Posted on 02/13/2019 10:23:11 PM PST by BenLurkin
An 800-seat airplane is a terrorists wet dream.
B747, in its -800 cargo variant series, is still being manufactured. Six per year present production rate. About 1600 (of all types) ordered since introduced in 1968(!); around 1550 delivered.
Considering how short the in-service period of the A380 has been, a production run of 230+ is not that bad.
This is just my man-in-the-street opinion, but having to fill a large capacity passenger jet (of whatever manufacturer) to the operating break even point probably introduces a lot of schedule inconvenience for passengers. That may cause many of them (passengers and airlines) to consider smaller aircraft alternatives even if it means intermediate hub routing vice having direct flights. Sort of like packet routing in a network; many small packets hub to hub vice one big packet direct.
Using the big jets to move cargo mutes - but does not entirely eliminate - these concerns. There are still schedules to meet but 2:00 am departures are a heck of a lot easier to execute if no one is complaining about having to show up at 11:00pm or midnight.
This whale will win on SUPER LONG ROUTES between 2 airports that have the capacity to support the beast, but few airports have that ability, leaving this as a NICHE airplane, only viable between limited locations with HIGH DEMAND for the route...
...
That’s very true and the niche has been filled.
Like I initially said, Boeing made the right bet that airlines and passengers would want the convenience of point to point routes with smaller long range aircraft.
“The A380 was initially offered in two models: the A380-800 and the A380F. The A380-800’s original configuration carried 555 passengers in a three-class configuration or 853 passengers (538 on the main deck and 315 on the upper deck) in a single-class economy configuration.”
Not so much customers, but Airlines. A Jumbo is a massive asset, the more flexibility an airline has with its asset the better it can service customers and adjust to market changes.
The 380 was from its inception, ONLY going to be able to service, high demand large demand routes, not only for passenger, but even FREIGHT, due to the need for stronger and longer runways.. It was always limited to where it could service, and route length further restricted this in where it would be financially viable for service. IE two airports relatively close MAY be able to service the 380, but the 4 jet burn, costs on a shorter trip could not be profitable without a full plane, which the shorter route may not have the demand to fill a 380 consistently.
I can understand why Airbus thought this thing wasn’t going to turn out the dog that it did, asian growth over the last few decades has meant far more transpacific traffic, and long routes to both the Americas over the pacific and Europe as well.. However, the initial sales forecast of 1200 such planes, seemed VERY optimistic to me, even when I first read about this thing being built. And I admit NO knowledge of the airline industry. However I do know that the 747, only about 1500 total were produced by Boeing over its 40 year production cycle, and it was basically killed by the ETOPS, had ETOPS never come to be, I am sure Boeing would likely still be making them.. but as ETOPS certification allowed twin engines to fly further and further from airports, the 4 engine 747 was going to go away.
But anyway, the idea that 380 would get close to the same sales as the 747 sounded pipe dream from the start.
Its a very interesting airplane, don’t get me wrong, but it just misread the market.
But now, the upcoming Boeing 777-9, which will fly by summer, will have the same runway requirements as the current 777-300ER, even though the 777-9 has carrying capacity more akin to the 747-400. Indeed, the ending of the A380 program means Boeing now could end up selling a HUGE (literally) number of 777-9's as they start to replace the A380 in the 2020's.
Airbus, backed by the taxpayers of Europe, doesn't have to worry about going bankrupt, so it can afford to pursue a pipe dream, conceived of in order to bolster the egos of Airbus management.
Once jet engines became reliable enough to trust (ie be certified) only two vs three/four engine configurations - it was all over for the super jumbos. The graph above clearly demonstrates the fuel/pay load differentials.
I first flew on a 747 (Pan Am) in the mid-70s as a young teen on my first trip to Europe. We left out of SFO, and had to land in Labrador to re-fuel in order to reach Heathrow. I've been fortunate to be able to travel to many places in the world, and have traveled on 747s to/from Asia, as well as 380s to/from Europe.
In fact, 380s take so long to board that once when we were connecting from Rome through DeGaul and were delayed through customs (non EU have passport control when leaving) that we almost missed our flight. We thought we were the last ones to board, but the plane sat for another 1/2 hour as more people and more supplies continued to be loaded. They literally take hours to prep, load and fly.
As so many posters above have already pointed out, it's just easier on airports, passengers, crew and maintenance to fly mid-range planes with two engines. They are more flexible, more fuel efficient, and more comfortable for passengers.
Whether it's Boeing's Dreamliner 787 (flew that to Greece last fall), or Airbus' 320 line up (countless times), this is where the industry is headed - actually, already there.
ETOPS certainly killed the 4 engine Jumbo.. but that’s the funny thing about the 380... ETOPS already existed when they designed the thing... Unlike the 747 which was built when you had to have 3+ engines to be able to fly transoceanic .
The 380 didn’t need 4 engines to fly the distances, it needed the 4 engines to fly the weight and number of passengers.
I would like to actually fly a 747 before they are fully retired, but I honestly doubt I will get the opportunity. I don’t fly often and rarely long haul. Not that a 747 would be the experience it was when they first flew... can you imagine an airplane with a lounge/bar?
It's sort of funny how things change. Before de-reg, flying was expensive (my flight was covered under my dad's family relocation budget - my parents were already overseas) and certain luxuries could be provided.
However, during the 70s, both NYC and London were depressed, sad and grey destinations. 44 years later, flying is a no-fun public transit experience, while NYC & London are glittering, high finance affairs.
Yes, never flew often, but remember flying in the 70s as a child was always an experience... Free “flight pins”, and metal airplanes from the stewardesses, and a tour of the cockpit, smoked almonds... edible food. (only flew domestic as a child).
Now, domestic flying is a dread.. International can still be nice... but anything that remotely passes as service, is long long gone.
And the thing is the A380 will never be a widely used freighter like the 747 (all the unfilled orders for the 747-8 are freighters).
The upper deck on the A380 makes for a lot of wasted space on a freighter.
The freighter version of the 747-8 has a much shorter upper deck than the passenger version.
I was 4 and flew as an unaccompanied minor from New York to L.A. on a Lockheed Constellation in 1950. Like you, the stewardesses took care of me. Of course I remember little of the flight, except eating some chocolate cake, getting sick, and getting to sit in the pilot’s lap in the cockpit. My parents said I didn’t want to get off of the plane. Found pictures of me and the plane when I cleaned out my mom’s apartment last year.
Thanks BenLurkin.
Who wants to fly in an airplane that if it crashes, it would be the “deadliest passenger crash” in history?
Well the deadliest crash was two planes IIRC (Tenerife 1977)
Regardless of passenger count, I just hope never to have a famous flight number.
Flew on one. Cheap seat bottom level in the back. Was okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.