exactly. there is literally 1 airline in the world whom the A380 works for.

Everyone else is either backtracking on what they ordered, or not ordering it in the first place and laughing from the sidelines. The plane just doesn't make economic sense in this era and was a flop from a business perspective.

Someone brought up a budget case. Trust me the A380 has been explored from virtually every angle from existing airlines, concept airlines, and fools with lots of capital (to burn...) wanting to start an airline. The only example is that one Japanese budget carrier who bought the A380....went bankrupt.......didn't take a single delivery.....Airbus and them are tied up in court. Lovely. It's a helluva task making money as a long-haul budget airline due to the fuel burn. It's like multiplying that by tenfold when you toss a jumbo aircraft into the long-haul budget concept mix. Anyone here remember Oasis Hong Kong back in 2007? 747s to Vancouver, London and Oakland (SF)? They didn't even make it to their third destination before they kicked the can.

The only guys making a go of budget long-haul these days somewhat successfully are AirAsiaX, which utilizes A330s and already pulled back from truly "long-haul" routes (more like short and mid-haul these days, KUL-PEK, KUL-NRT, etc), and Norweigian, which utilizes the 787-8 for long-haul routes (note: fuel efficient and small). Giving Norwegian or AirAsiaX an A380 would be the equivalent of lighting money on fire. The plane does not work for a budget airline. Enormous risk if you don't fill that plane completely up.

To the OP's point, it still is a lovely bird to fly in no matter how ugly on the outside.