EGPF Forum

Air France set to retire the superjumbo immediately

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/air ... 63.article

I wonder why the A380 has had a relatively short and inglorious career when compared to Boeing's 747? Was it a case of Airbus trying to tell the airlines what they needed rather than the other way about?Something very strange about how eager airlines are to 'retire' the A380.

Will make a great freighter

bill wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 9:06 pm I wonder why the A380 has had a relatively short and inglorious career when compared to Boeing's 747? Was it a case of Airbus trying to tell the airlines what they needed rather than the other way about?Something very strange about how eager airlines are to 'retire' the A380.

It was a good idea, but arrived at the wrong time. Right amongst the 2008 recession and now we're heading into an even bigger one. The 747 is on the way out too, so it's clearly the 'very large aircraft' concept that's died a death. I still think that some airlines that got the A380 only did so out of prestige, much like some early 747 operators in the 70's did as well. Maybe when multiple daily frequency routes get cut back to appease pollution lobbyists, we'll see the big boys back again ?

Allen McL wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 1:13 am [quote=bill post_id=429 time=<a href="tel:1590005215">1590005215</a> user_id=71]
I wonder why the A380 has had a relatively short and inglorious career when compared to Boeing's 747? Was it a case of Airbus trying to tell the airlines what they needed rather than the other way about?Something very strange about how eager airlines are to 'retire' the A380.

It was a good idea, but arrived at the wrong time. Right amongst the 2008 recession and now we're heading into an even bigger one. The 747 is on the way out too, so it's clearly the 'very large aircraft' concept that's died a death. I still think that some airlines that got the A380 only did so out of prestige, much like some early 747 operators in the 70's did as well. Maybe when multiple daily frequency routes get cut back to appease pollution lobbyists, we'll see the big boys back again ?
[/quote]

Well said Allen. I think that, like the 1970s, these very large aircraft would provide cheap seat rates and encourage mass tourism. That said it’s fine when economies are buoyant but when recession strikes smaller is better. One of Court Lines problems was that one TriStar equalled three One Eleven loads being replaced at one fell swoop. It’s noticeable that no US carrier even considered the 380 let alone operated one. The cost of adapting infrastructure, load factors, frequencies all played their part with 787s, 350s being the new kids on the block with more adaptability, lesser operating costs and, in some cases, better capabilities. A bit like the 757/767 early days which changed transAtlantic flying, creating new routes between city pairs, transforming the leisure industry and lowering operating costs.

History does repeat itself. It’s how we learn from the past which determines which paths we take for the future.

i never understood the strategy from day 1. A huge , ugly big , expensive beast. We cant blame recessions for everything. They happen every ten years for a variety of reasons. The management would have known there was going to be numerous during its lifetime. It just wasnt a good idea and didnt sell enough units. A very costly mistake.

hads wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 10:39 am i never understood the strategy from day 1. A huge , ugly big , expensive beast. We cant blame recessions for everything. They happen every ten years for a variety of reasons. The management would have known there was going to be numerous during its lifetime. It just wasnt a good idea and didnt sell enough units. A very costly mistake.

Aye, initially the A380 was supposed to be used to link the global gateway mega hubs and would be a successor to the less economical 747. But even in the last decade they way we travel has changed. In fact smaller long range planes like the 787 have opened up direct city pairs which would previously have had a mega hub in between. It’s a bit like the industry is eating itself.

Clive wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 1:33 pm

hads wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 10:39 am i never understood the strategy from day 1. A huge , ugly big , expensive beast. We cant blame recessions for everything. They happen every ten years for a variety of reasons. The management would have known there was going to be numerous during its lifetime. It just wasnt a good idea and didnt sell enough units. A very costly mistake.

Aye, initially the A380 was supposed to be used to link the global gateway mega hubs and would be a successor to the less economical 747. But even in the last decade they way we travel has changed. In fact smaller long range planes like the 787 have opened up direct city pairs which would previously have had a mega hub in between. It’s a bit like the industry is eating itself.

To a degree. The A380 was ahead of itself as it was envisioned to allow high volume into slot controlled airports. Your point to point example eats up said slots - hugely. Even at that the need for an A380 size (remember the thing was designed around the -900 version so the -800 is a heavier shrink - still way more efficient than a 747 when similar layouts are considered) was not 10 years ago but 10 years or so from now when slots are scarcer than snow in the sahara. Current situation has pushed that timeline to the right a bit - it has not stopped the eventuality.

And the fact the 787 and the like were supposed to be conceived to provide point to point linkage between non hub airports but instead have seeped into mega hubs instead also didn't help the cause of the VLA.

Ekally1 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:51 pm Will make a great freighter

Only as a package lifter, I gather. It's not structurally equipped for conversion to carrying main or upper deck containers or large items.