Этот веб-сайт использует файлы cookie. Если вы будете просматривать или пользоваться этим сайтом, вы даете на это свое согласие.
Вы знаете, что реклама помогает FlightAware в отслеживании рейсов?
Вы можете внести свой вклад в бесплатную работу FlightAware, разрешив показ рекламы на FlightAware.com. Мы следим за тем, чтобы наша реклама была полезна и не мешала работе с сайтом. Вы можете быстро включить рекламу на FlightAware или приобрести привилегированное членство.
Back to Squawk list
  • 67

Airbus prepares to announce termination of A380 program on February 14

Toulouse - The bad news is piling up for the Airbus's superjumbo. The European manufacturer may announce this week that it would end production of the Airbus A380. (airlinerwatch.com) Ещё...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Cansojr 17
It certainly a masterpiece of aeronautical engineering just too BIG for its time. The fuel burn was phenomenal. Pilots barking at controllers to Hurry up because tons of fuel were wasted on clogged tarmacs with These whales. Listen to the pilot and tower exchanges in New York.
stratofan 14
I knew that when Airbus said the breakeven point was 120 units sold, that was wishful thinking. Also, foregoing a cargo version was a huge mistake as well. When FedEx and UPS ordered 777F & 747-8F units respectively, the handwriting was on the wall. I saw a Korean Air A380 being pushed back at ATL, and they had to hold ground traffic for it. There is such a parameter as being TOO big. Many have said the 747 is the "sweet spot" for large-size airliners. Witness Boeing producing the 777X with folding wingtips to fit existing large airliner gates!
bentwing60 10
The "handwriting was on the wall" when they announced they were upping the a350 production rate but didn't really admit it was on idle a380 production lines. As for the financials, review the stock performance for BA vs. EASDF. Brought to you by the same folks, basically, that produced the spectacularly performing but spectacular fail that was Concorde. The historic time in service in 121 ops. may be similiar as the previously unheard of point to point routes and ETOPS negate the luxury of sir tim's sand box and $50.00 oil neuters the subsidies that made it all happen. As for freight, an airplane that can go anywhere, but can't land anywhere. History, not a mystery.
Cansojr 1
bentwing60, Sir you are most definitely old school. Nothing gets by you and I respect that enormously. Thanks for your great Squawks. Some days seem backwards but you sort it out in short order.
bentwing60 1
AWAAlum 0
lol - the definition of a left-handed compliment.
Tobin Sparfeld 10
It has been an essential airplane at runway-constricted airports, but it's been clear for awhile that the two-engine widebody is the way to go nearly everywhere else.

Though it looks like a bloated mess from the outside, it is actually a fantastic plane to fly on--quiet, spacious, and not as crowded as one might expect.

People may not be sad to see it go, but it's probably the biggest thing most of us will ever fly on in our lifetimes.
Michael Enzmann 2
If it is essential sales wouldn't be dropping. Planes like the 787 have done more to alleviate traffic at traffic constricted airports by being profitable flying to less congested airports. Consequently dropping 380 orders in favor of a more profitable 350. Profitability per seat mile works on a full passenger load but if half the season its only running a 50% load factor things go downhill fast. On the other hand many have said they will only fly overseas on planes with 4 burning so when the 340, 380, and 747 are gone what will be the recourse.
Emily Leighton 1
I wouldn't say that people aren't sad, just not surprised. I'm sad to see it go, that's for sure. It's the end of quadjets for good after this and the queen are out of the skies.
jgccpa 6
Any lease specials for 199K per month...looking to replace a Camry?
Allan Elkowitz 6
Too bad. As a passenger I found this to be a very comfortable aircraft to fly in. I understand the failed economics and I agree it was never a classy as the 747,
SootBox 6
Park them at airports around the world and turn them into AirBnB's.
Jim Heslop 1
AirB(us)nBreakfast!...Bag of peanuts?
Bob Harrington 1
lynx318 1
bizprop 6
It's been coming for a while. Large four engine passenger aircraft are the past not the future. The A380 will most likely be replaced by the Boeing 777X or similar twin engine types. The only thing that has kept the Boeing 747-800 afloat is that they offer a cargo variant.
s2v8377 28
I'm happy to know the 747 will outlast the A380 in service.
Jim Heslop 2
Yes, Boeing got it right when they decided against a competing super jumbo.
In terms of service years, the A380 succumbed to SIDS...sudden infant death syndrome! 747 is legendary!

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

SmokedChops 11
I doubt too many people will actually lose jobs. The A380 line at Toulouse is only a few yards from the line that assembles the A330, and the A320 (which has a backlog will over a thousand) The suppliers will also not see a dramatic change, as they supply multiple assembly lines across Airbus (and Boeing) Messier-Bugatti supplies several brands, as does Rolls-Royce, Goodrich Aerospace, Shorts, SABCA, etc. Hundreds of thousands out of work, only if Airbus as a whole goes {tango-uniform}. Just as Renton shifted jobs around when the B757 ended in 2004, Airbus will shift the work force around and make it work. There will be opportunities for just about everyone.
Kobe Hunte 5
and now that airbus has stopped A380 production, airlines are probably going to start getting another aircraft to replace them. Which will require more people working to make more airplanes
Kobe Hunte 5
correction on my comment.. they haven't exactly "stopped" production as yet.. they will eventually
lynx318 1
Update at bottom of article says they now have stopped.
pagheca 2
From the Airbus webiste:

"Airbus will start discussions with its social partners in the next few weeks regarding the 3,000 to 3,500 positions potentially impacted over the next three years. However, the ongoing A320 ramp-up and the new widebody order from Emirates Airline will offer a significant number of internal mobility opportunities."

So, everything depend on how much "too many people" and "significant number" are.
Leo Aubry 1

[This comment was deleted.]

AWAAlum 2
David Beattie -2
I can see the. MAGA hat from here.
AWAAlum 1
Then you'd best rush right out to get your eyes checked. If you object to MY post, rather than the one I commented on, I sure hope you don't live anywhere near my neighborhood.
David Beattie 3
Sorry to confuse. I was referring to the foul mouthed profanity that preceded yours.
AWAAlum 3
Appreciate you clearing that up.
Kobe Hunte 16
sad... but i rather have the 747 last a few more years than the A380
Kobe Hunte 5
Jeffrey Bue 4
I hope to fly on an A380 one day.
David Huntley 1
Ian Deans 1
Might be out of production but will be flying around for year yet.
Ryan Hodges 10
Thats why taxes shouldnt fund private enterprise #freeMarket
ThinkingGuy 5
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted :)
bentwing60 9
for long term AB investors and EADS countries taxpayers, it was anything but fun and most never got a ride in one.

[This poster has been suspended.]

bentwing60 6
No, and said so by admitting that they would be unable to recover development costs, some $28 billion dollars, ergo no true profit ever.
Torsten Hoff 1
That's actually not too bad if you consider how much money Boeing lost on the 787 program -- an estimated $15 billion on the initial design and another $30 billion building the first 500 airframes. The money they make now just pays down those losees.

lvenable 2
The difference being the 787 is still in production.
bentwing60 1
So, will the 380 do that now?
Cansojr 2
Ken Hardy 4
Never another 4 engine passenger plant for world travel, only two engines are being built so get ready for some white knuckle time if your over the north Atlantic and one engine goes out and listen when the flight attendant tells you your seat cushion can be used as a float.
s s 3
I think about flights over the polar regions and the recent engine issues with the 787. No fun.
Jim T 1
wasn't because of volcanic ash? and all the planes were having to divert around those areas due to concerns that the engines would become clogged and flame out trying to fly through it.
Jim T 1
The Dual Engine ER designated aircraft are able to operate on one engine and maintain flight level. Originally the rule was more than 2 engines were required and approved by IATA ICAO for transatlantic or transpacific flights. Originally it was the 747, but then Lockheed came out with the L10 11 (tristar) the one with the engine in the tail and McDonnell Douglas DC10 was the other (tristar) but then after a decade the IATA ICAO allowed the manufacturers and airlines to conduct tests and submit data for the prior 15 years and it was found that with the right engine a normal plane could travel on a single engine to it's destination. Normally they just divert to the closest land airport
william baker 3
This must have broke MH370s heart. What a shame!!!!
Cansojr 2
You cannot fly empty space sometimes dark empty space are failures at generating revenue. But it had its moments in the sun. I suspect they will end their days in cargo fleets. Better than withering away at Davis Monthan AFB if the It are not chopped into expensive dog food cans first.
Tobin Sparfeld 4
Everybody says the A380 is not suited for cargo: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/
Robert Hirsch 2
Back @ 2000 Boeing made a conscious decision that airlines in the future would be more inclined to buy aircraft that were highly economical in point to point routs and less interested in the long standing hub and spoke system. Airbus made the calculated decision the opposite would be true. Time has proved that Boeing's 787 was the right decision. Lastly Boeing's futuristic construction materials and techniques are now the industry's top standard.
Joe Daskalakis 2
Airbus also made the A350, so I guess they did both.
Jim T 1
It was also because hub and spoke was not as effective as it once was. Hubs like ORD, DFW, CLT, PHL, BOS, MSP are all fine but most are capacity controlled so any weather incident of any magnitude and flights immediately are cancelled and worse the weather the cancelations skyrocket. but the aircraft that are stuck at the hub also end up having the flights they were going to operate cancelled too. Think PSA with their system issues put AA to a standstill in CLT for 5 days. DL ground to a halt 2 years ago when a electrical fire resulted in ATL going dark for over a day. I got the joy of spending 2 days in IAH about a decade ago when a tropical storm went through and flooded all the roadways into and out of the airport making pilots, etc unable to get to the airport from Friday night to Sunday mid day. Southwest does a modified point to point circuit. Where one aircraft goes from city A to B to C to D next day to E to F to G to H next day I to J to K to L to A Since the aircraft don't all go to the same cities if a airport is closed it has a less drastic impact on ops. than the airline that goes a to b to a to b to a to b to a (which is what UA and AA frequently do)
Zachary Colescott 2
This could be the opportunity that cargo operators are looking for!
bentwing60 6
no market there, the market said so years ago with the 380f and AB cancelled it for scant orders. too expensive to operate vis. a vis. the 74, 75, 76, and 77 competition as well as the 330f et.al.. Might make a good small concert hall though.
Cansojr 2
The EU Coiuntries were supposed to gobble them up, ie; Germany 25, UK 25 France 30 Italy 20. This was supposed to be the base then the rest of the world as an aeronotical symbol of power.
Ken McIntyre 5
Can't be converted. At least, that is what I've read.
Shenghao Han 3
Cargo volume does not translate well with lifting capability.
Usually a plane run out of cargo mass before volume, thus A380 will be flying mostly "empty"

Plus the upper deck is weak but a structural part (aka can not be removed) making loading cargo tricky and will need a new set of upper deck containers.
Jim T 1
I don't think the A380 uses any standard containers. What I really wondered is why Airbus didn't make the lower deck for cargo, and the upper deck for passenger travel. They would have the ability to sell to a larger market if it was a dual use. Currently carriers like Alaska operate aircraft where the front of the cabin (1/3 to 1/2) is cargo and the back of the plane is passengers.
Bill Waters 1
Too big. Poorly thought out.
Brayden Bochetto 1
Hell yeah. The 747 needs to rule again baby. Suck the a380. Who hoo
Jim T 1
This is one of those that I saw coming from the far distance. Yes the A380 was big, and allowed airlines to create one of a kind travel experiences. But, after the first few years the shine wore off and paying 4 to 8 X the cost of a business class seat was hard for most travelers, even though with the ability to pay it, to accept the value in it. It's why Emirates was the only real airline buying the jets, but with the lifespan of a jet expected to be 20 or so years the orders quickly disappeared. Size & Weight kept it out of a large number of airports either because of the air displacement resulting in a elongated following distance because of wake turb. But a large number of airports didn't want to put out the money to bring the A380 in. Having to reconfigure taxiways, gates, replace areas the plane would roll over with highly reinforced versions of concrete so the aircraft could maneuver without damaging the travel surfaces. Even with the reinforcements the ports that have the A380 report a faster decay to the travel surfaces due to the increased weight stress on them. A few airports revoked the landing rights of it due to the increased cost of travel surfaces. The 777X is substantially larger than the 777-4 but Boeing made accommodations so that if an airport was accepting the 777-4 they wouldn't have to do anything for the 777x. Folding wingtips, composites to keep weights in check. etc all smart moves on their part.
Sergio Rodrigo Abrego Flores 1
OMG, no, that's my favotite airplane
anthony96 1
Ken McIntyre 2
Everyone pretty much knew this was coming. At least those of us with an aviation background knew it was coming.
Mike Lynn 1
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/airbus-terminates-a380-superjumbo-program-as-emirates-cuts-order It's done. Airbus' biggest mistake has been laid to rest. Last plane rolls off in 2021. Carriers are already ordering A-350's and 777-X.
Ian Deans 1
Now just watch the pro-Boeing Yanks gloat over this.
Mike Etzel 0
Cansojr 0
You cannot fly empty space sometimes dark empty space are failures at generating revenue. But it had its moments in the sun. I suspect they will end their days in cargo fleets. Better than withering away at Davis Monthan AFB if the It are not chopped into expensive dog food cans first.
john manoulian -1
I haven't read all the comments.
Trying to top the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet was a gallant but costly effort .
If Airbus was a solely owned company , like Boeing , and not backed by numerous countries
It would go down like a lead balloon, Pun intended.

Let's face it ,you can only have one Queen at a time ,ours is still alive .

Long live the Queen.
Jack Sweeney 0
Sad Airbus second to come out with a major jumbo jet and Airbuses fails before the first one Boings


Нет учетной записи? Зарегистрируйтесь сейчас (бесплатно) и получите доступ к конфигурируемым функциям, уведомлениям о статусе рейсов и другим возможностям!