SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Several news agencies are reporting on the demise of the A380, an aircraft loved by passengers. European plane maker Airbus said Thursday it will stop making its superjumbo A380 in 2021 for lack of customers, abandoning the world's biggest passenger jet and one of the aviation industry's most ambitious and most troubled endeavors.
A slump in sales due to the airline industry moving to a point to point model make risk of empty seats on the A380 too much of a burden to make it profitable to operate.
Still the aircraft will remain in service for at least another 20 years.
https://www.designdevelopmenttoday.com/industries/aerospace/news/21047354/airbus-abandons-iconic-superjumbo-jet https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504
Previously: A380 Cancellations by Qantas Raise new Questions About the Superjumbo's Future
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:39AM (4 children)
With how huge of a failure the 787 was in terms of timelines, how did airbus possibly fuck up enough to lose business to Boeing?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:41AM (1 child)
how did airbus possibly fuck up enough to lose business to Boeing?
They make crappy airplanes. The A380 was a showcase to impress the sheiks. It's pretty useless though. You can't put oversize cargo in there like you can with a 747. It's just a bad design, and ugly too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:48AM
Translation: A380 not fit for morbidly obese Americans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:07AM (1 child)
Fuel efficiency. A380 needed larger wings to be efficient at that size. But then it wouldn't fit on airports ... but they went ahead with it anyway.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:50PM
Yes but no. Fuel efficiency is what killed it in the end - to meet the specs for their upcoming EK orders (now cancelled) they needed a re-engine (a la 320neo etc.) with current generation engines. Only problem is the engine mfrs wouldn't do it - too little money in it. I suspect Rolls' preoccupation with solving Trent 1000 issues may also have played a part.
Shame, because it's actually already flown with the Trent XWB as a test platform, but it's the re-certification costs that are too high for the expected volume.
The -900/-1000 stretch would have helped on the wing efficiency too, might have fixed the looks too, (it's wings are actually too draggy because they were designed to cope with a _longer_ fuselage within the wingspan limits, but efficiency is per seat and with the longer fuselage you get more seats for that drag).
Biggest problem may have been failing to design it for freight conversion from the start - means there is no market for used ones apart from breaking for parts, which means lease costs are high because the leasing cos have to get all their return from early years passenger service.