ente_09

I have flown it scores of times on LH and AF and it was always full. Don't know anything about the occupancy of the Mideast carriers
So why is it failing?

jrl767

YuropFlyer

4 engines, higher fuel costs per seat unless completely full
too big to operate on many routes (EK state it does love it for some routes, but it's not a "one size fits all" airplane) and thus too little flexibility

It's a great airplane, but just like the Concorde, it's market area was too small to make sense economically.

Yoshi212

It's a great aircraft and quite an accomplishment but it's not a good fit for most airlines and most routes when you have more economical options currently and in the near future. 4 engines burn a lot of fuel and require a lot of maintenance compared to a twin engine. Cargo, which can make or break a routing, is more limited compared to other long haul aircraft particularly on certain routes where having two flights per day vs 1 on an a380.

EK will use them on their high demand routes for another decade or two if lucky but economics and fleet flexibility will win which is where the 787, A330-NEO, A350, 77W and 77X will shine. Airlines like SQ, BA & LH will continue to operate them for some time on high demand routes. KE & OZ and to a lesser extent QR will use them similarly but as a flexible capacity option for mostly seasonal demand. AF wants out and NH will use them on their Hawaii routes. Retired jets will be used for parts.

enviroian

Maybe Spirit will pick a few cheap ones up for the full flights to FLL.

Imagine how silly that beluga would look in all bright yellow. Lol

CPRich

Cost to operate.

Two modern 280 seat twin-engine flights are cheaper than a single 560 seat quad-engine flight.

It's also restricted to major airports that have the capacity (runway/taxiway width, gate height, etc.) to manage such a large aircraft. Smaller long-range twins give flexibility to connect more and more long-range smaller airports. A 380 couldn't fly Hartford-Dublin (Aer Lingus), Oakland-Stockholm (Norwegian), etc.

BearX220

Easy. The A380 has extremely limited utility. There are only a handful of airlines for which it made sense (EK, CX, SQ), and only about a dozen superhub airports in the world where it made sense. 20 years ago Airbus placed a big, disastrous bet that superhub-to-superhub traffic would explode by now, and require many hundreds of VLAs, operated by dozens of airlines, to overcome slot capacity limits.

Simultaneously Boeing placed an entirely different bet with the 787, namely that the real growth would be in Tier I-to-Tier II city pairs over long distances, e.g. AUS-LHR or EWR-GLA.

Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. The A380 is not suited for Tier II markets; it's too big. (Even Emirates came to see this in the last few years and backed out of its last tranche of A380 orders, killing the program.) Some airlines that were considered natural operators like CX said no, and most others took only a token smattering (BA, AF, QF). Even the megacarriers are voting for long-leg nonstop services between superhubs and Tier II markets, eg. LHR-PER, which the A380 cannot perform, and even it could, would never fly full.

The US airlines learned from the 747 experience the dreadful cost of imposing an oversized aircraft on secondary markets. Only UA kept their 747s around through the 21st century. AA parked the last of theirs in the 1980s, and DL, EA, National, etc. got rid of their 747s quickly in the '70s. 747 costs helped kill Pan Am. With those cautionary lessons in mind, no US operator was ever a candidate for the A380.

Some A380s have already been retired and there is no used / secondary market for them.

Airbus only sold 30% of the aircraft it needed to in order for the A380 program to turn a profit. Its insistence on taking the plane to market on the basis of such faulty / illusory market forecasts will be the basis of horrifying business school case studies for years to come.

84fiero

Now that would have all the makings of a horror film! How about a packed-full Spirit A380 when passengers start to turn into zombies!

Hezu

Given that HiFly bought one of the old A380s from SQ, there must some market for used A380s, but sure it is quite limited market as these superjumbos indeed do not suit for every possible route.

YVR Cockroach

Maybe they got them cheap and/or on very favorable terms, such as pay-per-hour of use, from Doric. Otherwise it can't be much of an investment keeping them around for some airline that needs capacity and is willing to pay for it. Note that Dr Peters leasing parted out the two other early-model A380s.

ceedee475

I'm curious how this analysis reflects on the perception that the 747 commoditized air travel - i.e. made it accessible to the masses. I don't disagree with your point, just genuinely curious why if the plane was bad economically, it has this reputation.

jrl767

YVR Cockroach

Worked if used on the right routes, and/or if oil prices were low enough. PA had less-inefficient (i.e., early) versions.and was still using early -200s (if not -100s too) in 1991 when it when under, when the -400 had been in service for nearly 3 years. PA also didn't have much of a feeder service to fill the a/c (it bought National in an attempt to do that).

YVR Cockroach

And NW's -400s were pretty old by then too? NW was the first to put -400s into service (30 years ago this month). IIRC, NW got 6 to begin with.

paperwastage

*SQ leased theirs from Dr Peters group. SQ gave it back to Dr Peters when lease ended

HiFly bought from Dr Peters (who had the option of selling or parting it out). slightly different than an airline (eg SQ) having to get rid of an aircraft at firesale prices just to get rid of it

some analysts say that Dr Peters will still make a positive return regardless for leasing out A380 (but that may be a function of how much SQ was charged for their lease)

link describes the 1st A380 (which is likely heavier and less desired than the other A380s)
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...rns-says-scope