
Airbus will stop building the A380 in 2021 - ramzyo
https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-will-stop-building-its-a380-superjumbo-jet-11550121699
======
AceyMan
Knowing the state of things and the history of the project I'm not much
surprised by this, yet I'm a bit taken aback that this indeed has come to
pass. I always hate it when a serviceable, if not especially outstanding,
aircraft gets shuttered well before it had a meaningful lifecycle in the
industry.

But from everything I've read (am I'm no industry expert on the business side)
it was a dick-swinging contest from the get-go. Boeing saw that a full-on new
spec 4-engine plane was not going to pay itself back; if Airbus execs saw it,
they didn't let it change their path.

"Build it and they will come," was perhaps the irrational source of motive for
pressing on from the beginning. I don't recall the market (at the time the
project was greenlit) clamoring for a bigger, more efficient, more pax
friendly quad-jet. It's almost as if Airbus managed to upsell this beast to
the carriers that did choose to purchase the ones they have.

The shifting winds of route topology from hub-n-spoke to point-to-point were
already brewing, and the stair-step jumps in the ETOPS allowances for twins
had obviously not yet reached its limit ... but still, they went for it.

Well, I hope the ones that are built, and those yet to be built, will run for
decades more because they are mighty beasts to behold; that much is true. I
know the international departure slots out of LAX and when I remember and the
sky is clear I step out on my deck and get to watch them on initial climb-out
(it's usually Emirates, but sometimes there are others). They look like
freight trains in the sky and are really quiet, but the four engines together
make a unique drone that will pull me outside even when I'm not even planning
to take a peek.

Farewell, A380; we barely knew thee.

~~~
jayalpha
Your analysis is wrong from many points.

There is a huge market for the plane.

The plane came too early. Build now with lighter materials, better engines and
in the long version (the wings are designed for a much longer version, this
also makes it heavy for the short version).

Is there a demand for such flights from Chicago to NYC? No.

But Shanghai, Guangzhou, Beijing, Deli, Mumbai via hubs such as Moscow,
Istanbul or Addis there is.

So unfortunately the truth is, that there is a market, but the plane come too
early. In fact, the Airbus CEO said exactly this in an interview.

~~~
gkanai
Some of the highest passenger counts per year are between Osaka-Tokyo or
Sapporo-Tokyo or Seoul-Jeju or Shanghai-Beijing. And yet I don't see 380s on
those routes...

~~~
princeb
yes if you look at busiest routes you will find the top few dominated by short
domestic routes less than 1000-1500 km. you run a short range plane like the
a320 or the 737 and fly the route 100s of times a day. it's much cheaper than
running a few a380s.

the a380s are almost only used for long range flights with 1 or 2 flights a
day: sydney-dubai-heathrow, singapore-london, singapore-frankfurt-new york
etc.

~~~
CydeWeys
And smaller planes flying more frequently yield a better experience for the
customer, too. There's more flight times to choose from, boarding doesn't take
as long, and there's many more jetways available for smaller planes at
airports.

------
jedberg
A shame. I've flown the A380 from SFO to Frankfurt, and man was that a nice
flight. There was a noticeable difference in my jet lag. And when I first got
on, I was sure the row number was wrong or there were skipped rows or
something, but no, I just kept walking and walking and sure enough eventually
I got to row 90!

~~~
tallanvor
Both the A380 and 787 are able to maintain higher humidity in the cabin, which
helps a lot during long flights. You don't get as dehydrated and you're more
likely to be able to get some decent sleep.

~~~
acchow
Also, higher cabin pressure

~~~
keymone
Also less affected by turbulence. Also more room to walk around and stretch.
Also more space above your head.

The greatest passenger jet in history.

------
dx7tnt
I second the comments about this wonderful plane delivering a superior
experience. I used to fly Manchester (UK) - DXB - Melbourne and loved every
second of being in economy on one of these. Flying with Emirates even in the
cheap seats is always exciting with great food and drink, so much so I'd
arrive at my destination both drunk and hungover, but feeling good because of
the nice clean air and quiet ride of the A380. Flying on the 777 or with a
carrier like Etihad isn't even a comparable experience. The little things
really count on a long-haul flight so that little bit more legroom, comfort,
and class that the A380 gives makes flying on one a real treat, even if you
are flying with 500 other people. Big shame there weren't more customers for
Airbus, and more carriers couldn't make this plane work for them.

~~~
bb101
Unfortunately not all carriers give more space to economy passengers in an
A380. Qatar Airways for example, pack the seats in just as tight. I actively
choose against A380s for my long flights because the aircraft feels like a
flying city as opposed to a flying village. An A350 or 787 provide a far
superior passenger experience in my opinion.

~~~
mattlondon
+1

I remember when the A380 was starting to get some public media attention and
there were these great sounding potential-perks of these new super jumbos: an
on-board gym! a library! a creche! perhaps even an on-board casino!

In hindsight it was perhaps inevitable that all that extra space would just
mean more people packed in just as tight as they are on smaller planes.

While I am sure its very nice up in first class, my A380 experience has been
as soul-destroying and uncomfortable as any other plane.

~~~
mayniac
I got to experience first class in a BA A380 flight once since it was cheaper
than business class and my company was paying.

This is probably going to sound like the pinnacle of first world problems,
but: it's overrated. The main differences between business and first were
getting actual bedding and having more attendants per passenger. And three
types of champagne, because obviously just one isn't enough. The food was
slightly better than in business but nothing outstanding.

There's a huge step up from economy to business since you get the lie-flat
seats you can actually sleep comfortably in and good food/alcohol. Beyond
that, you're mainly paying for exclusivity and status.

~~~
chrissnell
BA A380 first class is pretty lacking. The saying is that it's "the world's
best business class". I flew it over and back from ORD to LHR and it was
enjoyable but it can't touch the Emirates A380 experience in F.

------
chrissnell
I flew first class on the Emirates A380 earlier this year. It's an experience
like none other. It's completely absurd and unnecessary but simultaneously
incredible and nearly unbeatable. It's an unreal feeling to take a shower at
40,000', or to drink a Manhattan over Iran, or to experience a lively cocktail
bar at 3AM over Northern Greenland. Unless you own a Boeing Business Jet,
you're probably not going to be able to do that. It's a taste of the 0.1%
that's in reach for mere mortals if you know the right routes. The typical
first class A380 ride from the US to or from the Middle East or most of Asia
will run anywhere from $9,000-15,000 one-way. However, if you're willing to
fly out of Colomobo, Sri Lanka, you can sometimes do this trip for less than
$5,000. A flight from Bangkok to Houston via Dubai will get you a 777-300ER
ride (itself an experience) plus a 16-hour A380 ride.

If you want to see what it's like, I posted some pics:

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721577066639...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/72157706663987055)

------
ra7
A380 is the smoothest and quietest aircraft I've flown in, and those things
really make a difference if you're flying 16 hours from SFO to DXB.

~~~
Uberphallus
Here's another praise this plane, in my case LHR-LAX.

Back in 2016 I found an offer I could not stop myself from booking: NCE-LHR-
LAX-HNL for 345EUR roundtrip. It was 36 hours per bound, but for 10 days in
Hawaii from Europe I was ready to bear with that.

Well, that LHR-LAX leg was gonna be my longest flight ever and I was worried
about my state on arrival, but it was easily the most comfortable leg of the
whole trip vs A319, A321 and B777 of the other legs, even being significantly
shorter.

~~~
yitchelle
Wow, what's your secret method for getting such a great deal?

I have been keep an eye on Scott's Cheap Flights
([https://scottscheapflights.com/](https://scottscheapflights.com/)), haven't
seen anything so spectacular!

~~~
Uberphallus
Found it on [https://www.secretflying.com](https://www.secretflying.com) and
here's a screencap:
[https://i.imgur.com/4MpUY0y.png](https://i.imgur.com/4MpUY0y.png)

~~~
yitchelle
thanks for the hint!

------
nabla9
A380 has three economic advantages:

1\. Landing slot price per passenger is low. Congested airports are the
economic reason for A380 to exist.

2\. A380 is runway-friendly large aircraft due to its wheel load distribution
and low load per wheel. Airfield pavement maintenance cost is 30-40 percent of
the airfield maintenance. If the weight based pricing is changed to match
actual runway damage, A380 will do really well.

3\. Relative to 747-400, significantly better fuel efficiency.

Economically A380 starts to make sense again in 10-20 years after the traffic
volumes in Asia skyrocket. When the demand exceeds the slots available, the
value of existing A380s starts to increase.

~~~
Retric
The fall off of hub and spoke as dual engine aircraft could legally and safely
makes such huge aircraft far less appealing. Clearly the market exists, but
aircraft last long enough that Airbus is in many ways competing with it’s self
for a sill limited number of viable routes.

Remeber, a hub and spoke trip means 2-3x the landings and relies on extremely
congested airports. So, point to point has significantly shifted what gets
congested. Things may look different in 25 years, but that’s a long time.

~~~
nabla9
High population density cities in Asia inevitably create the same economic
conditions as the hub and spoke model. Busy airports with high volume of
traffic and high capacity rate.

All estimates point to the future where there will be multiple mega-airports
with more than 100 million passengers in Asia.

~~~
Retric
Look at how many mid sized aircraft still travel from or to large airports.
With a point to point system you can load balance to so flight at major cities
use an equally large aircraft which makes a dramatic difference. Eventually,
they might need something like an A380, but that’s further into the future
than you might think and often balanced by building a few more airports.

Large Aircraft are great economically, as long as they can be kept full. But,
this tends to be limited as only a tiny fraction of routes can support such
beasts.

~~~
nabla9
When the point in point to point systems are big enough, they are equal to
hubs in hubs and spoke system. When there are tens of millions people in one
spot and airports construction is limited due to land price, that's a hub.

IATA estimates point to several new 100m airports in 10-15 years.

~~~
Retric
Tradional Hubs did not send jumbo’s to smaller airports. The average flight
into and out of an airport was still relatively small. At the same time, it
also artificially increased the numbers of flights which dramatically
increased traffic.

Now, sure with continued growth eventually you need larger aircraft. But,
while demand might pick up they have plenty of time to design a successor
especially as they can simply look at 747-800 sales numbers.

------
InTheArena
Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the primary
reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler - not a
single United States airline orders the A380. At the time of the A380's
introduction, more then half of world wide airlift was located in the United
States. The numbers are less now, but it's still the largest seat market by a
insane margin world wide. The US carriers were almost wiped out by the
irrational exuberance when the initial 747 came out. They were always
skeptical about their ability to fill consistently a A380, given market
dynamics. It doesn't matter how much more efficient you are with a bigger
plane, if you can't fill a seat, economically it simply spoills - you take all
the cost of the airplane, the fuel, the pilots, etc (CASM) but none of the
revenue (RASM). I've flown on enough empty upper decks on the A380 to know
this is a huge issue.

~~~
jessriedel
> Critics will often point at hub and spoke versus point to point as the
> primary reason for Airbus's debacle, the problem is basically much simpler -
> not a single United States airline orders the A380.

The second arguments seems like support for the first one, not an alternative
explanation.

------
warp_factor
I took the A380 probably more than 40 times on different routes altogether.

I hope that current companies (Lufthansa, Airfrance, Qantas) will keep it for
a long time. It is always a pleasure to fly in it. And superior to the 787 in
my opinion.

~~~
rbanffy
I hate those stupid windows of the 787 with a passion. The only joy of being
flown in a can is to look out through the windows.

~~~
kenneth
You should like the 787 then, the windows are quite a bit larger. I don't mind
the dimming feature, it takes a moment but it works, and I like the ability to
have partial dimming. The only thing I don't love is when they're controlled
by the crew automatically.

~~~
rbanffy
the ability of the crew to take away the dimming control is precisely why I
hate them so much.

~~~
shorts_theory
I found the crew's control of the dimming function far too aggressive on Air
India. Even on a midday flight at 1330, the windows were dimmed all throughout
till we landed at around 2200. It didn't help that I couldn't sleep
throughout, so it was painful to be in a cabin with next to zero natural
light.

------
ibejoeb
Another problem with the A380 is that although it could run more passengers
through the same number of gates, airports had to rebuild the gates to
accommodate the thing.

On economy long-hauls, I appreciate every config I've been on; they're roomy
and the effective cabin altitude is very comfortable, so it makes flying
easier.

That said, I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight. I
wouldn't care so much about comfort if I could take my 18-hour flight and
bring it down to 10. I don't know the economics of it, but flying on a
smaller, faster, higher-altitude aircraft would be more comfortable. Planes
haven't really gotten faster since the dawn of the jet age.

~~~
yblu
> I think aviation needs to invest again in supersonic flight

That's what they're doing:
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-
jet-...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18089300/supersonic-jet-concorde-
boom-aerion-carbon-us-laws)

------
tzfld
Everyone mourns it, but not to forget that there are more than 200 already
built A380s in use, and they will be used probably decades from now on.

~~~
umeshunni
As a point of comparison, ‎1548 B747s were built and they are only now being
phased out.

------
offsetr
Is this surprising? The A380 uses nearly 50% more fuel per seat than a
787/A350. That's when its full! Then you have to fill it up too - and it
doesn't go as far. It's just silly. Sure its innovative but that's not
economical.

~~~
exidy
I very much doubt this is true. Just as a sanity check, the A380 has slightly
more than double the fuel capacity (320 kL vs 156 kL) of the A350, and carries
twice as many people.

At least at maximum fully loaded range, the fuel per seat is going to be very
close. The problem starts when you're unable to fill the plane.

------
desertedisland
Stopped to watch one take off from Heathrow yesterday.

They're iconic but then so was the Concorde - being iconic is not a substitute
for being commercially viable.

------
mrleiter
As someone with fear of flying, but who still has to fly from time to time,
this is sad news. If I ever had to fly, I always tried to take an A380. They
are so smooth in flight, take off and landing. Nothing compares.

~~~
speedplane
I hope you live in Europe and often take long hauls. The A380 was built to
travel from one big city to another big city. It's a beautiful plane, but it
needs to be filled up with hundreds of passengers to be economical, needs a
huge runway, and can only park in a handful of the largest airports in the
world.

When it does that, it does it beautifully. I took a New York to Dubai flight
that was top notch, even in coach in the middle aisle. That said, there's no
way that plane could realistically make most domestic flights or even medium
demand international ones.

~~~
mrleiter
Yes, living in Europe is in fact the reason why I can "enjoy" the A380.

------
W-Stool
Here in Reno, not far from the Mustang VOR, I've seen the Air France A380
flight to Paris from SFO coming over around 4pm local time on a nice warm
sunny day, and even at pretty much full cruising altitude when they get out
this far they are a sight to see through some good binoculars. On the ground
(again for me at SFO) they look big enough to be built by aliens. RIP A380.

~~~
ttoinou
Have you seen a Beluga ? They are scary to see in the sky :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga)

------
saosebastiao
Inevitably in comments about the demise of the 747 or A380, people refer to
the proliferation of point to point routes. But while point to point routes
_have_ grown, hub and spoke routes have grown far more. There is an illusion
of the proliferation of point to point routes caused by the proliferation of
new hubs. For example, Seattle now has ~20 more direct international
destinations with a year round schedule than it did 15 years ago, which makes
it seem like point to point routes are more common. But careful inspection
shows that _every single direct international route_ from SEA is a hub and
spoke route for the airline flying it, with either the hub in Seattle, or the
hub at the destination.

When these aircraft were conceived, all industry momentum was pointed toward
superhubs, and _all_ of the superhubs were capacity constrained. Landing and
takeoff slots were constrained and airports were moving to auction models to
sell the slots. Terminal space was becoming more and more expensive. These
planes weren't more efficient because they could move more people, they were
more efficient because they didn't cost as much to land and take off and load
and unload. The reality of the matter is that Boeing and Airbus didn't
incorrectly forecast the decline of hub and spoke models, they incorrectly
forecasted the decline of superhubs.

~~~
dontbenebby
> But while point to point routes have grown, hub and spoke routes have grown
> far more.

I wish trains were lower priced. I'd much rather, say, fly to Paris then take
a train to Brussels rather than take a technically shorter flight that might
get delayed, or I might miss if the customs line is long.

But my choices are often expensive direct flight, cheaper hub and spoke flight
- plane+train is often more expensive :(

------
jokoon
I remember a youtube video explaining why big airplanes like the A380, while
technically impressive, do not make economic sense to airlines because it's
all about stopovers: it's more efficient to "ship" people with several
airplanes because it allows them to land to many more airports.

Of course there are still very busy destinations, for example Los Angeles -
New York, New York - London, but that's not enough air traffic so they don't
need as many A380 as we would think.

~~~
speedplane
The true goal of commercial airplane design is to find a plane that fits
demand of a particular route, so it's always full. With an A380, you can do
well on long haul popular flights, but even with those flights, you have very
little flexibility if things change.

Panam invested heavily in the 747 back in the day, and they minted money by
offering relatively reasonably priced international long haul flights. But
when gas prices and terrorism spiked, diminishing demand, they had these huge
gas guzzling planes that they couldn't fill up.

The A380 is really impressive, and it works well (now) on several specific
routes. But it's clear that the industry is moving towards fuel efficient,
more reasonably sized planes like the 787 and the A350 that are efficient on
both long and short haul flights.

------
mikece
I'm surprised they aren't going to bother with trying a freighter. The 747-8F
is still being sold; it's got almost twice the payload weight lift capacity of
the C-17 and 88% of the lift capacity of the decades-old Antanov An-124
(though the C-17 and An-124 can have taller and wider items, like tanks and
helicopters, loaded into the cargo hold than the 747-8F can).

~~~
Already__Taken
Watched a youtube video so now I'm an expert. The A380 runs out of load
capacity long before all the volume is used up so your cargo flights are
moving a lot of empty plane.

~~~
protomyth
Might be
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag&t=342s)
from DJ Aviation that explains the problems with a A380-F.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Sad sad day, economy on the upper deck of an AirFrance/KLM A380 is the most
quiet, most space long haul flight you can get, my default way to go Europe
<\--> Japan and Europe <\--> US.

------
InTheArena
Airbus has new management, as the old management was wiped out by bribery
scandals and retirement. They have more to come here - their is a new Indian
investigation on their practices in that country, and management is keen to
break with the previous regime. John Leahy - who crusaded for the plane
internally at Airbus, recently retired, and with him, anyone else who had a
stake in the A380 decide. The development costs of the A380 are not paid off -
the launch aid - from the European governments was to be repaid in royalties
per plane on a ongoing basis. The governments will find a way to sweep what
remains under the covers.

Ironically, the group most at risk with this decision is Boeing. The A380 has
been a total albatross and a anchor around the neck of Airbus. If Airbus
hadn't been sinking in cash left and right to the A380 program, when Boeing
had it's issue with the 787, Airbus could have really punished them in the
market. Instead, Airbus went with a slightly warmed over A330, until the
market forced them to the A350, which still wasn't as revolutionary as what
the 787 brought to bear, once it finally got over it's development hurdles.

So good application of the Sunk cost fallacy here by the new Airbus
leadership, and a message to Boeing that the new leadership at Airbus isn't
going to be constrained by the decisions of the past.

------
dbg31415
Shame. Anyone who's flown from LAX to Sydney knows how much better the A380 is
than the 7X7.

Fun dramatic video.

* Planes That Changed the World 3of3 Airbus A380 720p HDTV x264 AAC MVGroup org - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZsiAISEq7s)

~~~
alexis_fr
All the video with the trademark Airbus accent. It’s what we (French) do best,
but it’s like Singlish: It sounds like we have our own dialect of English.

------
unethical_ban
How do I find a route that flies on the A380, if I want to take a trip on that
plane specifically?

------
_pmf_
Would the A380 have been more attractive in terms of economics if fuel
subsidies were lower?

------
protomyth
DJ Aviation has a short video with some explanation and what replaced the
A380.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmyNf13l7o)

------
kzrdude
Obivously they didn't make as much money as projected then, but did they lose
money on this project? Was it an acceptable product to launch, or what is
airbus learning?

~~~
mshook
They probably lost a huge chunk of money but in the long run, it will probably
be worth the effort. When you design something new like that, you invent and
invest in new technologies that you'll use along the way.

Concorde, while a commercial failure, was a good example:

\- first commercial aircraft to have fly-by-wire

\- carbon brakes

\- anti skid (the first electronic system as far as I know)

\- center of gravity adjustment through fuel pumping (no need to trim the
aicraft hence less drag)

So lots of money thrown out of the window, sure, but they'll use what they've
learned...

------
drallison
The Airbus 380 is the only passenger aircraft for which I have a strong
preference. I dislike the toy aircraft (regional jets) that have become
standard which are too small and constrained for modern adults. In contrast,
at least in the Air France configuration, the A380 is roomy and comfortable. I
am sad that Airbus has decided to deprecate the model.

------
carlosgg
This really interesting Business Week article from early 2017, "Is Emirates
Airline Running Out of Sky?", is probably relevant:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-
emirat...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-05/is-emirates-
airline-running-out-of-sky)

------
jlangenauer
Well, I better get myself to Toulouse this year, so I can take a tour of the
Airbus factory while they're still building them.

------
huffmsa
And so begins the death of the hub and spoke theory of aviation. It's slowly
been invalidated for about a decade, but I'd say this is a mark of the end.

May the internet follow suit.

~~~
dingaling
Most 787 and A350 flights are out of hubs, too.

------
umichguy
When it was conceived, it was the right aircraft. By the time it arrived,
market conditions changed. So it became the wrong plane.

That's really to it. Really.

------
ngcc_hk
I have fixed to fly with a380 with London for many years, until I need to go
to another airport. The 77w is actually quite good.

------
ousta
this kind of engineering undertaking, praising greatness over profit is what
built our world. sad to see it put to an end just like the concorde was.
america and western civilization became a nation of bankers and social
networkers while it was a nation of engineers driven by innovation

------
jimmcslim
There's a Brexit impact here as well, since the wings for the A380 were being
manufactured in Wales.

------
totololo
Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone? I find it
incredibly hard to find this key info...

~~~
speedplane
> Cost per seat per mile comparison across airplanes anyone?

It's so much more complicated than that. Sure, there's probably not much more
efficient than a fully loaded A380, but airlines that doesn't present the full
picture if there are connections. Also, on the same plane, longer flights are
often less efficient than shorter ones because the plane needs to carry extra
fuel. Further, actual seat density matters: a full A380 may be very efficient,
but an empty one is miserably inefficient.

Today, airlines are so competitive, they build airplanes for specific routes.
To do a proper analysis, you need to analyze a specific route, look at the
competition, what they are flying, their utilization, etc.

~~~
totololo
Interesting, thanks.

------
baybal2
So sad, A380 was a gigantic, magnificent plane. A plane with a lot of "ego"

------
FabHK
noooooooooo :-(

------
TheTruth321
Disappointing.

A very smooth, spacious, quiet plane ...

Easily the best ride experience ... at least on Emirates.

Reduced jet lag and brought a little joy back to the flying again.

Hopefully the existing planes last for some time yet.

------
sarenc
I recently moved under the Heathrow flight path (maybe 25km away), so I'm
delighted to hear this news. Hopefully the 747 is heading the same way.

~~~
SirHound
Sounds like a pretty odd attitude to become a NIMBY after the fact. You knew
what you were buying.

------
estomagordo
ITT: people who fly a lot.

~~~
kzrdude
It gives you great things, like being able to visit places with different
climate and nature and culture.

~~~
em500
It also has a very large CO2 footprint.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-
biggest...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-
carbon-sin-air-travel.html)

