
Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal - tiff
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-a380/airbus-ready-to-axe-a380-if-fails-to-win-emirates-deal-sources-idUSKBN1EL11L
======
mpweiher
I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's
747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus
pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from
cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow.

And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked:
if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official backlog for
the A380 is ~100 planes (actual may be less), the 747's is 21. "the 747 line
could be closed in the third quarter of 2019".

And I don't quite get how Boeing somehow played this better, it's not exactly
that they decided not to develop a jumbo, they just already had one, whereas
Airbus had a bunch of mid-size twins (in fact, the company created and was
founded on the mid-size wide-body twin, the A300).

Now you can argue that both planes "were"/might be killed by the shift to
smaller twins (and the shift in regulations allowing much longer ocean
crossings with just two engines, heck, I recently read that they are now doing
the Atlantic in 737s!), but I don't think this is necessarily so, at least not
by itself.

Boeing might have been right that there wasn't space in the market for two
such planes, but that's a comfortable position if you have the monopoly in
this, the high-end segment of the market.

I also am not convinced that the reason given for the A380, constrained slots
at major airports serving the major routes, is entirely invalid. With air
travel growing the way it does, this problem is not going away, and the shift
to more point to point routes may only have been a temporary reprieve.

As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt /
Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up.

~~~
mdasen
Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to
make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo. It's easy to
make a bet on twin-engines getting certified for longer ocean crossings when
you already have the 747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the
787 and you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when you
already have the 747. However, they did make those bets and, in hindsight, it
looks like they were better moves.

The A380 is really built for hub and spoke systems which is one of the reasons
Emirates uses it so much. Emirates almost exclusively goes through Dubai and
so they're able to, for example, load up a plane from London to Dubai and then
Dubai to Singapore. The airline industry started moving away from that and
toward more point-to-point routes in most cases. A 787 lets an airline serve a
route that just wouldn't fill a 747 or A380 and provide customers with a
better experience. For most airlines, that's a win.

The A380 isn't just a 747 competitor. It's a bet that the 747 didn't go far
enough and that what airlines really needed was something huge. Boeing's bet
was that a fuel-efficient twin that could serve point-to-point routes (rather
than hub-and-spoke) would provide the economics for better, more customer-
friendly routes, better utilization due to fewer empty seats, etc. Airbus
didn't build a 747 competitor, they wanted to one-up it.

It is true that some airports have constrained slots, but is this mostly a
London Heathrow problem? A slot-pair at Heathrow can go for over $50M. By
contrast, the DOJ valued 12 slot-pairs at JFK at $44M or $3.7M a piece.
American sold 17 at LaGuardia and 52 at Reagan for $381M or $5.5M a piece.
That's certainly money, but it seems like the problem at Heathrow is an order
of magnitude worse. When you move down from the most congested markets (and
DCA kinda counts due to artificial restrictions), slot constraint seems a lot
less interesting. Is the A380 a plane to solve the problems of a few airports?
Is solving that problem enough?

If you're Emirates, London -> Dubai might be your most important route and the
A380 means you can service it for a lot of people. Of course, that's where
most of the A380's support is coming from. For airlines that don't operate
such a hub-and-spoke model, who use less constrained airports than London
Heathrow, etc. it seems that the 787 has been a lot more attractive.

You're right that when they started the A380, it wasn't clear that the market
would turn the way it did. Honestly, if Airbus had made a 747 competitor
instead of something much larger than a 747, it might have fared better. But
the number of routes that can fill an A380 is small, the number of airports
where landing slots are unduly expensive is small, and customers like the
convenience of point-to-point (and the larger windows, better headroom, better
humidity, less noise of a 787).

The A380 isn't a complete bungle, but it was a bet that not only did airlines
like the 747, but they wanted something larger. Boeing bet that if they could
have something a bit smaller for a lot of the routes the 747 was on, they'd
like that. The A380 found a big customer in Emirates, but the 787 has much
broader appeal. That doesn't mean the A380 doesn't have utility and is
certainly useful for certain routes that are popular and slot-constrained, but
the 787 seems to be more useful for a larger number of situations.

~~~
mpweiher
Excellent points, and I agree that the switch in the market certainly was a
large component, and probably the larger component. I still think that Airbus
simply could not not do the A380, just as a defensive move and hedge, and that
it may have served a commercial purpose even if it didn't manage to be
profitable on its own.

> constrained slots [..] certainly money [..]

Are slots primarily a money problem? My understanding was that the constraint
is not so much their expense, but simply non-availability. For example, one of
the most valuable assets of Air Berlin apparently is their slots[1]. AFAICT,
these were/are not available on the open market, they get doled out by some
mechanism.

[1] [https://www.srnnews.com/sale-of-air-berlin-slots-offers-
rare...](https://www.srnnews.com/sale-of-air-berlin-slots-offers-rare-german-
entry-ticket-2/)

~~~
mdasen
Non-availability is what makes them expensive. It's kind of two sides of the
same coin. If the slots were widely available, they wouldn't be a valuable
asset. They are a valuable asset only because they aren't available.

The point of looking at the monetary value is that it's a way to quantify how
unavailable they are. Land costs money. Where land is scarce, it becomes
expensive. Where land is abundant, it's cheap. If landing slots can be
acquired cheaply, it means there is availability.

It looks like EasyJet bought their Berlin Tegel operation for €40M including
25 leased A320s. Most likely the landing permits weren't that valuable.
Lufthansa is taking on 81 aircraft for €210.

Let's say that each plane has 2 slot-pairs per day. That's €800k/slot for
EasyJet and €1.3M for Lufthansa. But let's say half of the value was the
staffing and leases.

Land costs money even when it's not in a popular location. If landing slots
command a certain amount of money, that's not a bad thing. It gets bad (bad
enough that you want a work around) when they become very expensive.

For example, let's say the A380 takes 2x the passengers of a 787. Let's say
that based on passenger load, fuel, profitability of point-to-point over hub-
and-spoke, etc. flying the A380 costs you $2M more per year than flying two
787s. Well, it looks like you can get a landing permit for well under $1M so
it makes more sense to buy the landing permit off someone else.

Things are generally available, even if scarce, for a price. Airlines are
choosing the 787 to optimize for their profit and including the scarcity and
cost of landing slots as part of that. At most airports, it seems they're
available for reasonable amounts of money.

\--

In terms of Airbus not being able to not do the A380, do you mean that they
had to create a 747 competitor to be prudent or that they had to build the
A380?

You might be right that, based on the information and the market at the time,
prudence might have demanded a response to the 747. But did it demand building
something bigger? Maybe they could have build something marginally smaller
than a 747 and been better off.

Airbus had a dream that a much larger aircraft than a 747 would be a winner.
It is for certain routes, but not most. For most routes, companies wanted a
smaller 747 and Boeing gave that to them in the 787.

At the time, I remember it looking like Airbus was going to get a win with the
A380 and that the 787 would be the mistake. Turns out that larger didn't work
out.

~~~
simpleigh
> The point of looking at the monetary value is that it's a way to quantify
> how unavailable they are. Land costs money. Where land is scarce, it becomes
> expensive. Where land is abundant, it's cheap. If landing slots can be
> acquired cheaply, it means there is availability.

Sure, but I think you're missing the point about the "non-availability." I
don't think the cost shows everything.

When there's lots of slots available then the price will be low. When there's
few slots available then the price will be high. When there's _very few_ slots
available then prices are harder to compare. There's an upper limit on what a
company will pay (a slot can only provide so much profit, after all, even if
you expect to own it for many years). Prices will presumably start to depend
more on who's bidding for them and what deals can be struck.

Free market economics only works if the market is able to respond (i.e. it's
relatively liquid).

~~~
mpweiher
Thanks for explaining my point better than I did :)

------
code4tee
Boeing played the market correctly here. When everyone was oohing over the
A380 Boeing said super jumbos were on their way out and focused on the 787. If
it hadn’t been for Emirates buying so many A380s to begin with it would have
been a flop from the start (Emirates alone operates almost half of the A380s
ever built).

The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin engine jets and here
Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing in both sales and design.

~~~
dawhizkid
I don't think they're scrambling. The A350 is their 787 competitor and looks
amazing. Can't wait to try it out.

~~~
code4tee
Um, there’s 5 787s flying around for every A350. On the future book Boeing
also has around 50% more 787 orders than Airbus has A350.

So yeah, I’d call that being a bit behind in that market segment.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
It's 1250 to 850 orders.

~~~
jonknee
And it's 625 to 133 deliveries...

~~~
masklinn
And it's 2011 to 2015...

------
namdnay
I fly Emirates A380 from time to time, I have to say the business class is
better than the first class of most carriers. Very quiet, masses of space, and
the bar is not bad at all when you want to stretch your legs. And when you get
bumped up to first... having a shower on a flight is very nice :)

The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage
that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to
get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Sometimes I'll fly
on BA, which is far inferior on every point, just to have a bit of
uninterrupted sleep.

~~~
chimeracoder
> The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there is one
> advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they can offer
> short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed to
> medium+medium/long.

Emirates does offer at least one of these flights (NYC to Milan). Though I'm
not sure if it's an A380 - I suspect it's not.

I wish I had the spare cash to fly their business class on the A380 before it
gets discontinued!

~~~
mapgrep
It is indeed a 380. Even in economy, the Italian food (and wine) was very
respectable.

------
danmaz74
> Emirates, however, has been a strong believer in the A380 and is easily the
> largest customer with total orders of 142 aircraft, of which it has taken
> just over 100.

...

> Emirates, for its part, wants a guarantee that Airbus will keep production
> going for a decade to protect its investment.

Closing the A380 production line isn't going to happen for years anyway,
considering the backlog they have, so, this leak looks a lot like a tactical
one to put pressure on Emirates.

~~~
vladd
>> Closing A380 isn't going to happen for years considering the backlog they
have

The article mentions: "96 unfilled orders -- But based on airlines’ intentions
or finances, 47 of those are unlikely to be delivered, which halves the number
of jets in play."

So the actual backlog stands at 96 - 47 = 49 planes.

This page -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries#By_year)
\- shows that they've been delivering between 20 and 30 airplanes per year in
the last years, which would allow a backlog depletion within 2 years. Even if
they slow down, it still doesn't cover the decade gap requested by Emirates.

~~~
danmaz74
The article says that for this year they would produce 6 or 7 planes, so, the
backlog would last much longer...

~~~
vladd
49 / 7 = 7 years (a gap of 3 years until they can commit for a decade)

------
KeepTalking
While the focus is on the original business case for building Mega planes like
the A380 the knock-on/hidden impact of closing the A380 line has detrimental
impact on Airports that invested millions into being 'A380 ready'.

Airports around the world spent millions of dollars building out A380 capable
terminal gates, wider taxi-ways and bigger baggage handling systems to deal
with A380 arrivals and departures. Food caterers invested money in special
trucks that deliver food to the upper deck. At the ATC level, slots and flight
seperation guidelines were changed to accomodate the whale jets. Some airports
were chastised for not investing fast enough (ORD?, SEA) to be A380 ready. I
guess they now look wiser. The death of the A380 will reduce risk taking by
airports in the future.

Failed aircraft projects have a large negative impact on future appetite for
these crafts. Just look at what happened to supersonic flight. We have not
seen any commercial investment and research into supersonic air travel. While
the case can be easily made against these white elephant projects, the knock
on R&D benefits of these airlines projects are amazing.

Selective R&D 'Hand of God' moments that allow government support could be the
solution here. At minimum, it would be great if China, Japan or any other
aspiring aerospace super powers can buy the project and invest in its future.

~~~
zitterbewegung
Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective .
Maybe the A380 will have the same outcome ? It seems like ORD knew this .

~~~
masklinn
> Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective.

Supersonic flight was mostly killed by US political decisions, not by
economics.

~~~
rizwank
Citation please.

------
stergios
Boeing most likely has already delivered the last passenger 747 ever to be
built [1]. Cargo demand will keep the line alive, but at greatly reduced
numbers, which in total have been 1536 units since it's commercial
introduction in 1970 [2].

IMHO, the A380 was not created to meet market demand, but instead was
conceived to meet the national interests of England and France's own military
industrial complex, and in that regard it was a success.

1\. [http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-
last-747-...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-
last-747-jumbo-jetliner/index.html)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747)

edit: format fix.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Shouldn't that be France and Germany? From the top of my head the largest
production facilities with most employees are in those countries.

~~~
stergios
Yes, you are right; Germany should be included, as today Airbus is a
consolidation of the European aerospace industry.

My memory was clouded by the highly publicized initial wiring harness
problems. The England and France teams were using CATIA Version 5, while the
Germany and Spain teams were using CATIA Version 4.

For the other children posts regarding my comment about the military
industrial complex, I meant to imply that by being able to build the A380
Airbus as a corporation increased it's own system wide capabilities. Boeing
enjoys this same benefit, which ranges from both technological capabilities as
well as financial advantages.

------
alexhutcheson
This could be posturing to help them win the Emirates deal. Emirates has
already made a huge investment in the A380, so if Airbus shuts down the
production line that could translate to larger costs and less flexibility for
Emirates in the medium term. If Airbus can make a credible threat to wind down
the program, that might convince Emirates to pay more than they otherwise
would as a way to keep the program afloat.

~~~
notatoad
If it is, it's pretty shitty posturing. The fact that your most sigificant
recent product is effectively EOL if one customer cancels is not the sort of
thing you want other potential customers to hear. Even if emirates does re-up
on the 380, they're going to have a hard time convincing other customers after
this.

------
bobity
Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in
euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much more comfortable than
any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on an A380 in any class you won't go
back...

~~~
reaperducer
> Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used
> in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines

You seem to be under the impression that European, Middle Eastern, and Asian
airlines don't fly to the United States.

I've been on the A380 at least a dozen times on the LAX-NRT route. It also
flies into ATL, JFK, SFO, IAD, BOS, MIA, and IAH.

------
Robotbeat
777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply cannot scale
because they already have to have short wings to fit in airports. Folding
wings (like the 777x) can address this.

Longer, higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the march
to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow electrification of
most air travel.

And I do think that supersonic air travel will make a strong comeback. There
are technology advances making the energy costs lower and the noise quieter.
We're also becoming richer as a species. So I think this will bite into the
first/business-class trans-oceanic market segment that the Jumbos previously
operated in.

~~~
ComputerGuru
> We're also becoming richer as a species.

I don’t understand this. Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in
the same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because it’s a zero
sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages count but can be scaled up
or down without effect.

~~~
Robotbeat
No, it's not merely relative. I mean we can martial more resources to do as we
please. Just like most people (in developed countries at least) can drive
around 50-60mph in a vehicle (a car in 1st world or a scooter in developing
countries) but 200, 300 years ago they couldn't. We've become richer.

It's like this: when public transit advocates ask why move a ton of metal
around per person when literally stuffing them in a train is more efficient,
the reason is because we're (in the US) rich enough to not have to pick the
most "efficient" solution to every problem. Otherwise we'd be drinking generic
Soylent and sleeping in pods instead of eating lush, delicious food and
sleeping in houses.

The whole world is going to get there, and you're not going to convince more
than a handful of people to voluntarily live like a drone when they don't have
to. So we better figure out how to live these non-efficient lifestyles more
sustainably.

(EDIT: Yes, I do think that if public transit offers a /better/ service, it
has a future. But if it's significantly worse than what people already have,
then good luck convincing people to use it.)

~~~
ComputerGuru
Sorry, your terminology threw me off. I get what you’re saying, and as you can
see from my quality-of-life replies in this comment thread, I don’t disagree.

------
yason
Too bad it's struggling: A380 won't go anywhere overnight but in comparison
747 was in production for decades. Compared to 747 and many other wide-body
aircraft it's a wonderful plane. Sitting on the second deck gets you by far
the quietest flight even in economy.

------
ojosilva
The whole thing, including ousting the CEO recently, sounds like Airbus sales
antics to win the deal.

Threatening Emirates with dropping the A380 program is a killer pressure
point. Can you imagine it? It would leave Emirates with a dead fleet of
elephants in their hands (brandwise). They would go from exclusive long haul
kings, with hundreds of youtube videos of their wonderful first class to
looking like a junk yard plane carrier.

This would also kill most A380 airport expansion plans. Right now airports
around the globe are pushing or planning to push for expansions to welcome
such an exclusive aircraft. Once Airbus announces it's over, no more airports
will support the A380 and Emirates loses a hell lot of future money besides
the obvious branding issues.

This is why I believe the Emirates sale will happen and the wonderful A380
will enjoy a very long, albeit shy, life.

~~~
semperdark
I have no experience in the Aerospace industry; won't announcing that the A380
is so precarious make airports reluctant to spend on supporting them anyway?

Maybe the huge numbers at play here change the economics, but in other
industries a signal like this would often kill off all related investment.

------
saosebastiao
I find it interesting that people claim that the hub and spoke model is being
phased out. It's not...it's being expanded. There are more hubs, and hubs are
expanding the reach of their spokes, and that means more cities where you can
find direct flights to or from.

The expansion of the number of cities in the US that fly direct to London is
because the London _hubs_ have expanded its reach to US cities. In the absence
of an airline hub there, you would never find a direct flight to London from
Seattle or New Orleans. In fact, you can prove this out yourself: find the
list of non-seasonal direct international flights available from your local
airport. Of those, filter out the flights that are seasonal, or on an airline
for which your local airport is a hub. Then filter out all the flights where
the destination is a hub for that specific airline. What is left? For me,
nothing [0].

The trend in aviation isn't point to point. It is more hubs with longer
reaches. The A380 failed because it is an extremely expensive behemoth with a
single solitary benefit that could only ever be realized at megahubs that were
already maxed out on 747s: it eased slot constraints. Airlines responded to
slot constraints like they should have, by spreading out to more hubs with
fewer slot constraints...not by buying a steaming pile of extremely expensive
garbage.

[0] [http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-
Ma...](http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-
Maps/Pages/Non-Stop-International.aspx)

~~~
rconti
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion. At the very least, it goes
against conventional wisdom. And, of course, it depends on where you sit. With
my home airport as SFO, I can be happy about the diversity of point-to-point
options I have, but you might argue I'm just flying from one hub to another.

If it's true that there are more "hubs", that means that there are also more
point-to-point flights for more people. And conversely, the more point-to-
point flights there are, the more you could argue some of those points are
hubs.

Ultimately the issue comes down to how airlines see themselves and market
their routes. Low-cost carriers like Southwest are invested in point-to-point,
but in the international market, nationality regulations mean that flights are
necessarily hub-and-spoke, at least in small countries. If I take a nonstop
Icelandair flight from the US to Iceland, is that a point-to-point route? Or
would you argue it's hub-and-spoke because Icelandair uses KEF as their hub?

~~~
saosebastiao
From the perspective of the passenger, it certainly appears like more point to
point routes. But from the perspective of network and fleet planners, the type
of people who do things like decide between A380s and 777s, it absolutely is a
hub and spoke network and that point isn’t just an inconsequential matter of
perspective like it is for passengers.

------
_Codemonkeyism
The A380 is too early and fell in a hole created by powerful and efficient new
engines. This created the possibility for long point to point destinations.

With growing air traffic congestion at airports will increase again and the
need for larger planes will increase also.

------
dfine
Can't help but think that this vindicates Boeing's bet on the smaller 787.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus’s bet at the time
raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing’s didn’t. The only thing Boeing
screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the
> assembly_

Selling planes is complicated. For the same reason the F-35 sources random
things from practically everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous
to have suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers.

[1] [https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-
map#nevada](https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada)

~~~
kss238
The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every state in the US
is a political one, not from a logistics issue. Boeing finds it much easier to
convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their
state if the program was cut.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program
> if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut_

Just as Boeing might find it easier to convince Singapore Airlines to buy its
planes if its government knows jobs would be lost if demand for the plane is
insufficient.

------
Yizahi
I may be dumb but I don't understand the numbers in the article. They write
Airbus has "96 unfilled orders" then say that "47 of those are unlikely to be
delivered". So they won't be ordered or won't be delivered? If it's the latter
then won't it be breach of contract on Airbus side and just kinda plain
stupid? And if it's the former that doesn't it contradict previous number of
96 units ordered?

Next they say "deliver the remaining 41 it has on order" \- where did this
number come from if they have 96 on order? Or if we believe paragraph about 47
not delivered, then 96-47=49, not 41.

And the last whether it is 96, 49 or 41 - it is more than "Airbus needs to
sell at least another 30".

And regarding "To bridge the gap, Airbus plans to cut output to six a year
beyond 2019, from 12 in 2018 and 8 in 2019, even if it means producing at a
loss, Reuters recently reported." \- 12+8+(8years*6units)=68 units over next
10 years (and way more than "at least another 30") - how does this correlate
with any other number in the article?

~~~
reaperducer
This happens all the time. Airline X places an order for 50 new jets. The jets
take 15 years to build. Three years later, economics shift. Maybe Airline X is
bought by Airline Y and doesn't need all those jets. Some of the orders are
cancelled. You read about it all the time in the business press.

------
Animats
The disappointing thing is that Boeing discontinued the B-757 while continuing
to make B-737 variants. The 737 first flew in 1967. Fifty years later,
variants are still in production. It's longer now, has better avionics, and
better engines, but it's still the same diameter and still has poor climb
performance.

What the airline industry wants to buy is flying buses.

------
_ph_
While it is easy to see how airlines like the 2 engined airplanes on most
routes, and flying directly instead of the spoke and the hub model, the
question is, how easy is it to grow? I just flew MUC-SFO and back. A nice
direct flight operated by LHA once per day with an A 340. And both flights
were booked to the last seat. While arriving at SFO on the way back I could
see the LHA A380 leaving for FRA.

So, with them operating a flight to Frankfurth with the A 380 already and the
flight to Munich filled completely, what is the most economic way of growing?
Is it to have two flights per day, or take a larger airplane? And probably,
there are only so many more open slots at the airports for additional flights.
Once they are saturated, having a much bigger airplane available could be a
business perspective for Airbus. If global air travel continues to grow, we
need either many more flights, or bigger airplanes. Especialls with the 747
going away, if Airbus can keep the A 380 alive, there might be quite a future.

~~~
karthikb
The right way to deal with this is by adding more flights. United operates a
seasonal sfo-muc during the summer. And the timings for this flight are quite
different than the LH flight, giving travelers quite a bit of flexibility.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Upper deck Air France economy A380 is still the best and most quiet economy
layout I've ever flown.

~~~
rconti
Lufthansa does this too (but I haven't flown the AF version so I cannot
compare)

------
sitepodmatt
Not mentioned but 787 in economy 9 across is horrific, I'd take a380, a350 or
a now rare 9 across 777 any day of the week. Future of economy flying is grim.

------
m23khan
One of the reasons A380 is struggling is because of lack of airports around
the World that can handle such a large aircraft for passenger usage. It really
does require an upgrade to an existing International Airport (those built way
before A380 came along and are located in poor countries) in terms of
passenger bridges and other such facilities.

Other than that, in the new age of aviation, smaller jets such as A319, A321,
embraer's jets, Bombardier's Cseries, and even jets like 737MAX, 737-700+ are
taking away a lot of traditional routes that would have been typically
serviced by large aircraft.

It seems that now (barring transoceanic routes), smart routing of flights
typically involve increased frequencies between two cities using smaller
aircrafts meanwhile providing additional scheduling options for a more busy
modern man.

IMHO, A380, Airbus's superguppy, and 747s should be aggressively and
exclusively developed and marketed towards cargo airlines and towards military
customers (think military transport) around the World and including companies
like Amazon.

------
sologoub
From consumer standpoint, A380 is by far my favorite for cross-Atlantic
flights. A340 would be a distant second.

777s layout fits more people then A340 (superior for airline), but 3/4/3
seating just plain sucks for passengers compared to 2/4/2 for A340. More leg
room too.

A340 having toilets below deck is also great - fewer smells in the cabin.
Sadly, getting a A340 is like lottery and A380 is only operated in a few
routes.

~~~
tim333
The 787 is pretty nice too. Having electrical air pumps rather than bleed air
is a plus - there's some evidence it can cause problems
([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6839234/Boeing-787-Dreamliner-
is-a-breath-of-fresh-cabin-air.html))

------
KeepTalking
>> As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the domestic Frankfurt
/ Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin went belly up.

Color commentary: This is a outcome of a micro trend that was caused due to
the collapse the 2nd largest airline in Germany. It is unlikely this is an
indicator of longer aircraft deployment. Regional and domestic routes tend to
skew towards frequency and convenience. Most major airports and regulators
also encourage this behavior when analyzing and distributing airport slots.

------
brndnmtthws
When it comes to airplanes, bigger isn't necessarily better. I guess the
novelty value has worn off and giant jets like this have limited appeal. If
there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of course it would make
sense, but due to the limited number of airports that can service these planes
and the high cost, I don't see much future in them. The efficiency just isn't
there.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They do pay off for large congested airports with limited landing slots (e.g.
Beijing between Guangzhou, which is the only 380 I’ve flown on). But this
isn’t as much of a problem as we thought it would be 20 years ago.
Incidentally, this used to be why Japan flew so many 747s on domestic routes.

~~~
brndnmtthws
Right, but in order for that to work you need to be able to consistently fill
the planes to capacity. That's not as easy as it sounds. There's a limited
number of routes where it makes sense, so that means you don't really have an
economy of scale opportunity.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yes, for sure. It makes sense on a few routes in china ATM but as airport
infrastructure and high speed rail are built out, airbus is surely in trouble
(same reason japan no longer uses any 747s domestically, and Boeing has
basically relegated the 747 to a freighter, albeit a very successful one).

~~~
snowwrestler
Funny thing is that the 747 was originally designed as an airframe that could
convert to a freighter. That's why the cockpit is in a bubble above the main
cylinder of the fuselage--to get out of the way of the cargo.

Back then, the conventional wisdom was that eventually all passenger travel
would be supersonic. Boeing put their best folks on the SST project, and the
747 was a stopgap afterthought.

Turned out that fuel efficiency was way more important than speed.

------
perl4ever
If customers believe this, is it self-fulfilling?

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Or could it be a ploy to scare Emirates into making a big purchase, because
they don't want to be the only company shouldering the support costs for a
class of airplane?

------
org3432
Naive question, but what routes does Emirates fly that could make an A380
worth it? That's a big plane.

~~~
gsnedders
Dubai is slot contained, and they fly to plenty of other slot contained
airports.

As far as I'm aware, London to Dubai _alone_ has seven daily A380 flights.
More generally, Emirates have gone for a single daily A380 flight instead of
more frequent flights to many destinations.

~~~
org3432
Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a population of little
more than Austria would have that many travelers.

~~~
ptaipale
Obviously, a vast majority of passengers are just changing planes in the hub
to go to other destinations.

~~~
gsnedders
I do wonder how many passengers ex-London are travelling to Australia/New
Zealand (which are undoable currently without a stopover).

------
samfisher83
The 747 struggled initially as well. If the A380 is completely full it is
almost 30% cheaper per passenger per mile to fly compared to 787. Maybe some
new company will come up with a way to make money like southwest or spirit.

~~~
ethagknight
Sounds like filling the A380 is the problem, without flooding the various
markets with availability. Curious- I've always read the A380 is more
expensive per seat mile than 787. Source?

~~~
samfisher83
[http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.as...](http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104548.aspx)

You would basically have to fill it up to its capacity.

------
infofarmer
«Airbus to axe A380 mid-flight if Emirates deal blows up»

------
WalterBright
If I recall correctly, the 747 was in production for 10 years before it turned
a profit. And then it became a huge money-making machine for Boeing.

------
hindsightbias
Boeing was right and with all those savings still only has a single-isle
solution that is 50 years old.

787 bankrupted them mentally.

------
eccbits
Good to see Boeing winning

~~~
ComputerGuru
Why, do you have a share in the company?

~~~
rconti
Or a job, or livelihood in the Northwest or Chicagoland, or...

------
empressplay
I hate that plane, I flew it from Melbourne to LAX and won't do it again.
Weirdly noisy and almost hits the end of the runway on takeoff. No thanks.

~~~
johansch
It's strangely quiet compared to everything except B787 and A350. Are you
really sure it was an A380 you flew?

