Sad to see the whole program fail this way. If there is no second-hand market for these planes, I'm sure there be many more scraped A380s too come till they are all gone. This plane won't last another 12-18 years.

I wonder if the SQ lease payments paid for the procurement of these planes. Also, did Dr. Peters make any money or how much he lost. I would love to know. I am sure Airbus has no recouped its investment. This will all be excellent use cases for business schools in the future.

It looks like Tarbes has a number of A340's as well. Does Tarbes specialize in Airbus planes? The US Desert has a lot of boneyards, only 3 in Europe.

Considering the historical value, I'm surprised they didn't consider preserving 9V-SKA at a museum or something. Surely "first A380 in service!" or "the plane that performed Singapore Airlines Flight 380!" should have at least saved it from the scrappers? Yes I know that the first few SQ A380s were configured and built differently and so seeing another operator for them was a long shot at best, but I wonder why they didn't decide to at least send 9V-SKA at least to a museum.

It's really sad to see 9V-SKA being dismantled too. I still remember seeing in the news long ago on the very first commercial A380 flight: who would have thought that exact same plane would not be long for this world and just over a decade later would be gone from the skies.

zeke wrote:

Who paid $600 million for them ?

Airbus

peterinlisbon wrote:

zeke wrote:

Who paid $600 million for them ?

Airbus

The information from the fund that I posted earlier was they paid 310 million and are getting back at their estimate 65 million at the time they scrap the airframe and later the engines. The engines are still leased to RR for use on other aircraft sndcare generating cash flow.

pygmalion wrote:

The larger engines were available though. The A333 made its first flight in 1992, the 772 in 1994... 2 years, barely a blip in time in an aircraft development cycle

It was a bit more than 2 years. The A330 and A340 started development in 1982, with the launch in 1986. It just took longer for Airbus to get the aircraft flying.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

Considering the historical value, I'm surprised they didn't consider preserving 9V-SKA at a museum or something. Surely "first A380 in service!" or "the plane that performed Singapore Airlines Flight 380!" should have at least saved it from the scrappers? Yes I know that the first few SQ A380s were configured and built differently and so seeing another operator for them was a long shot at best, but I wonder why they didn't decide to at least send 9V-SKA at least to a museum.

It's really sad to see 9V-SKA being dismantled too. I still remember seeing in the news long ago on the very first commercial A380 flight: who would have thought that exact same plane would not be long for this world and just over a decade later would be gone from the skies.

They have MSN 004 at Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace, not sure if there is any other museum have such wide space for the whale.

AFAIK: The first prototype MSN001 is scheduled to be moved to the museum Aeroscopia in Toulouse one day. It's still in operation and flying for some time. Currently doing ANA pilot training.

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

Noshow wrote:

AFAIK: The first prototype MSN001 is scheduled to be moved to the museum Aeroscopia in Toulouse one day. It's still in operation and flying for some time. Currently doing ANA pilot training.

No, MSN 002 will be the one that will be moved to the museum Aeroscopia in Toulouse (the article below says "in two years" and the article is from early 2017).

Airbus vermacht auch dem Museum Aeroscopia in Toulouse einen A380. Es bekommt in den kommenden zwei Jahren die Maschine mit der Seriennummer MSN 002 und dem Kennzeichen F-WXXL.

Source: https://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-a3 ... ins-museum

BrianWilkes wrote:

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

Using "larger types" is not synonymous with VLA. Why some folks automatically go here is a mystery to me. If you want ease congestion by using "large types" start at the bottom. ie more A321 than A320 etc. Airport could encourage upsizing at all levels thru landing fee schemes.
The idea that the A380 is the only answer to airport congestion is foolish.

Revelation wrote:

Caption says:

Awaiting to be demolished at LDE

Why is this 350 going to be scrapped? Was there an issue with early built 350s?

SC430 wrote:

BrianWilkes wrote:

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

Using "larger types" is not synonymous with VLA. Why some folks automatically go here is a mystery to me. If you want ease congestion by using "large types" start at the bottom. ie more A321 than A320 etc. Airport could encourage upsizing at all levels thru landing fee schemes.
The idea that the A380 is the only answer to airport congestion is foolish.

The problem is for airlines to move from narrow bodies to wide bodies - if you already operate an A321, are you ready to "upgrade" to an A333 or B7722? Remember, that means cutting frequencies in half - airlines don't want to give up their slots at airports that are congested. For airlines already operating B77Ws, what aircraft can they use to boost capacity but the B748 and A388. It is not a simple issue as airports serve so many different markets and not all routes can sustain upgrades of equipment.

flee wrote:

SC430 wrote:

BrianWilkes wrote:

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

Using "larger types" is not synonymous with VLA. Why some folks automatically go here is a mystery to me. If you want ease congestion by using "large types" start at the bottom. ie more A321 than A320 etc. Airport could encourage upsizing at all levels thru landing fee schemes.
The idea that the A380 is the only answer to airport congestion is foolish.

The problem is for airlines to move from narrow bodies to wide bodies - if you already operate an A321, are you ready to "upgrade" to an A333 or B7722? Remember, that means cutting frequencies in half - airlines don't want to give up their slots at airports that are congested. For airlines already operating B77Ws, what aircraft can they use to boost capacity but the B748 and A388. It is not a simple issue as airports serve so many different markets and not all routes can sustain upgrades of equipment.

Boeing 797 . Takes out some narrowbodies while not drastically (halving) frequencies.

JAAlbert wrote:

Why is this 350 going to be scrapped? Was there an issue with early built 350s?

Probably the same issue as the terrible teens of the 787 family....

MADPYRO wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

Why is this 350 going to be scrapped? Was there an issue with early built 350s?

Probably the same issue as the terrible teens of the 787 family....

Except that the terrible teens weren't scrapped. It was a test plane (LN5) that got scrapped.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

MADPYRO wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

Why is this 350 going to be scrapped? Was there an issue with early built 350s?

Probably the same issue as the terrible teens of the 787 family....

Except that the terrible teens weren't scrapped. It was a test plane (LN5) that got scrapped.

which is what A350 MSN4 is also - a test plane / prototype.

so quite different to the 787 terrible teens in all respects!

If the LHR authorities are seriously putting pressure on airlines to upgrade, then why should the A380 not be of interest to some? One shining example is the HKG - LHR flights, where timing of arrival (and correspondingly departure) is all important. If my memory serves me well, BA has 2, Cathay 2, and VA 1 departure from HKG all in the space of a couple of hours. Not much possibility of adding another frequency, but subbing an A380 for Cathay or Virgin would add 100+ seats right off!

There are presumably other city pairs that have similar timing windows, so if it does get tough, then maybe the second hand A380s begin to look more appealing!

Maybe that last VLAs were indeed 10 years too early!

so what are they gonna do with the engines as they get scrapped? it's not like there are a ton of a380s flying around that need new engines. will they just be parted out?

BrianWilkes wrote:

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

but its easier to upgauge rjs to nbs, nbs to MOM, etc

musman9853 wrote:

so what are they gonna do with the engines as they get scrapped? it's not like there are a ton of a380s flying around that need new engines. will they just be parted out?

From the photos in post #93, it looks like the engines have already gone from the frames.

No doubt added to a spares inventory somewhere...

Richard28 wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

so what are they gonna do with the engines as they get scrapped? it's not like there are a ton of a380s flying around that need new engines. will they just be parted out?

From the photos in post #93, it looks like the engines have already gone from the frames.

No doubt added to a spares inventory somewhere...

Quote from a statement by Dr. Peters

In addition, the strategy is to continue the existing engine leasing agreement with Rolls Royce, or with an airline, beyond March 2019. Due to the increasing number of A380s operated by Rolls Royce, which in turn will require maintenance in the coming years, Dr. Peters Group expects to generate at least the current monthly income of 480,000 USD for each investment company. It is anticipated that the engines will be sold by the end of 2020.

Source: https://www.dr-peters.de/en/service-wor ... 380-funds/

parapente wrote:

Flew in and out of this airport about 6 weeks ago.What struck me was the rows and rows of Airbus - all quads - all the different shapes and sizes ( inc 380).Such an odd decision to continue developing them over and over again.Their first ( hairdryer) model yup ok there was fair logic ( and enough-just- sales).But beyond this? The writing was there for all to see.
The A300/310/330/NEO have been a magnificent family of aircaft.But how much better might they have been had they poured their considerable resources into this WB twin concept which ironically Airbus pioneered in the first place.Somewhat perverse imho.

When the A330/A340 were conceived ETOPS was in its infancy and Airbus did not really believe in it. Boeing did. Airbus also did not have the clout with the engine makers to get them to develop a 70,000-80,000 lb thrust engine, and again, Boeing did. So Airbus built the A340 as their long range plane, and Boeing did the 777. Still, the A340 (which came several years earlier) did reasonably well against the 777, and from what I have read had competitive economics, although the 777 (especially the ER) was better. Where Airbus went off the rails was with the A345 and A346. They had to realize that Boeing would answer, but in fairness nobody (including Boeing) had any idea how good the 77W would turn out to be. But Airbus had to know before they started that a big twin was likely to beat the A346, especially when they realized how heavy it was going to be. As to the A380 they simply did not do their market research. They just saw how Boeing had been printing money with the 747 and did not stop and realize that those days were already over, and that the 777 was already taking its place.

Ex SIA frames last week end, some additional pics
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/

Some other frames also spotted in LDE
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147264176 ... ed-public/

musman9853 wrote:

so what are they gonna do with the engines as they get scrapped? it's not like there are a ton of a380s flying around that need new engines. will they just be parted out?

The ones flying around still need spares.
Depending where the engines are on their maintenance schedules, they can be refurbished with the latest PIP installed. Others can be used as is till time to be rebuilt.

Disassembly slowly ongoing



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5wqheUWwAAzFZ0.jpg:large

Interesting how various doors go first. Gear doors, cargo doors, pax doors. They must get damaged quite often.

Also all the emergency slides are removed. And the leading edge surfaces of one aircraft tail section.

I expect the earliest delivered EK A388's to reach the dismantling stage by the early 2020's. Just how many more SQ A388's will be scrapped early?

RayChuang wrote:

I expect the earliest delivered EK A388's to reach the dismantling stage by the early 2020's. Just how many more SQ A388's will be scrapped early?

I think SQ owns quite a few of their A380s - so these will likely continue to be in service. Not sure when the next leased frame will see the end of its lease, though.

peterinlisbon wrote:

zeke wrote:

Who paid $600 million for them ?

Airbus

Thats hilarious, and true. Only a too big to fail quasi-government contractor like Airbus or Boeing could survive such a huge mistake as building the A380.

Revelation wrote:

747-600X wrote:

The Google Maps satellite view shows the 2 in the photograph in the original post as well as a third, parked elsewhere. The picture includes many other aircraft, almost all Airbuses. One stand has an A350 and a 777-200, both without engines...

https://twitter.com/a350blog/status/863529035095212041 says the A350 is MSN 4 and has been there since Feb 2016.

A photo taken in August:

Caption says:

Awaiting to be demolished at LDE

Why is this one going to be demolished? The A350 didn’t have any of the issues that plagued the early A380s or 787s to the best of my knowledge. Why couldn’t this one have been sold?

SEPilot wrote:

Why is this one going to be demolished?

I believe it is for the same reason Boeing ended-up scrapping ZA005 - to gain knowledge and test procedures for the eventual scrapping of End of Life A350s.

Stitch wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Why is this one going to be demolished?

I believe it is for the same reason Boeing ended-up scrapping ZA005 - to gain knowledge and test procedures for the eventual scrapping of End of Life A350s.

But ZA005 (and ZA004, which will also be scrapped) was an oddball because of the massive problems with the 787 production, and nobody wanted it. I was unaware that the A350 had any such issues. It’s not like Boeing decided to take a perfectly saleable plane and scrap it just to learn how. There must be some other reason Airbus is scrapping it. There is no rush to learn how; hopefully it will be a long time before one is written off, and they can work out procedures in the meantime on a small scale. I’m sure they can also learn from Boeing’s experience scrapping their orphan frames.

SEPilot wrote:

But ZA005 (and ZA004, which will also be scrapped) was an oddball because of the massive problems with the 787 production, and nobody wanted it. I was unaware that the A350 had any such issues.

It's a test frame and it's heavier than the later builds so it might never been expected to be delivered to a customer - the first four A350s all show as still being owned by Airbus. It's also possible it was planned to go to Qatar and they're super-picky about their frames so I could easily see them later deciding to not take it up for being a test frame.

SEPilot wrote:

It’s not like Boeing decided to take a perfectly saleable plane and scrap it just to learn how.

True, but Boeing likely would have eventually had to show to environmental agencies how you scrapped a predominately CFRP airframe. The A380 fatigue test frame was used for PAMELA - Process for Advanced Management of End-of-Life Aircraft - to evaluate dismantling and recycling the A380, which itself has a significant composite structural component. So perhaps Airbus wants to do the same with the A350 and MSN004 was available (Airbus tends to keep the first frame for future testing and MSN003 is going to the Aeroscopia Museum).

ikramerica wrote:

Interesting how various doors go first. Gear doors, cargo doors, pax doors. They must get damaged quite often.

Also all the emergency slides are removed. And the leading edge surfaces of one aircraft tail section.

Pax doors are useful for cabin crew training, so there is always a market

mercure1 wrote:

Disassembly slowly ongoing



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5wqheUWwAAzFZ0.jpg:large

Which of the two is 9V-SKA?

Also another question: apparently the reason these are being scrapped instead of being sold to another airline is because of different wiring and weights, leading to different certifications. Is this problem unique to the A380, or have other types had similar issues with their early builds?

Finally, is there any reason why HiFly got the particular planes they got instead of 9V-SKA? Was 9V-SKA simply unsuitable for any other airline to use? Still really sad to see the plane that flew the first ever commercial A380 flight will soon be no more.

As much as many of us hate the scrapping of these aircraft, in the end it is all about money. These are relatively early production ones with their own issues well documented elsewhere, no interest by any new owner and the financial viability of them with another airline.

I believe SQ leased each of these frames at approx. $1.6M per month for 10 years for a total return of $192M per plane. It was rumored that Dr Peters paid just over $200 per plane, so as long as they recover $8M or so for the scrap parts per plane they'd break even. I'm sure their vision was to turn a much larger profit envisioning a 2nd hand re-lease market, but the reality of these doomed birds probably came to light not long after they took their first deliveries. I think they will turn a small profit in the end, however $45M in scrap parts per frame is to optimistic, especially given the flurry of A380's with the certain similar fate right behind these two frames. (MH, EK, EY, AF, QF, LH) all won't be far behind as well as the remaining SQ birds as soon as their 779's start rolling in.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

Also another question: apparently the reason these are being scrapped instead of being sold to another airline is because of different wiring and weights, leading to different certifications. Is this problem unique to the A380, or have other types had similar issues with their early builds?

Finally, is there any reason why HiFly got the particular planes they got instead of 9V-SKA? Was 9V-SKA simply unsuitable for any other airline to use? Still really sad to see the plane that flew the first ever commercial A380 flight will soon be no more.

Re: weights: happens pretty much to every airliner: the early ones are the heaviest ones, and as data gets fed back from flight test and in-service flights the engineers can make important weight reductions.

Re: wiring: pretty much an A380 specific thing. The A380 wiring guys and the structures guys were using different versions of software, resulting in wiring bundles that did not fit. The fix involved a lot of changes, and in the end each airframe ended up with unique properties which caused issues with maintenance and with any potential re-use of the frame.

Revelation wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

Also another question: apparently the reason these are being scrapped instead of being sold to another airline is because of different wiring and weights, leading to different certifications. Is this problem unique to the A380, or have other types had similar issues with their early builds?

Finally, is there any reason why HiFly got the particular planes they got instead of 9V-SKA? Was 9V-SKA simply unsuitable for any other airline to use? Still really sad to see the plane that flew the first ever commercial A380 flight will soon be no more.

Re: weights: happens pretty much to every airliner: the early ones are the heaviest ones, and as data gets fed back from flight test and in-service flights the engineers can make important weight reductions.

Re: wiring: pretty much an A380 specific thing. The A380 wiring guys and the structures guys were using different versions of software, resulting in wiring bundles that did not fit. The fix involved a lot of changes, and in the end each airframe ended up with unique properties which caused issues with maintenance and with any potential re-use of the frame.

So basically, had it not been for the wiring, there would have been a chance for 9V-SKA to have been saved? Or was it simply doomed from the start?

filipinoavgeek wrote:

So basically, had it not been for the wiring, there would have been a chance for 9V-SKA to have been saved? Or was it simply doomed from the start?

Very interesting question, but one I think that will need to remain hypothetical.

It's unfortunate for Airbus that these early frames with non-standard wiring are setting the standards for the used A380 market.

HiFly admits it got various forms of assistance from Airbus even to get one of the early four A380 used birds a new operator thus avoiding scrapping.

We also know at least one airline, BA, was looking at used A380s with RR Trent engines, and if these early SQ birds were less burdensome perhaps they would still be flying.

Yet we also know airlines such as AF are balking at the price of redoing the A380 interiors, so maybe BA would not accept the ex-SQ frames.

On the other hand, SQ ordered four A380s to replace 9V-SKA to D which brought in some revenue and will keep SQ's fleet flying A380 a bit longer than otherwise.

I guess, other than the hypothetical BA purchase of SKA, or some other operation such as the one Freddy Laker did decades ago comes along and decides to fly A380s, it's hard to see any fate for these early frames, or in fact much of the rest of the fleet.

Maybe a decade or so from now the incumbent operators will cling to them the same way the US airlines cling to 757s and 767s but that market will thrive on cannibalizing the early frames rather than yanking old ones out of the desert.

I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I really still don't understand why no one bothered to save 9V-SKA, either to preserve it for display, or at least to operate it. I mean, surely being the plane that operated the first commercial A380 would have given it some value right? Is there any reason why it wasn't the A380 that ended up going to HiFly, even though HiFly's plane was also among the early birds? It hurts many an AvGeek heart (mine included) that it came to this. The plane that operated SQ380 deserves a better fate than this.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I really still don't understand why no one bothered to save 9V-SKA, either to preserve it for display, or at least to operate it. I mean, surely being the plane that operated the first commercial A380 would have given it some value right? Is there any reason why it wasn't the A380 that ended up going to HiFly, even though HiFly's plane was also among the early birds? It hurts many an AvGeek heart (mine included) that it came to this. The plane that operated SQ380 deserves a better fate than this.

It takes a lot of money (and space) to preserve a plane, even just for museum display. It being an A380 makes it all that much worse because of how incredibly large it is. Combine that with the fact that spare parts are quite valuable, and it's easy to see why it is worth more being parted out than preserved. After all, these companies are in business to make money, not to sustain a museum. This is particularly the case of an investment setup like the Dr. Peters fund, where investors were expecting a certain return that never happened. So, you'd better believe they want to get every last dollar they can out of these planes, which means selling the individual parts for what they're worth.

As for why HiFly didn't get SKA instead of a different one, well, you could ultimately ask that about any used airplane transaction: why this specific frame instead of another specific frame?

It would come down to a combination of maintenance needs, hours/cycles, any issues specific to one frame vs. another, individual financial considerations of ownership/debt for one plane vs. another, etc. The early A380s have nonstandard wiring/weights, but do all of them have the same wiring as each other, or did Airbus get progressively better as they figured it out? If the latter, then it's easy to see that the first one would actually be the worst one, so if you're picking one of the bunch to keep flying, that would be the one to avoid.

Something I heard is that ex. 9V-SKC, current Hi Fly 9H-MIP is owned by Doric Asset Finance, the other ex. 9V-SKA by Dr.Peters Group, except the engines, which coincidentally were also owned by Doric.
So this helped (or complicated) the deal with one or another.

*Gasping* ALREADY? They aren't THAT old. Heck, there are still DC-3s flying.

SC430 wrote:

BrianWilkes wrote:

London Heathrow Airport authority have asked airlines who fly there to consider using larger types to ease the capacity problem at the airport. The 2nd hand A380 market I believe won't be a dead duck in water as airports can't cope now with the worlds capacity problems!
It might start off slow but something has to give.

Using "larger types" is not synonymous with VLA. Why some folks automatically go here is a mystery to me. If you want ease congestion by using "large types" start at the bottom. ie more A321 than A320 etc. Airport could encourage upsizing at all levels thru landing fee schemes.
The idea that the A380 is the only answer to airport congestion is foolish.

Most European airlines already operate their largest narrowbodies into LHR, wherever suitable and necessary.
As for BA, given that 40% of their traffic at LHR is connecting, I have already said that any growth in narrowbodies needs to be followed by an equivalent growth in widebodies.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point, but I really still don't understand why no one bothered to save 9V-SKA, either to preserve it for display, or at least to operate it. I mean, surely being the plane that operated the first commercial A380 would have given it some value right? Is there any reason why it wasn't the A380 that ended up going to HiFly, even though HiFly's plane was also among the early birds? It hurts many an AvGeek heart (mine included) that it came to this. The plane that operated SQ380 deserves a better fate than this.

As calculated by someone above, Dr.Peters merely achieved break-even on SQ's ten years lease (actually still missing 8M) even before considering the opportunities costs of the money invested to the plane at the beginning. So unless someone is willing to pay the residual value of SVA to them, they would tried there best to recover the lost.

If, a BIG BIG IF, they were able to lease out SVA for a few more years, the investment will be positive, together with the further decrease in residual value,
they might willing to donate it as a social responsibilities, but again, someone must willing to pay to keep and maintain the plane.