

Something it hasn’t provide though is it? It could have but they chose not to add that many more. It’s also a very few airports that require such fine details so like I say a problem that didn’t exist as other cheaper aircraft can fulfill those demands

It would be nice to think that the main reason was a reduction in air travel due to the effects on climate change.

So far I've only flown on one, since then I've been on what should be prime routes for it, and it's always been something a bit more flexible and smaller, it's still a sight to behold when they corner off huge amounts of terminal space to load them, it might have been less arrivals but it's another 3 or 4 gates that could have been used.

Nobody has enough of a monopoly to make a big fleet of them work these days which is a good thing for the consumer

Several things combined to create the downfall of the Very Large Aircraft. At the time of its inception, many carriers had limited slots into large airports for large aircraft, thus creating a bottleneck which Airbus thought they could fill with the VLA. Then along came codesharing and aircraft alliances, which meant they could share slots and gates. Next up was the wake turbulence problem. A380 can't claim to reduce landing slots when it needs twice the gap of any other aircraft including the 747. Next was the fact that it can't be easily configured for freight - a major source of sales for the 747. Next is the specialist infrastructure required to offload efficiently and the airport services required to operate it. Finally there's the outright cost. Its expensive to build and operate (not so much in terms of fuel, but maintain) and seems to have little resale value which means you HAVE to buy with the intention of using it for life or making enough profit in a shorter life. Not many airlines can do that. All coupled, it's too many small, negative things which combine to bring down a giant.

The A380 was NOT a vanity project - Airbus genuinely believed in its business case and had some of the above not happened, it may well have been more successful.

Daffy - Airbus Engineer

It would be nice to think that the main reason was a reduction in air travel due to the effects on climate change.

It is in some respect - the Dreamliner etc are far more efficient and money counts.

The A380 was never going to work really, the concept of one flight a day stuffing 700 people into one plane was flawed for many reasons. Especially the business class end of the metal tube who want flexibility of times and those connecting on to other destinations. Add in having to rebuild the infrastructure at the airports to handle it and it was a bit of a white elephant.

Especially the business class end of the metal tube who want flexibility of times and those connecting on to other destinations.

But a lot of them for the long haul destination all arrive early doors to get the domestic connection of leave at the end of the day - maximising your useful time there

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-14/airbus-a380-superjumbo-how-it-happened-and-what-went-wrong

Mikewsmith - but all the flights can't depart/arrive at convenient times like the start of the day if you've just one plane.

BA fly something like 18 flights to New York a day to cater for people departing early, getting in later from connecting journeys etc.

A380 production to end in 2021

NOOooooooooo!!!

I always fly A380 to the far east and I can say it's the best I have flown in so far ... haven't tried 787 so no idea.

Let's hope I continue to fly them whenever I can.

I've been on a 787 and it was a class above the normal stuff I go on. Ok so the plane was new, but having big windows is huge for me, and the ability to dim them whilst still being able to see out is much less claustrophobic than blinds. And it was quiet too.

However the flight was the most horrifyingly turbulent I've been on so I can't comment on its stability in normal flight 🙂

BA fly something like 18 flights to New York a day to cater for people departing early, getting in later from connecting journeys etc.

15 BA flights I think, a little over $1bn a year from that route alone.

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking, welcoming you aboard this.. umm…” *paper shuffling* “Boeing…?” *more shuffling* “… plane?”

I was flying Edinburgh to Birmingham a few months ago. Boarded the plane, was about the taxi and the Captain welcomed us aboard the flight to Shetland. Lots of confusion then hollering from the passengers before we were taken off the plane, put on a bus and driven to the correct aircraft in the next parking space.

i was surprised that the wiki page for a380s showed that some were already being considered for 'teardown' (ie scrapping them) - that can never be a good thing for a 10 year old plane..

Back in October, working at the home of a manager of British Aerospace, at Broughton North Wales, asked him about the future of wing production, he said staff feared about 5 years work at Broughton and then dismataling and moving the equipment to europe, or china, going to be a huge blow to the local area as a lot of the new homes are bought by employees also a large shopping centre directly opposite main entrance will suffer.

Seemed to be 10 year behind the time and more of a vanity project. The end of the Tanker ****ers.

787 is the best I've flown on simply because the cabin pressure is higher therefore the landing is less painful on the ears.
I know airlines don't care about looks but for me the poor old A380 is the ugliest commercial jet in recent history whereas the 747 has style.
The future was supposed to be hubs but reality has turned out go be smaller planes flying direct.

Was looking on flight radar today and spotted 3 Emerates A380s right behind each other. All from Dubai, one heading to Sydney, one Melbourne and one Auckland.

Was then hovering over bristol watching the Beluga after it did a turn around our place and spotted a BA A380 heading to the USA and one coming back. They stand out quite well of flight radar.

It was too late to have the desired impact IMO. The World changed and it's market disappeared despite air traffic increasing.

These days it's all about the smaller, more efficient and more regular flights and international flights from more local airports. Yet again Bowing got their market research spot on compared to the Europeans.

The Dubai Oz/Nz route is one of those that actually makes sense for it, you need a half way, lots of people heading the same way and in reality Oz works on a hub model with lots of nice internal flights to link up to.

I was flying Edinburgh to Birmingham a few months ago. Boarded the plane, was about the taxi and the Captain welcomed us aboard the flight to Shetland

I've never complained when I've been upgraded.

yeah Oz does work but it kind of has to. Dubai also in a way as it's a very concentrated area of rich people.

The planes being stripped for parts are German owned lease planes. No one wants to lease them so stripping them down is the only option.

As for Broughton we are doing our best to get the new wings built there with a lot of UK investment. It's a fantastic place and some serious investment there. I suspect I know what is going to happen with the current A380 wing building.

It is a shame Filton is gone as a manufacturing hub and the airport is now turning into a housing estate. It would make more sense for them to move the current Airbus plant down to near Bristol airport but they have just build a new government funded R&D centre.

My twopeneth’s worth...

I fly an A330. It’s long range (7000+nm) and you only need 320 economy or 250 mixed class to fill it up. The A350 & B787 similar-ish but better range.

The A380 takes a lot of filling and ticket sales. It is limited into which airports for normal and emergency use (yes my 330 is too, but can fit into most international airports). If one breaks you don’t often have a spare 380, but many 330/350 787-sized aircraft are available for short notice charter.

Twins are getting longer range (787 London to Perth!) and have much better fuel burn, plus the unit cost and servicing costs are far less. Plus they’re reliable enough to do long oceanic legs (I’ve done 10h oceanic legs recently).

All these factors count against the poor 380. So a great jet, supposedly nice to fly and great as pax, but sadly time marches on.