2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

(ie. Fenix can't list on the marketplace, and the A2A Comanche when it was released couldn't either, but I think A2A is changing the design of it so that it can list in the marketplace)

They must have worked this out because the Comanche is on the marketplace now. 

1 hour ago, Car147 said:

Yup most A380's are now back out of retirement, due solely to the huge uptake in International flight's since covid. Lufthansa, (A380 and even A340's are back in service) BA's A380's, Qatar's , Singapore airlines, etc, etc. 

The thing is, the A380 has always been a commercial mishap, regardless of covid. Airbus read the market wrong and didn't forecast that direct long haul routes between smaller airports with smaller widebodies (or even narrowbodies) became the way to go rather than connecting mega hubs with mega planes and have pax connect from there. It's also four-engined which is always an economic disadvantage.

Emirates has always been a bit special in that regard since they operate entirely out of one mega hub that sees a huge majority of its traffic being flights to big hubs all over the planet.The A380 certainly works well for them.

That as maybe, still remains the fact they have returned to service, therefore must be making $$, otherwise they simply would not have returned to flight. 

It's probably more like they had nothing else to use.

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

The thing is, the A380 has always been a commercial mishap, regardless of covid. Airbus read the market wrong and didn't forecast that direct long haul routes between smaller airports with smaller widebodies (or even narrowbodies) became the way to go rather than connecting mega hubs with mega planes and have pax connect from there. It's also four-engined which is always an economic disadvantage.

Emirates has always been a bit special in that regard since they operate entirely out of one mega hub that sees a huge majority of its traffic being flights to big hubs all over the planet.The A380 certainly works well for them.

Correct I know numerous people at Qantas and the 380 causes them no ends of tech and defect issues 

4 hours ago, threegreen said:

Commercially, no one understands the real A380 either. *runs and hides*

I watched an interesting YouTube video that explained how Boeing tricked Airbus into spending lots of time and money in developing a super large aircraft contender by provoking them with the 747-8I An aircraft that didn’t really cost Boeing that much to develop from the 747-400 relatively speaking.

Not sure how true it all is but it sort of makes sense.

Edited December 25, 20232 yr by jon b

31 minutes ago, jon b said:

I watched an interesting YouTube video that explained how Boeing tricked Airbus into spending lots of time and money in developing a super large aircraft contender by provoking them with the 747-8I An aircraft that didn’t really cost Boeing that much to develop from the 747-400 relatively speaking.

Not sure how true it all is but it sort of makes sense.

I think that's not quite correct... I worked for Boeing at the time, pretty sure Airbus just missed the mark on the A380.  Thought the efficiency of that many passengers would compensate for the extra fuel burn.  Didn't see the future of the long skinny routes that the 787 and subsequent A350 would offer.  Also I dont think anyone realized how $$$ heavy the A380 would be from a maintenance and fuel burn perspective.  From what I heard from customers was anything over 8-10 hrs flight time the A380 absolutely burned $$, which was also the routes it was used on the most.

What is true of your story is Boeing announced the 747-8F/I because Airbus was considering an A380 Cargo and Boeing was confident they could get it done for cheaper with only marginally less cargo capacity.  Obviously that announcement from Boeing ended up causing Airbus to trash their A380 cargo concept.

2 hours ago, nrunning24 said:

pretty sure Airbus just missed the mark on the A380.  Thought the efficiency of that many passengers would compensate for the extra fuel burn.

From what I understand, if the A380 can be filled to a certain (or full) capacity then the route ends up with net savings for the airliner. So those airliners like Emirates who can fill up the A380 with big numbers regularly, and especially with their hub-and-spoke model with Dubai as the hub certainly find the A380 attractive. And regardless of the bottom line for the airliner, the A380 also was/is a big hit with passengers and allows for airliners to provide certain kinds of premium products/services they couldn't do on smaller aircraft (Emirates again a prime example). I guess at the time when hub-and-spoke was all the rage Airbus's A380 was not off the mark.. the airline industry however has changed now. But that said especially post-covid, for certain airliners in order to move the kinds of passenger numbers they're seeing demand from, the A380 obviously made enough sense to be brought out of retirement, at least as a stop-gap until their orders for A350s, 777X, etc get delivered.
 

The rise in fuel prices and the relaxing of ETOPS rules didn't help the 380.    But  lot of the R&D that went into the 380 helped Airbus produce the 350 - such an excellent competitor to the 787.

Edited December 25, 20232 yr by Matt Webb

I like the A380. That's all I care about. If commercial success had a direct correlation with how an aircraft is perceived, then Concorde and the VC10 would have disappeared without a trace. As it stands, they are two of the most beautiful commercial airliners ever built.

12 hours ago, Car147 said:

That as maybe, still remains the fact they have returned to service, therefore must be making $$, otherwise they simply would not have returned to flight. 

Well, no one said the A380 doesn't work at all. Obviously, it does work, otherwise there wouldn't be any. But it never came close to what Airbus was envisioning for it and they ended up making huge losses off of it. As someone already alluded to, there was supposed to be a cargo version. That one had huge orders from FedEx and UPS and would have made the A380 program a lot more worthwhile. Both however pulled out of the deals because even in the cargo sector the huge capacity ended up not being where the world went (plus fuel economy again). Airbus also pulled out of the A380-900 as a result of low demand for an aircraft that size.

It's working for Emirates just like it was envisioned to, but they are the only airline where this works. Other airlines have some demand for the A380, but that it far less then what Emirates does and what the A380 program was supposed to be. There are still routes with huge demand between hubs where the A380 makes sense, and that's why you're seeing them being brought back at some airlines, but many others have retired them for good. It fills a gap somewhere, but that gap is a niche, and the net result of the A380 is a economic mishap.

Much of this is also the reason why the 747-8i isn't very popular. Very few airlines need planes the size of the A380 or the 747 these days, and the fuel economy kills it for good. The A380 has more customers than the 747-8i of course, but it's still not more than a handful. There are A380s with an age of only 10 years being scrapped because there's no one to give them a second life.

On 12/23/2023 at 6:44 PM, Tuskin38 said:

That‘s great news. I‘m normally not that interested in long-haul aircraft, but this one sounds very promising.

11 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

From what I understand, if the A380 can be filled to a certain (or full) capacity then the route ends up with net savings for the airliner. So those airliners like Emirates who can fill up the A380 with big numbers regularly, and especially with their hub-and-spoke model with Dubai as the hub certainly find the A380 attractive. And regardless of the bottom line for the airliner, the A380 also was/is a big hit with passengers and allows for airliners to provide certain kinds of premium products/services they couldn't do on smaller aircraft (Emirates again a prime example). I guess at the time when hub-and-spoke was all the rage Airbus's A380 was not off the mark.. the airline industry however has changed now. But that said especially post-covid, for certain airliners in order to move the kinds of passenger numbers they're seeing demand from, the A380 obviously made enough sense to be brought out of retirement, at least as a stop-gap until their orders for A350s, 777X, etc get delivered.
 

The QF1 and QF2 -  SYD SIN LHR SIN SYD - is qantas highest profitable route ,so I'm told 

Edited December 25, 20232 yr by fluffyflops

5 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

The QF1 and QF2 -  SYD SIN LHR SIN SYD - is qantas highest profitable route ,so I'm told 

You should quote out what the RT cost is in Business and First class, which are almost always full on this route.  Random dates in April, First +$19,000 AUD per person, Business +$12,000 AUD per person.  Not saying you can't make money, just that its really limited to a very small amount of routes where it makes sense. 

I thought that this was a discussion about the A350 rather than an "expert discussion" on the failings of the A380.

I'm looking forward to the A350 immensely as I am for the A380 and the soon to be released A300.  MSFS just keeps getting better and better.