I heard Airbus is having trouble selling their A380s as the industry is moving towards more efficient twin engined aircraft.
Is it the end of the A380?
Discuss

It's not a completely crazy question to ask of manufacturers in the face of slow sales of one of its products, but don't you think you could at least wait until after Farnborough to ask that question? At the absolute least, EK is still on board.

It ain't dead yet, and won't be for a while.

True i should probably wait for it and see what they have there

Judging by the number of threads over the years suggesting the A380's early demise, I think it has shown remarkable powers of survival.

Was it ever truly 'alive'? Sure there was a big hype about it before it was released into service but it doesn't provide any distraction from the fact its impractical, too big and quite frankly, they've not sold nearly enough.

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates and Etihad to plunder away money on these massive birds, and let's be honest, Emirates isn't going to always be that able to blow money like they have before.

Given the under-utilization of the A380 by even the ME3 carriers on a number of routes, that's why there could be a lot more interest in the 777-9 long-term, especially if Boeing can improve the range of the 779 to over 8,000 nautical miles. I wouldn't be surprised by 2025-2026 the most common large airliner will be the 779, with possibly a lower-MTOW 778 (with a range of 7,900 nautical miles) replacing the 773ER fleet with many airlines.

The A380 isn't dead, it's not dead until the last one is retired. Still got a while to go on that score.

RayChuang wrote:

possibly a lower-MTOW 778 (with a range of 7,900 nautical miles) replacing the 773ER fleet with many airlines.

I'm not sure that will cut mustard. The 778 is an ULH aircraft and even with a lower MTOW will still have trouble competing with the A35K. Why wouldn't you just go for the 779 anyway if you didn't need the range?

How do you decide whether an aircraft model is dead or alive?

Is the 747-8 dead? Yes, its production rate has slowed to a crawl. No, it still receives new orders for freighter aircraft. Is the A318 dead? Yes, many have been scrapped and its efficiency is low for its generation. No, the A318 is still very active as a business jet and as a niche aircraft for hot and high or short runway operations. Is the 757 dead? Yes, production has ended a decade ago. No, it is still used as a workhorse by the US3 for long-thin routes. Is the DC-3 dead? Yes, its production has ended a very long time ago. No, its unique capabilities are still unrivaled among modern aircraft.

Is the A380 dead? Depends on how you define the death of an aircraft model.

A B777-10X would really make any new A380 orders improbable, given lower CASM and ownership costs.
If Boeing launch it, it's probable that we would see a shift from ME3 B777-9 orders to B777-10X and perhaps also a shift on the part of EK from the A380's.

The A380 was an expensive but effective marketing stunt on the part of Airbus. It has really put the manufacturer on the map and even at the top for a while.

I think that there is nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, it's an efficient people mover.
It's just that airline managers nowadays want an aircraft that fit in their standardised operational formats rather than building their operations around the aircraft. The A380, if configured and used appropriately, can easily help airlines build their operations.
There is no reason that what EK is doing out of DXB couldn't be done by BA in LHR, LH in FRA, AF in CDG or the U.S. airlines and their respective mega hubs. In fact, they could do it much better and force competition out of business, starting with EK.

i wish DL/UA/AA would buy an a380 but thats never gonna happen sadly.

It's worth remembering that one of the goals of the A380, perhaps one of the most important, was to solve congestion on high frequency routes, i.e. getting more people in and out of airports like LHR where slots are limited but demand still increasing.

usflyer123 wrote:

i wish DL/UA/AA would buy an a380 but thats never gonna happen sadly.

Why's it sad that airlines have wisely chosen not to buy something that doesn't correlate to what they're trying to offer?

The US3 are about high frequency operations from multiple hubs.
Name a single airline, with more than two hubs, that's bought the A380................

Now factor in the fact that all of the US3 have at least a half-dozen major hubs, and then minor longhaul gateways and focii on top of that. The A380 is just not compatible with that kind of business plan.

A380 will not be dead as long as ...

... EK is alive AND
... there is no other biggest aircraft in the world


Airbus needs EK for the 380 and EK needs the 380 not to loose their status...
They would even send their 380's to USH, LYR or PKC for status sake...

LAX772LR wrote:

usflyer123 wrote:

i wish DL/UA/AA would buy an a380 but thats never gonna happen sadly.

Why's it sad that airlines have wisely chosen not to buy something that doesn't correlate to what they're trying to offer?

The US3 are about high frequency operations from multiple hubs.
Name a single airline, with more than two hubs, that's bought the A380................

Now factor in the fact that all of the US3 have at least a half-dozen major hubs, and then minor longhaul gateways and focii on top of that. The A380 is just not compatible with that kind of business plan.

it can be good for delta on their ATL hub for big markets like ATL-AMS or ATL-NRT(perhaps GRU,FRA and GRU).

seat64k wrote:

It's worth remembering that one of the goals of the A380, perhaps one of the most important, was to solve congestion on high frequency routes, i.e. getting more people in and out of airports like LHR where slots are limited but demand still increasing.

While one of the goals of the a380 was to fix under capacity at slot constrained airports, the airlines used the cheaper fix. They increased prices while using slightly larger aircraft than they currently had. The lone exception would be BA and QF where they eliminated frequency on some routes so the slot could be used else where, or just reduced a frequency.

Two related questions/answers in an Aviation Week interview with Airbus CEO Patrice Brégier a week ago:

Emirates President Tim Clark said the talks with Airbus about the A380neo have lapsed.

Let’s say they have been put on hold. Emirates is by far the biggest A380 customer and its strongest supporter. They asked us to study an evolution of the aircraft and we did. We concluded that the conditions were not right for him and us—for us in terms of the business case. But there are two pieces of good news: We know we can launch an A380neo one day and that it will be competitive, and the A380ceo is extremely competitive in the current environment. But we need to convince more airlines to buy this fantastic aircraft.

What do you make of the second-hand market discussion?

It is a bit premature, and we are only indirectly involved. But in a nutshell: If you get a very good A380 for half the price, you suppress the cost of capital, which is huge upfront. It opens up the market to airlines that cannot afford an A380 but are not afraid of operating a 600-seat aircraft.

I think in its current firm, it's not going to make many more sales.

With the stretches to the 777 and the A350 nibbling at sales, I can see on the horizon the A380-NEO. Stretched and current versions, Greater efficiency, new engines, revised seating... Demand for air travel will continue and big aircraft will be needed to move masses of people and I can see the 380 playing a part in that.

Waterbomber wrote:

There is no reason that what EK is doing out of DXB couldn't be done by BA in LHR, LH in FRA, AF in CDG or the U.S. airlines and their respective mega hubs. In fact, they could do it much better and force competition out of business, starting with EK.

If there is no reason, then why isn't that happening? Is Mr. Clark a genius and the rest of the airline CEOs morons?

Certainly not dead but rather like an NBA team that wins 48 games; play 82 games only to get eliminated in the first round w no chance to gain a lottery pick.

EK and AB have symbiotic relationship that so far is skewed in favor of EK.

usflyer123 wrote:

it can be good for delta on their ATL hub for big markets like ATL-AMS or ATL-NRT(perhaps GRU,FRA and GRU).

No it wouldn't.

It'd lower frequency and add costs, beyond a level they'd find acceptable, for markets that they already have no trouble penetrating with all of the capacity that they want.

How do we know? ...because that's exactly what they've told us.

It's not really guesswork.

LAX772LR wrote:

usflyer123 wrote:

i wish DL/UA/AA would buy an a380 but thats never gonna happen sadly.

Why's it sad that airlines have wisely chosen not to buy something that doesn't correlate to what they're trying to offer?

The US3 are about high frequency operations from multiple hubs.
Name a single airline, with more than two hubs, that's bought the A380................

Now factor in the fact that all of the US3 have at least a half-dozen major hubs, and then minor longhaul gateways and focii on top of that. The A380 is just not compatible with that kind of business plan.

Qantas has 3 hubs and a successful A380 fleet

LamboAston wrote:

Qantas has 3 hubs and a successful A380 fleet

Fair enough, though QF cancelled its remaining A380s citing weak demand for such.... so goes right back to the original point: for airlines with a high number of hubs, it's just not the ship conducive to that business model.

andr16b wrote:

Was it ever truly 'alive'? Sure there was a big hype about it before it was released into service but it doesn't provide any distraction from the fact its impractical, too big and quite frankly, they've not sold nearly enough.

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates and Etihad to plunder away money on these massive birds, and let's be honest, Emirates isn't going to always be that able to blow money like they have before.

If Emirates were to go broke tomorrow that would put a big hole in the 777X sales.

LAX772LR wrote:

Fair enough, though QF cancelled its remaining A380s citing weak demand for such..

Can you give the date they cancelled them? Last time I saw, they were deferred to lessen capital expenditure over forthcoming years. They cancelled all of 3 flights with the A380 about 2 years ago. Not such a big deal as airlines cancel flights regardless of type - if they had 779s or 77Xs, those flights would still have been cancelled.

Planeflyer wrote:

EK and AB have symbiotic relationship that so far is skewed in favor of EK.

That would be EY not EK?

andr16b wrote:

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates.

Since when is EK oil rich? Dubai has very little oil.

David_itl wrote:

Can you give the date they cancelled them? Last time I saw, they were deferred to lessen capital expenditure over forthcoming years. They cancelled all of 3 flights with the A380 about 2 years ago.

Misread this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-c ... 0e0dp.html

Concorde2904 wrote:

I heard Airbus is having trouble selling their A380s as the industry is moving towards more efficient twin engined aircraft.
Is it the end of the A380?

As long has the Boeing Astroturfer Team (BAT) feels that it has to regularly insert this topic into "discussions" here
the A380 must be absolutely alive and kicking _and perceived by Boeing as a strong threat.
I've never seen a ( hightech ) product before that has been covered to overflowing with so much negative PR.

Concorde2904 wrote:

IDiscuss

I don't think that you actually want to discuss anything.

David_itl wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

EK and AB have symbiotic relationship that so far is skewed in favor of EK.

That would be EY not EK?

I presume that Planeflyer meant "AB" as a reference to Airbus, not Air Berlin. -ir

RickNRoll wrote:

andr16b wrote:

Was it ever truly 'alive'? Sure there was a big hype about it before it was released into service but it doesn't provide any distraction from the fact its impractical, too big and quite frankly, they've not sold nearly enough.

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates and Etihad to plunder away money on these massive birds, and let's be honest, Emirates isn't going to always be that able to blow money like they have before.

If Emirates were to go broke tomorrow that would put a big hole in the 777X sales.

I can guarantee you 777Xs will rake in more than A380s ever will.

andr16b wrote:

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates.

Since when is EK oil rich? Dubai has very little oil.[/quote]

The United Arab Emirates has 97.8 billion barrels of oil. http://www.uae-embassy.org/about-uae/en ... oil-supply

David_itl wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Since when is EK oil rich? Dubai has very little oil.

About 40% of UAE GDP is oil and gas. By no means are they oil poor

mutu wrote:

David_itl wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Since when is EK oil rich? Dubai has very little oil.

About 40% of UAE GDP is oil and gas. By no means are they oil poor

Try not to be so careless with your posts... I did not say that.

In a very important sense the answer is yes - the A380 is dead. What's this sense?

The fact that it is not producing meaningful profit for its manufacturer, and is unlikely ever to do so (and never has, but that's a different issue).

Airbus' current best case scenario is somehow getting enough orders from EK and maybe a few others (who?) to maintain production breakeven at ~20/year.
A NEO could, perhaps, make production breakeven more likely, but so far has not penciled out a projected return on its development cost (i.e. Airbus has been unable to close a business case for it).

In that sense, it is entirely appropriate to consider the A380 dead.
Which means the question should be "what next?" That's not the question for A380 fans for obvious reasons; it's not Airbus publicly-discussed question for even more obvious reasons. But Airbus should behave rationally here and acknowledge that the forward-value of the program is basically zero or, more likely, less than zero (fulfilling outstanding EK orders at low production rates will likely be loss-making from 2018).

Because the VLA sector has real potential and Airbus has a monopoly, it should be considering how it is going to leverage that monopoly instead of merely hoping not to lose its lunch in this sector. We should be thinking of either a clean-sheet VLA or a substantial revision of the A380 (new wing, engines, empennage, etc.).

Softaero wrote:

How do you decide whether an aircraft model is dead or alive?

Is the 747-8 dead? Yes, its production rate has slowed to a crawl. No, it still receives new orders for freighter aircraft. Is the A318 dead? Yes, many have been scrapped and its efficiency is low for its generation. No, the A318 is still very active as a business jet and as a niche aircraft for hot and high or short runway operations. Is the 757 dead? Yes, production has ended a decade ago. No, it is still used as a workhorse by the US3 for long-thin routes. Is the DC-3 dead? Yes, its production has ended a very long time ago. No, its unique capabilities are still unrivaled among modern aircraft.

Is the A380 dead? Depends on how you define the death of an aircraft model.

Perfect!....Well said.
It all depends on the definition of dead.

Two more stories covering the A380 sales woes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... mous-a380s

In German:
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article15 ... 7-10x.html

The Bloomberg article quotes Aboulafia that the A380 making it to 2020 is "almost optimistic." In its current version, I'd likely agree. Airbus has missing production slots from 2018 right now, even at the reduced production rate starting next year. EK might want another 60 CEO's but it would have to take those at a very high clip to keep production profitable. It remains to be seen for how long EK's growth can persist, and whether having 200 A380's is feasible.

Leahy said last year that he was engaged in two campaigns for ~12 and ~20 orders. He said these might "slip" into 2016. We now know that the IR order is basically an option about which IR has publicly expressed doubt. The other promised ~20 order is nowhere to be seen. Unless something big happens at FIA, we can probably assume Airbus lost this sales campaign as well, and that the A380's days are numbered.

The A380 doesn't have poor engines specifically because of the quad engine setup, but because it is far too big.

RTW00 wrote:

It all depends on the definition of dead.

Definitely. I propose the definition: "Does it have forward-looking program value?" This is a useful definition because if a program doesn't have prospective value, then a rational corporation should ignore its existence when planning moves in that program's market space. Stated differently, there is no opportunity cost to replacing it.

Take the A320/737 and NSA for example. Airbus and Boeing absolutely could build a new NSA right now, and could probably make more production profit off of such a plane over the next fifteen years. Production profit should be balanced against (1) development costs and (2) profits that would be made off of A320/737 absent an NSA. Viewed through this lense, A and B decide that total profit is higher with 737/A320.

With the A380, there's no factor (2) because there's no profit to be had. Airbus should therefore consider this program dead and rationally approach the question of "what next."

Of course they are understandably unwilling to do this publicly because cancelling the A380 or admitting that it needs $billions of new investment less than a decade after EIS would be a public relations nightmare. Hopefully they get over it quickly and do something cool with their VLA monopoly.

There are many metrics by which to measure whether or not the 380 is dead. Many of those have been mentioned.

I just think that this plane simply did not revolutionize air travel like others before it and, as a result, isn't getting the traction that many hoped for. The hopes were set much too high and they simply were not in harmony with reality.

ltbewr wrote:

As others have noted, improved versions of the 777 and A350 are pretty much taking over the 747 and to some extent, the A380. Sure, the A380 can carry 600+ passengers, but as happened with the 747 and other big aircraft in the past, too many seats have to be sold for too cheap to make a profit, especially on off season or day or week flights. Another thing that hurts the A380 is the limited ability to carry much revenue freight due to their design, weight and 4 vs. 2 engines.

If we look at what some airlines have done, they have reduced frequency on some routes by deploying an A380 but increased capacity. For some airlines (hint: BA) this is the one sure fire way for them to serve the "emerging" markets out of a slot-restricted airport by converting a random route like JFK by taking out a couple of frequencies and replacing with 1 A380. If the poor diddums in LHR don't like that, they need to bear in mind that the UK regions by and large have got a magnificent choice of 1 daily flight by oneworld to JFK so our "pointy-end" passengers have to work around that schedule.

As for selling the seats too cheap, why would EK deploy them in such large numbers if it wasn't helping the bottom line? Would you, as an airline prefer to to hope to have 1 passenger paying £3000 for a return trip or have 10 passengers each paying £300 return? You will still need the same number of FAs on board yet you generate the same income with greater potential for on-board duty free and greater word-of-mouth exposure along the lines of "you must fly the A380, it's such a fantastic experience" . There is no way EK would have decided to throw 2 A380s into MAN and 1 into BHX if the seating capacity meant that they would have to drop fares to below cost unless you think they have a masochistic tendency and want to maximise losses?!

andr16b wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

andr16b wrote:

Was it ever truly 'alive'? Sure there was a big hype about it before it was released into service but it doesn't provide any distraction from the fact its impractical, too big and quite frankly, they've not sold nearly enough.

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates and Etihad to plunder away money on these massive birds, and let's be honest, Emirates isn't going to always be that able to blow money like they have before.

If Emirates were to go broke tomorrow that would put a big hole in the 777X sales.

I can guarantee you 777Xs will rake in more than A380s ever will.

Moving the goal posts.

I think the A380 is now at a point where the 748i was when it was launched. Right now the A380 only has one advantage over the 747-8i, it has no contenders from above (in size). So everyone who really wants 500+ seats on a regular longhaul-layout has to go A380.

But we all know that there are not many airlines filling that many seats on a daily basis. And that the 747 (all models) was killed by other aircrafts with smaller sizes (mainly the 777 and A340). And now we have these huge "new" widebody 2-engine aircraft on the market, the A350 and the 77X, both probably offering even larger models soon. What the first generation 777 and A340 did to the 747, that will be done by the 77X and A350 to the A380.

Yes, the 748i found a few buyers, and the A380 still has EK, but it's just a question of how long EK can keep this up...

Concorde2904 wrote:

I heard Airbus is having trouble selling their A380s as the industry is moving towards more efficient twin engined aircraft.
Is it the end of the A380?

I am just wondering where he heard this breaking news.....was it down the local pub?

Perhaps this nugget has escaped the forecasters of the aviation insurance industry over the last 5-10 years?

The United Arab Emirates has 97.8 billion barrels of oil. http://www.uae-embassy.org/about-uae/en ... oil-supply

The UAE has oil, but does Dubai? Abu Dhabi still has plenty, but the posters above are suggesting that Dubai (and bear in mind that Abu Dhabi and Dubai have different governments and are basically rivals) has little oil.

LAX772LR wrote:

Name a single airline, with more than two hubs, that's bought the A380................

Lufthansa Group. Operating under different brands, but that doesn't matter in this context as route planning and capacity deployment across the group happen centrally.

We will need another decade to really know. Airbus would be stupid to cancel/wind down the project now, although they need to streamline production soon from what I can understand.

Ultimately they need a critical mass to spur the network effects: more airports and gates designed around the two level boarding, more routes and airlines re-imagined for taking advantage of the plane, and ultimately building on ways that the plane is uniquely able to meet needs.

andr16b wrote:

Was it ever truly 'alive'?

Yes

andr16b wrote:

its impractical, too big and quite frankly, they've not sold nearly enough.

It's an efficient people-mover that fits into any airport that a 747 or 777 does and they've already sold close to the original breakeven estimate.

andr16b wrote:

Airbus has been heavily dependent on oil-rich companies like Emirates and Etihad to plunder away money on these massive birds

Aimed at legacies such as launch customer Singapore Airlines, who have done well utilising it as intended, it also provided a vehicle for a small middle-eastern company called Emirates to become a massive player in the market - mostly through following a similar business strategy as Singapore Airlines and without much state investment from it's goverment which has little oil revenue to spend. In fact, it has transformed the emirate in which it's based and helped bring in a lot of revenue as well as previously non-existent O&D traffic to create a new tourist destination out of nothing.

And it's obviously a coincidence that the dominance of the new player on Europe/US to Asia routes has limited the opportunities for the less dynamic legacies to deploy and expand their A380 fleets to similar markets in a similar manner... obviously.

andr16b wrote:

let's be honest, Emirates isn't going to always be that able to blow money like they have before.

Especially not now that they're continuing to grow at a faster rate than almost any other airline out their by constantly re-investing their considerable profits in fleet expansion of large widebodies such as the A380!

Other than that I pretty much agree with everything you say...

We just had Virgin Atlantic ordering 12 A350 and the 6 A380 was NOT cancelled, but stands as deferred. So there is live even in that order.

jaxbiz wrote:

I just think that this plane simply did not revolutionize air travel like others before it and, as a result, isn't getting the traction that many hoped for.

I think for passengers actually on the EU to Asia routes it was aimed at, it has had a big impact. It's definitely a preferred aircraft to fly on and you see them all over the airports on those routes.

Maybe part of the reason it's constantly *perceived in certain circles* to have been a bit-player is precisely because the people who have that perception live in markets where it has not been taken up... i.e. North America.

I'm not stating this as an EU vs US thing, but I can imagine that the perception will be different if you don't use and see the thing all the time like you do in much of the rest of the world!

mozart wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Name a single airline, with more than two hubs, that's bought the A380................

Lufthansa Group. Operating under different brands, but that doesn't matter in this context as route planning and capacity deployment across the group happen centrally.

The Lufthansa Group is not a single airline. And yes it most certainly does matter in this context: route planning and deployment can be centralized even by airlines that don't share a core ownership.

The A380 was very troublesome for airports to accommodate though... They needed to make expensive modifications to their facilities...

Well, except for lucky Orlando, which managed to handle an Emirates A380 inaugural flight, since it's runways are extra wide and long (most likely due to it's past use as an air force base hence the code MCO).