My nephew works on the A380 wing at Broughton, not far from Chester in UK.

To replicate the factory in mainland Europe, including its canal link infrastructure, would cost billions.

It’s official:

“TOULOUSE, France (AP) — European plane maker Airbus said Thursday it will stop making its superjumbo A380 in 2021 for lack of customers, abandoning the world’s biggest passenger jet and one of the aviation industry’s most ambitious and most troubled endeavors.

Barely a decade after the double-deck, 500-plus-seat plane started carrying passengers, Airbus said that key client Emirates is cutting back its orders, and as a result, “we have no substantial A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production.”

The decision could affect up to 3,500 jobs and already cost plane maker 463 million euros (about $523 million) in losses in 2018, Airbus said…”

https://apnews.com/03528316657247f78e8dd9a37a929779

I read that it would take an HOUR to board an A380 due to the sheer number of people getting on?



I wonder if that had any bearing on this?

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

The Queen being the Lockheed Super G Constellation in TWA livery? Prettiest airliner ever.

The queeen being the 747. Brilliantly designed, a real pleasure to fly, easy to land, really performs when empty, and glides surprisingly well.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

If someone put a "Connie" and a 747 on the ramp and told me I could fly just one, it would be an extremely difficult choice. I'd probably have to go with "Connie" because I already have one Boeing type-rating.

There's a whole lot more involved in flying the Constellation.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Emirates is going to the A330 Neo and A 350 instead, the latter being Airbus' equivalent to the 787.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
One of miscalculations regarding the A380 was the need for airports to upgrade their facilities. Most of runways that could handle a 747, could handle the 380, however, apron areas and most importantly gates needed to be altered or, designed with enough margin for the huge airplane. All of this limited the number of destinations for the 380 and/or forced airports to spend more to accommodate. I think out here on the West Coast the only airports that can handle one is SFO, LAX, & ONT.

Well, the 747 faced the same facility problems when introduced, so Airbus probably thought they would take that bet. One airline source I saw said the real problem of the A380 was that the wing was designed with a stretched variant in mind that was ultimately never built, so there was unnecessary weight and, as a result, fuel consumption. Emirates had long demanded a more fuel-efficient Neo version, but Airbus probably thought it not worth the cost at that point.

The -47 had a lot going for it, timing being the biggest. The airline industry was growing, the cost of air travel become affordable for most people it wasn't considered a luxury, air freight was in increasing demand encouraging a global economy, airports were modernizing as the -47 ushered in a new era of wide bodies with the introduction of the L-1011 and DC-10. Airbus gambled, a great engineering feat however, not in an era where frequency-of-flights won-out over capacity-of-flights.

Air freight was the chief revenue carried by air before passengers were carried; it was always about freight, and freight continued to pay more than passengers, and was more reliable.

The 747 was designed with freight in mind, and ironically, that's mostly all it's used for now.

Transport is about efficiency, and aircraft like the 777 are about as cost efficient as it gets for long haul.

Aviation Week is also reporting that it is official, effective in 2021:

http://now.eloqua.com/es.asp?s...lqCampaignId=15765#1

How many airports modified gates to accommodate this behemoth?

A problem for the A380 is turning radius. Turning on taxiways, wingspan and taxiway width, etc. The 747 solved this problem by using the inboard main gear, called "body gear" that turns the opposite direction of the nose. It's called body gear steering, somewhat like using steering on the front and back of the car to make the turns tighter. It helps a lot on the 747.

Airbus copied the same thing, and Boeing sued them. Part of the settlement originally was that Airbus would have to pin or disable the gear, as it was determined to be patent infringement. That legal decision alone doomed the airplane, and restricted it from a lot of locations. Without body gear steering it can tear up a ramp or taxiway or runway.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Air freight was the chief revenue carried by air before passengers were carried; it was always about freight, and freight continued to pay more than passengers, and was more reliable.

The 747 was designed with freight in mind, and ironically, that's mostly all it's used for now.

Transport is about efficiency, and aircraft like the 777 are about as cost efficient as it gets for long haul.

Learn something new everyday, thanks sns3guppy, great insight!

I was changing planes at DFW last fall, waiting to board a 737 when I realized the next plane over was an A380.

I was marveling at the sheer size of it, amazed that something that big could actually take off and fly. I just kept staring at it through the window.

I was informed that just one of the A380 engines was just almost as big around as the 737 fuselage.

IIRC my 737 was in its assigned gate and the A380 was actually 2 gates over. The gate in the middle was empty due to how immense the A380 wing hung over towards the 737.

The engineering and work, and the money invested, to make the A380 fly is just amazing. Wow.

There's an old joke that asks what it takes to make a plane fly. People's answers vary from wing design and lift, engines making power, etc etc etc.

The real answer as to what makes planes fly is......MONEY.

IF you don't have the money, it doesn't fly. Period. That's painfully true here.

Queen takes King

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Emirates had long demanded a more fuel-efficient Neo version, but Airbus probably thought it not worth the cost at that point.

I just talked to a former colleague who now works for Rolls-Royce, and he clarified that it was their "fault", as they didn't want to shell out the money for development of a new more fuel-efficient engine for an aircraft with limited perspectives. Of course aircraft makers don't make their own engines.

Read somewhere today that the 380 is not an ideal freighter because while it sure has much bigger volume than the 747, it does not have that much increase in payload weight, and so it is less efficient per weight unit per mile than a 747-8 for example.

I'm not sure what the industry would bear as far as large capacity aircraft. However I find it difficult to believe that a much more efficient power plant, perhaps 2 instead of 4 could be fitted to a 747 and keep that aircraft in service.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm not sure what the industry would bear as far as large capacity aircraft. However I find it difficult to believe that a much more efficient power plant, perhaps 2 instead of 4 could be fitted to a 747 and keep that aircraft in service.

You can put a lot of asses in a 773-ER, not sure retrofitting the 747s would make much sense for those heavily invested in the 777/787 and 330/350.

As one who deals with A388's on a daily basis, I say good riddance. It is a big quality aircraft and it was cool to see it actually take off, but, but, it is a pain in the ass to deal with. Here are the three biggest issues I have with the A388 (as a controller):

Overkill wake turbulence separation requirements;

Post take-off runway sweeps;

Taxi restrictions;


The B747-800, on the other hand, only had some taxi restrictions, otherwise, it was like any other Group V aircraft (even though it was lumped into Group VI).

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
Read somewhere today that the 380 is not an ideal freighter because while it sure has much bigger volume than the 747, it does not have that much increase in payload weight, and so it is less efficient per weight unit per mile than a 747-8 for example.

The A380 can't be converted to a freight aircdraft. It doesn't have the floor loading capability and whereas all the Boeing aircraft have been converted to freighters with the installation of cargo doors and cargo flooring, the airbus lacks the strength or capability.

A large conversion market has existed for the B747, for example, converting to freighters, generally designated the 747BCF, or Boeing Conversion Freighter. BCF's are not as efficient and are heavier airframes than factory freight aircraft, because of the additions and changes needed to make the conversion (limiting range and payload), but they make solid cargo aircraft when they're done. The 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 all are very active as freight airplanes, and Boeing aircraft dominate the freight world. The single highest-demand airplane for cargo right now is the 767.

The A380, on the other hand, will never have a future as as a freight airplane. The secondary market for the aircraft is dead, and many of the primary market are cancelling orders or scaling them back in favor of other choices.

A 747, when fueling, and when loading cargo, will flex; it's possible to be unable to open or close doors due to frame flex if the loading isn't done properly. The 747 is a strong, well designed airplane with the capability to carry large bulk cargo, and heavy cargo. I've carried just about anything you can imagine in the 747 from cars to trains to hangars to armored vehicles, cattle, horses, etc. We once carried a killer whale. Airplanes with nose-loading capability are particularly versatile and in-demand, for their ability to handle long cargo. The 747 places the cockpit above the main deck, enabling nose-loading.

The A380 possesses none of those features. In one particular case, the cockpit was placed lower with the cargo loaded above the flight deck, but it was a purpose-built version and the A380 passenger aircraft lack the strength or capability to be converted to freighters (doubtless some will try, if a market can be found). They don't have the load bearing capability for flooring to make cargo decks. It's one of the things that is dooming the A380; the lack of secondary market, meaning that the economic value of the aircraft is life-limited at the back end, which means that the overall cost in operation is substantially higher, because there's nothing more to get out of the aircraft when it's retired.

Ahh thanks.. good info! Basically Boeing aircraft are structurally stronger than Airbus?