Sad day goodbye A380

[Dave_YVR 971]

 It's still going to be around for quite some time. Just because they won't be making any new ones doesn't mean it's getting withdrawn from all services anytime soon.

[anden145 2,285]

20 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

 It's still going to be around for quite some time. Just because they won't be making any new ones doesn't mean it's getting withdrawn from all services anytime soon.

I'm not so sure about that. I have a feeling, that many airlines will retire them sooner than later. 

The future routing structure suggests, that more and more airlines are making direct long haul routes with small to medium sized aircrafts; Boeing 787, A350 and Boeing 777X. I have a feeling, that the market for the A380 (and 4-engine aircrafts in general, when comes to passenger services) are dying out.

There's not that many airlines left, where the A380 was needed. One of them, was actually Emirates, since they're still have quite a central hub-structure, where the A380 would fit in. All the more interesting, that they're dropping it - I guess it's too expensive to use...

If it's money that's the reason for the A380 being dumped by airlines (and it usually is), I guess the remaining airlines which have the A380 in service also are looking for alternatives, fairly quickly, hence I think we'll see more and more airlines simply stop flying with it, and replacing them with cheaper alternatives; A350 or B787/B777...
Especially in the competitive, economical and ecological climate, that airliners are operating in. They're constantly looking to cut costs and the A380 is apparently quite expensive to keep in the air. 

We're already seeing airlines grounding the plane early. To be honest, I don't think we'll be seeing the A380 for decades to come... 

[F737MAX 5,579]

10 hours ago, thibodba57 said:

I have flown in one. Emirates Business class. It was comfortable, but nothing different than I have experienced in any number of aircraft.  The 78 however is the exception to the rule now.  It walks circles around any aircraft in the long range market.

Except that the 787 really doesn't run "circles around any aircraft in the long range market". Have you ever sat by the window in a 787? It can get uncomfortably hot when the electronic window shades are fully dimmed - something I've never experienced in an aeroplane with conventional window blinds.
Cabin altitude of 6,000ft on the 787 is a very nice feature, but the A380 and A350 now manage the same, and are set up to be more comfortable for the passenger.

Thought 10-across in a 777 was bad? Try 9-across in the 787 with very narrow armrests and personal space at shoulder height. Yes, I'm aware it's the airlines that choose seating arrangements, but Boeing sets its planes up for narrower seat width to get the extra seat per row in.

Having been lucky enough to fly on all 3 aircraft multiple times in the last 4 years, I make an active choice to take the newer Airbus offerings. (Though I'd take a 787 over 777 any day).

9 hours ago, ErichB said:

It's so ironic in a world where pilot demand is increasing, passenger number are ever higher, that the largest people carrier is no longer viable economically due to lack of demand. But the economics is quite simple.  2 engines are better than 4 (these days)

Yup, it came a bit too late to market when ETOPS ranges were being expanded, delayed by its CATIA design issues, over-engineered for a -900 model that never made it past the drawing board, and came with engines that are now being bettered in regards to fuel burn by the GEnx and Trent XWB. A catalogue of errors that meant it could never live up to its potential.
 

45 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

It wasn't just the fuel economics though. It wasn't a good fit for existing airport infrastructure either. 

Neither was the 747 when she first flew - the problem really is that for the airlines it's too much aircraft (over-engineered for a model that never came) for the number of passengers on-board in the usual airline density.

4 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

I'm not so sure about that. I have a feeling, that many airlines will retire them sooner than later. 

Quite likely, sadly. The ability of leasing companies to make large aircraft available to airlines that would never contemplate flying something as large as an A380, will enable them to compete on these A380 routes at a big cost advantage. Running an A380 (even one that's been fully depreciated in the accounts) will be too expensive against the 787-10, A350-900 and 777-X when it arrives.

[thibodba57 462]

@F737NG yes I have flown next to the window a couple times in the 78. Never noticed it being hot.  And it's not the cabin altitude that's the benefit of the 78 it's the humidity level they can keep it at.  If you truly want to know an aircrafts benefits don't talk to people that ride them once in a blue moon, talk to the people who operate them routinely.  The 78 is a more comfortable ride, it doesn't plague the body with most of the long haul maladies as other long haul aircraft do.

[Adrian123 1,015]

33 minutes ago, thibodba57 said:

@F737NG yes I have flown next to the window a couple times in the 78. Never noticed it being hot.  And it's not the cabin altitude that's the benefit of the 78 it's the humidity level they can keep it at.  If you truly want to know an aircrafts benefits don't talk to people that ride them once in a blue moon, talk to the people who operate them routinely.  The 78 is a more comfortable ride, it doesn't plague the body with most of the long haul maladies as other long haul aircraft do.

Agree, 5 Transatlantic flights to Europe/Austria.

[Kevin_28 164]

Been on the 787 twice and rode window both times. Never noticed it being hot either. I was perfectly comfortable.

[JustanotherPilot 219]

And not one US/Canadian carrier decided to purchase the A380, I would have thought the shear volume of air travelers in the US and the distance coast to coast, as well as the trans Atlantic sector, would have justified its' purchase, Australia with it's measly population of 25 million has 12 operating through Qantas - how economical they are is another question. In any case I don't see how the A380 could compete with the current 787, A350 economy and with the 777X eventual release I think that will change the way we travel long distances with 300-400 passengers.

[DavidP 1,410]

The 380 is by far the best I've ever travelled in.

[Flyfox 114]

29 minutes ago, DavidP said:

The 380 is by far the best I've ever travelled in.

Likewise! I often travel from ZUE to TPE via Dubai with Emirates and each leg is a very comfortable flying experience. I hope that the A380 will be operated for another 20 to 30 years.

Besides, I also consider the look of this giant not only as impressive but also as quite aesthetic.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Flyfox

[Gnacino 48]

IMO,  It is an ugly looking aircraft, not elegant at all.  It looks like a fat guppy, not elegant at all This was Airbus' idea to trump Boeing.  The reason passengers who flew it liked it so much was that it was spacious, of course it was, cause it was never really full.  It reminds me of people that bought the American car the PontiacAztek.  They loved it cause they didn't have to look at the exterior when they were in it.. Besides, I'm a Boeing fan, can you tell?

Gnacino

Edited February 14, 2019 by Gnacino

[John_Cillis 2,406]

15 hours ago, scrunge49 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47231504

 

Probably inevitable but sad to see never the less,

 

 

Probably already said, but the A380 will not be gone until airlines quit flying them.  It has a great safety record for a jumbo so far, quite amazing given its size.  The latest Boeing and Airbus jumbos have been very safe, cannot say anything about the Russian jumbos because I do not know how many are flown out there, and I do not know if China has one or has one in the works.  Just because an aircraft is discontinued does not mean it does not still have legs, look at the DC3...  The Ford Trimotor, so many Cessnas like the 310, the 337 and so on.  The A380 has served its purpose and now the A350 is Airbus's jumbo of the present and future.  I am glad there is still competition in commercial aviation because many third party vendors, like certain aircraft safety equipment, are made in the US, in China, in India and so on, helping our global economy.  In Phoenix I understand there is an aircraft safety vendor that contributed to the A380 and Boeing as well.

John

[helberger 72]

Good for the environment!

[ErichB 3,639]

14 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I never flew on one, but just on appearance I think it's not a good-looking aircraft. The 747's forward bulge managed to look unique and appropriate for something that large. The 380 just looks bloated to me. Or maybe I'm just biased, with the 747 being around for so many years.

The A380, to me,  looks good from specific angles (not many).  Sometimes it just looks word not allowed ugly.  The 747 looks good from any  angle and equally good in the air or on the ground.  

But every long haul ride I have ever had in an A380 has been, by far,  the best passenger experience I have ever had.

[Chock 17,769]

The A380 is undeniably a fugly aeroplane. It's a capable one in terms of capacity; unfortunately, as with the 747, it's not what the airlines need - they want range rather than capacity -but unlike other aeroplanes which have gone past their sell-by-date for the airlines, the A380 is not well suited to a lot of airports, which limits its potential on the second hand and freight conversion market. You only have to look at the A340 to see how things will go for the A380; there are quite a lot of A340s about, but you can pick one up for peanuts, because nobody wants them.

[thibodba57 462]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

which limits its potential on the second hand and freight conversion market. 

P2F is a non started for the A380.  Freighters were discussed but never went passed either putting a lift in the aircraft (extreme weight) or a unique loader which would further limit it's functionality and increase overhead.  Price per kilo/per NM is also significantly higher than the 748F which shares commonality with loaders and ULDs with other fleet types.   I think what we will see over the next decade is all the 380s put into storage just as most Airbuses go after their 20 year lifespan.  This of course is only if Airbus decides to keep supporting the aircraft with parts.  They might slow that down to put pressure on airlines to get new A350s probably with bargain prices if they exchange their A380s