Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday February 11 2019, @06:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the wings-and-prayers dept.

A380 Cancellations by Qantas Raise new Questions About the Superjumbo's Future:

Australia's Qantas (QABSY) said Thursday that it had scrapped longstanding plans to buy eight more of the double-decker planes

The A380 has been a major disappointmentfor Airbus ( EADSF) , racking up less than a quarter of the sales the European company forecast when it first introduced the giant jetliner more than a decade ago. The underwhelming demand has fueled questions about how long the manufacturer can justify continuing production of the iconic aircraft.

[...] Other airlines including Virgin Atlantic have ditched plans to buy the aircraft in the past year. Airbus now has only 79 firm orders for it, according to FlightGlobal data.

The program's future could hinge on Dubai-based Emirates, the largest A380 operator with more than 100 of the aircraft in service. The Gulf carrier last year ordered a further 20 of the superjumbo jets, with the option to buy an additional 16 on top of that.

But Airbus said last month that it was renegotiating the deal with Emirates following reports that the airline was looking to switch its orders to the smaller and newer A350.

According to Wikipedia, an A380 has seating for 575-853 depending on variant and configuration.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Airbus Ends A380 Production 20 comments

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


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:20AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:20AM (#799406)

    First, it's an Airbus. That should say enough. Second, it's just useless, purely a political ploy that failed miserably. Break 'em up, and use 'em to make an artificial reef or something.The 747 is the one true jumbo and will forever remain so. The machine only gets better and better. As always, when you want quality, you buy American, even now.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday February 11 2019, @06:48AM (8 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 11 2019, @06:48AM (#799415) Journal

      The 747 is the one true jumbo and will forever remain so.... As always, when you want quality, you buy American, even now.

      The 747 has been involved in 146 aviation accidents and incidents, including 61 accidents and hull losses which resulted in 3722 fatalities. [wikipedia.org]

      - that's an average of 3 incidents/year since the launch in 1970.

      The A380 has been involved in two aviation occurrences and no hull loss accidents with no fatalities as of January 2019. [wikipedia.org] - that's 0.18 incidents/year since the launch in 2007.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:10AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:10AM (#799424)

        Fleet size is not at all comparable. There are way more 747 flying. It also isn't right to compare old times, with different navigation gear and safety protocols. The 747 even got bombed out of the sky (Libya) and shot out of the sky (USSR).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:25AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:25AM (#799428)

          Fleet size is not at all comparable.

          Ok. Let's take operational problems on 787 [wikipedia.org] then
          - fuel leaks - to the point of "Footage of the leak taken by passengers shows fuel gushing out of the left wing of the aircraft. The leak became known to pilots only after it was pointed out by concerned passengers" (oh, goody! Quality American avionics? Passengers with iPhones!)
          - parts reliability issues
          - nose gear collapse
          - in certain weather conditions "erroneous low airspeed may be displayed ..."
          - Lithium-ion battery problems [wikipedia.org] - "three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation. Inspection revealed a battery fire."

           

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @05:13PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @05:13PM (#799610)

            a. You switched planes.

            b. There is still a fleet size difference. Boeing is making crazy numbers of the 787. The 380 is rare.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:17PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:17PM (#799659)

              The 380 is rare.

              Thank goodness for that! Let's hope it goes extinct! It's a giant step backwards in sensible aircraft design. It's a *Brooklyn Bridge for sale*. Emirates was told to buy, or be invaded.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:10AM (#799425)

        How many 747s have been wrecked since 2007? Consider that the 380 flies maybe 1/100th of the daily miles a 747 does, and also consider the type of work they do.

        Let's see how the scarebus does in 50 years. In fact, how much you want to bet there won't be a single A-380 in airworthy condition in 40 years more time? They just aren't worth it. They make for lousy cargo aircraft. It was a bad business decision from the beginning. They built it to show off, purely for bling, gold colored plastic for low class people with lots of money. Throw it into the Pacific with all the other plastic.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 11 2019, @07:12AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday February 11 2019, @07:12AM (#799426)

        It's the most comfortable plane I've ever cattle-classed on intercontinental flights.
        But airlines want it to have a bigger cargo hold, and lose two engines.
        They just need to get certified to fly on two engines right after takeoff, and find a way to reduce the drag from the other two. I don't think that they could pull a 330 (mount 2 engines only on the same wing as the 340)

        There was a good AJ article recently about Vietnamese major airports being way over capacity, and airlines being desperate for slots. That's where the A380 was supposed to shine. There's still hope as airports and pilot numbers have not followed the Asian growth

      • (Score: 2) by mendax on Monday February 11 2019, @08:01AM

        by mendax (2840) on Monday February 11 2019, @08:01AM (#799437)

        The 747 has been involved in 146 aviation accidents and incidents, including 61 accidents and hull losses which resulted in 3722 fatalities.

        I do not recall any of these hull losses being due to a design flaw, unless you want to include in that category TWA flight 800's [wikipedia.org] bad wiring problem, a problem on a very old and worn out 747. They've been due to human error, shoddy maintenance and repairs, bombs, Russian fighter jets, and that sort of thing. The 747 is a very safe airliner, as safe as the A380, especially those that are flying today.

        --
        It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday February 11 2019, @03:29PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday February 11 2019, @03:29PM (#799532)

        583 of those fatalities were in a single incident [wikipedia.org] when 2 collided into one another on the ground. It was caused by the KLM captain being an jackass, and could have happened in any two airliners.

        All fatal 747 incidents since 2010 [wikipedia.org] have been cargo aircraft, which seem to have a significantly lower safety standard.

        That being said, the 747 is going away as a passenger aircraft. The hub-and-spoke system of air travel is going away with smaller more efficient planes taking the duty.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:52AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:52AM (#799416)

      -1 Troll

      Oh dear! I've offended some arrogant (probably French) Europussy! When are you damn people going to admit that you're as savage as the Romans said you were?! Ooof! They should've wiped you all out when they had the chance!

      *If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!*

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday February 11 2019, @11:00AM (1 child)

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday February 11 2019, @11:00AM (#799467) Homepage Journal

        The French are true fighters -- incredibly tough and patriotic like nobody else. Those are people with a lot of heart. They're a great example, and inspiration, for my military. And we're going to do a magnificent parade like they have in France. The missiles, the tanks. Millions of brave soldiers marching to the band. To the biggest drums you can imagine. Jets and helicopters flying everywhere. And the beautiful fireworks bursting in air!!

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @04:21PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @04:21PM (#799562)

          When is the last time the French won a war, or completed a canal without having to call the good ol' USA in to bail them out? Our relationship with them is very incestuous, which I guess is needed, because the Brits don't even offer the courtesy of a reach around.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday February 11 2019, @10:02AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday February 11 2019, @10:02AM (#799453) Homepage Journal

      I'll tell you, Airbus has NOTHING like a 757. I bought mine from Paul Allen of Microsoft (RIP!!!). And turned it into a real beauty. Did you know my 757 was featured on the Discovery Channel as the world's most luxurious jetliner? It's bigger than Air Force One, which is a step down from this in every way. Rolls-Royce engines, seats 43. Movie theater. 2 bedrooms. Gold everything. And Modern Digital in the Cockpit. Nice! youtu.be/UZq3iCn2y74 [youtu.be]

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday February 11 2019, @04:47PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 11 2019, @04:47PM (#799588) Journal

      it's just useless, purely a political ploy that failed miserably. Break 'em up, and use 'em to make an artificial reef or something.

      Such large aircraft look like they would have room for lots of servers that could literally be in the cloud. All the time.

      Just need in-air refueling. And some sort of in-air hot-servicing while the aircraft is operating.

      So much more practical than an artificial reef that would benefit other organisms but not directly benefit humans. Humans First!

      Could those aircraft be used to build a wall instead of a reef?

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @07:07AM (#799423)

    Airports require major rework to handle the A380, and few have done that. The wingtips stick out too far, intruding into taxiways and clipping light poles. Even the engines are out too far, sucking up off-pavement debris, but that is less of a problem. The "super" designation delays following aircraft due to turbulence, making airports want to charge more.

    There is an efficient design that would solve the wing issue. From the front, it looks like a biplane with the wingtips connected. From above, it looks sort of like a rhombus. A highly swept wing is connected low and forward, a reverse-swept wing is connected high and rearward, and they meet at the wingtips. Part of the tail is not needed.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Monday February 11 2019, @12:02PM

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Monday February 11 2019, @12:02PM (#799474)

    As airports become more and more crowded, bundling more passengers into fewer lift-offs/landings will be one of the few options to further fuel aviation growth in the future. From what I read about the A380 developments, my understanding is that airlines indeed appreciated the A380 as being a solution for future growth, however, at the time the A380 had not been engineered for fuel efficiency, rather it was designed to make even bigger variants possible. Nowadays fuel efficiency is crucial which makes the A380 problematic. I expect fuel-efficient designs of A380 proportions by Boing and Airbus popping up in the future.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by eravnrekaree on Monday February 11 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)

    by eravnrekaree (555) on Monday February 11 2019, @01:37PM (#799493)

    I think its a general lack of demand for huge airplanes. The 747 is also being discontinued. It seems the airlines prefer smaller aircraft. Perhaps its because they can more easily add and remove capacity from a route and are not stuck with huge aircraft they cannot fill, and with smaller craft you can provide more flexible and convenient scheduling since you can run smaller aircraft more often rather than having to wait for one of these huge aircraft to fill.

    Boeing did the market analysis and moved away from huge mega-aircraft years ago.

    A good question is can they produce just a few A380s each year by building the planes with the same assembly lines and manufacturing equipment as smaller planes, or is it a thing where you have to have economies of scale in building lots of the particular design. Perhaps if they use the same line and most of the same equipement to build the A380 and smaller aircraft they can still build a few each year.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 11 2019, @05:45PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday February 11 2019, @05:45PM (#799636)

      They can't easily reuse the 380 line for other planes, because it's so huge, it takes the space of two 320s.

      The other problem with the 380 is the stupid "let's make everyone happy" arrangement, which brings to the south of France giants part made all over Europe, requiring special convoys and Belugas. While not as dysfunctional as the early 787 supplier issues, it's still a significant cost, which the customer sees on the final bill, and a significant logistical nightmare to scale when demand fluctuates.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @06:00PM (#799647)

    The Concorde answered the question, "How fast can we go before it gets too expensive?". The A380 seems to answer the question, "How big can we go before it gets too expensive". Planes don't make money unless you fill them. I suspect the A380 is hard to fill sometimes. Both planes had their own kinds of technical challenges. The A380 can't fly in to some airports because of the size, but it all boils down to money. Smaller planes can fly more, can be filled more, can be flexibly routed to meet demand. We've homed in on the optimum. I've never been in the 380. It looks like an amazing experience in terms of quiet, certainly not the Concorde experience, but a cut above nevertheless. Enjoy it while you can.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @10:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @10:42PM (#799801)

    That works out to 41,400 to 61,416 virgins that Allah has to allocate to his martyred followers every time one of these crashes into a US building. Is that sustainable??

(1)