End of the superjumbo: Airbus is giving up on the A380

Skåning

Well-Known Member
Man tough crowd... It sounds like they took a business risk that didn’t pan out.

But you guys know Airbus weren’t the only ones that thought of this right? “Superjumbo” was kind of a big deal in aerospace in the 90s, along with BWB. The difference is their competitors stopped at design studies.

View attachment 47070

View attachment 47069
(Hmmm CG anyone?)

View attachment 47071

See also the NLA, Sonic Cruiser and 2707 for more Boeing airplanes that could have been:
Sukhoi also dabbled in 1999 with the KR-860:

47072
 

FlyingAccountant

Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, it's great. Airbus just bet on future market conditions that never really developed and it didn't help that the world economy took a massive dump as soon as it reached production.

I enjoyed the one flight I took on it back in 2008. It was the first frame Qantas took in the first month or two they had it. You could see the flash bulbs as we taxied to the runway at LAX.
 

Yakob

Grand Prognosticator Nominee
Now, the argument has gone 180 degrees and these same people are all Airbus fanboys, even though nothing else changed :)
It's especially ironic since the main complaint about Boeing on here is how old the 737 is and how current production 737s still have the same overhead panel as the 737-100. Yet here Airbus introduced an all-new, modern design and everyone hates it.
 

TWP

Well-Known Member
The 380 looks like the dude that goes “HEEEEY YOU GUISE,” in the goonies. Ugly. I’m glad it failed. Ugly aircraft shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
This is the same crowd who were all the "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!" people from 10+ years ago, decrying how Airbus was the devil because they didn't play fair and were lowly scum taking government subsidies and trying to put Boeing out of business. They were the ME3 of airplane manufacturers.

Now, the argument has gone 180 degrees and these same people are all Airbus fanboys, even though nothing else changed :)
LOL put Boeing out of business and Airbus taking subsidies. Boeing is the God of subsidies/grants from all that military spending of the United States (and other nations). They spend faaaaaaar more money on lobbyists than Airbus.

As for the guy saying 'Bye Felicia' , I don't get that. There's going to be a couple thousand employees looking at furloughs or permanent moves to other divisions as a result of this. I don't wish that on anyone in aviation, regardless of Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier/Embraer/etc.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
No A380F because although it has 60% more volume space than a 747-400F, it only has 28% more weight capability. Basically a lot of the plane would be empty on normal cargo ops.
Is that Gross weight or ZFW (useful load if you will)? Low landing weight can be a big issue to. I know nothing of the numbers on the A380, but not making a freighter was the dumbest thing they could have done.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
Is that Gross weight or ZFW (useful load if you will)? Low landing weight can be a big issue to. I know nothing of the numbers on the A380, but not making a freighter was the dumbest thing they could have done.
That I have no idea. I was just paraphrasing an article I googled
 

melax

Well-Known Member
No A380F because although it has 60% more volume space than a 747-400F, it only has 28% more weight capability. Basically a lot of the plane would be empty on normal cargo ops.
Those numbers are based on spreading the load because of structural floor weight limitations for one, so forget about loading heavy machinery , and forget about over sized loads, as the nose doesn't open up.... because of the upper deck, you also will have size limitations (vertical). For cargo loaded on the upper level, I imagine one would have to have a special loading facility or loading equipment because of the height. So you can load it with mucho small parcels and that's about it, hence no A380F. The secondary market will be very restricted to only a handful of perhaps Tour operators, and the Hadj.
Sad ending, but we should be able to fly it at least for the next 15 to 20 years.
 

ChasenSFO

hen teaser
I hate to see a marvel of aviation engineering discontinued honestly, but this will really expedite the retirement from major airline fleets as there won't be new A380s to replace the old ones with(with the exception of Emirates who is doing just that with some frames). It will be interesting when many charter carriers like HiFly get a hold of dozens of A380s. We'll see them in places that would never get an A380 today.
 

FloridaLarry

Well-Known Member
A-380 was designed for a hub-and-spoke route system. Fly everyone to a few hubs and cram them into a really big jet to another hub, and distribute them to their destinations.

It hit the market when mid-size twin jets (and hub congestion) made point-to-point long-haul and international flying practical. PAX preferred single flights to to-fers and three-fers.

Bad market timing by Airbus. Plane just wasn't attractive enough (with or without Jennifer Anniston) to overcome convenience of direct flights and shorter overall travel time. Size didn't trump what was becoming a niche market.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
It will be interesting when many charter carriers like HiFly get a hold of dozens of A380s. We'll see them in places that would never get an A380 today.
Think it’s limited on what airports it can fly into because of taxiway and tarmac sizes, irregardless what airline is flying it or for what purpose.

It was cool watching them when I lived under the Approach path for Jfk. It was like watching your apartment building fly overhead.
 
Top