# Airbus to Halt A380 Production



## PRR 60 (Feb 14, 2019)

In a move that surprised no one, Airbus has pulled the plug on production of the super-jumbo A380 aircraft.  The final aircraft will roll out in 2021.

The A380 double-decker, seating over 500 passengers, was a classic example of the right plane at the wrong time.  Conceived at the height of the popularity of the Boeing 747, it was hoped to be the new standard aircraft for long haul air travel.  By the time the first plane was in the air, travel had changed with smaller and more efficient planes allowing nimbler scheduling.  Giant, four-engine planes like the 747 and the 380 were on their way out replaced by twin-engine planes with advanced aerodynamics and lower fuel burn. I never got to ride on a 380, but still could since many will be in the air for years to come.  However, my guess is that the fleet will not last long as the 777's, 787's 330's and 350's take over the world of long haul travel.

BBC


----------



## cirdan (Feb 14, 2019)

Good products, especially if developments cycles are as long and slow as they are with aircraft,  should anticipate the future needs of the market rather than addressing the present needs.


----------



## TJGagliardo (Feb 14, 2019)

PRR 60 said:


> In a move that surprised no one, Airbus has pulled the plug on peoduction of the super-jumbo A380 aircraft.  The final aircraft will roll out in 2021.
> The A380 double-decker, seating over 500 passengers, was a classic example of the right plane at the wrong time.  Conceived at the height of the popularity of the Boeing 747, it was hoped to be the new standard aircraft for long haul air travel.  By the time the first plane was in the air, travel had changed with smaller and more efficient planes allowing nimbler scheduling.  Giant, four-engine planes like the 747 and the 380 were on their way out replaced by twin-engine planes with advanced aerodynamics and lower fuel burn. I never got to ride on a 380, but still could since many will be in the air for years to come.  However, my guess is that the fleet will not last long as the 777's, 787's 330's and 350's take over the world of long haul travel.
> BBC


I have flown the 380 in coach. With Emirates. Crowded and uncomfortable.


----------



## TJGagliardo (Feb 14, 2019)

TJGagliardo said:


> I have flown the 380 in coach. With Emirates. Crowded and uncomfortable.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 14, 2019)

In my experience A380 flights have the most spacious seating, the smoothest movement, the most amenities, and the best long haul experience.  It has almost everything passengers have claimed they wanted out of a modern long haul aircraft.  It also remains relatively efficient on a per-seat fuel burn basis.  What really kills the A380 compared to modern twins is a substantially reduced seating density, the cost of servicing and maintaining two additional engines, and a much more limited suitable airport and maintenance hanger list.  If you only fly US/NA/SA airlines you will never find yourself on an A380.  My guess is that many of these aircraft will eventually be repurposed for extremely dense charter travel (US military escapades, climate related exodus flights, and dogmatic pilgrimages like the Hajj) along with long haul parcel shipping service.  The A380 wasn't just built as a better and more efficient 747; it was built as a workaround for airports that had painted themselves into a corner like LHR.  Now that the UK appears to be headed for some sort of nativistic dark ages many of these aircraft will no longer be needed.



TJGagliardo said:


> I have flown the 380 in coach. With Emirates. Crowded and uncomfortable.


This is not an A380 specific issue.  Emirates favors coach pitch over coach width regardless of aircraft.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

I bet there are many at Boeing saying "I told you so". They made a very hotly debated but deliberate decision to not enter the super-jumbo fray and instead put all their bets on the 777 to deal with the larger size end of the market. A bet that appears to be paying off with the advent of the 777X which was probably one of the last straws that broke the camel's back, in a manner of speaking. Of course the failure of Rolls-Royce and Emirates to agree on the engine is probably the most immediate proximate cause of the event.

I agree with DA that the 380 is by far the most luxuriously appointed plane where the airlines chose to make it so. The same Emirates upstairs is spectacularly nice. I have actually never flown it in Coach so can't say based on personal experience what that is like, but I suspect it is like any other Coach, though my acquaintances who have flown it in Coach do say it is no worse than anything else and in general it feel a little roomier than anything else, and it is quieter. I have only flown it in Business Class with Lufthansa FRA - DEL - FRA and FRA - BOM - FRA.

The need for larger than standard stands at airport turned out to be a very major issue. So much so that Boeing took it to heart and designed a folding wing for the super-efficient and super-long 777X wing, so that it can fit in a standard gate where any other 777 fits.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 14, 2019)

One of my friends actually designed the folding wing for Boeing. I love the A380-800s in my experience they are some of the smoothest birds in the sky. 

And I always spent the extra money except for my most recent flight to get 76A which was a double exit row in economy. I will definitely have to plan a few more A380-800 flights before the end arrives. Good thing I love Lufthansa.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> One of my friends actually designed the folding wing for Boeing. I love the A380-800s in my experience they are some of the smoothest birds in the sky.
> 
> And I always spent the extra money except for my most recent flight to get 76A which was a double exit row in economy. I will definitely have to plan a few more A380-800 flights before the end arrives. Good thing I love Lufthansa.


Emirates just committed to continue flying the 380 as the core of their operations into mid 2030's if not later, so you still have some time.

ANA is in the process of receiving new ones for their fleet of 4 or 5. Only the Emirates order of 15 or so and ANA's remaining 3 are on the order book, which is now apparently closed.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 14, 2019)

It is a shame of course for employment this side of the pond, as wing parts of the A380 are made in the UK.

I am not a plane "buff", but I always tried to choose Emirates A380 flights, finding the coach option was fine, at least for me.

Straying off topic, are planes with 4 engines going to be safer if one engine fails than a 2 engine plane suffering one engine shutting down?

I assume the engines on a twin engine plane will each be more powerful, anyway...?

Ed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 14, 2019)

caravanman said:


> It is a shame of course for employment this side of the pond, as wing parts of the A380 are made in the UK. I am not a plane "buff", but I always tried to choose Emirates A380 flights, finding the coach option was fine, at least for me. Straying off topic, are planes with 4 engines going to be safer if one engine fails than a 2 engine plane suffering one engine shutting down? I assume the engines on a twin engine plane will each be more powerful, anyway...?


If you're a tall skinny guy then coach on Emirates should be acceptable if not preferable in your case.  Yes, four engines is somewhat safer and more resilient, but in the era of refined turbofans it's not as much of a selling point relative to the expected number of failures over the productive life of a modern aircraft.  Even Virgin Atlantic, whose marketing specifically implied that having four engines on long haul flights was safer now flies twins on the same routes.  Back in the era of late model pistons and early model jets the potential safety issues were very real and rather significant, but today it's a nonissue in most respects. Personally I've never given the number of engines much thought myself.  Once I've made it to the airport 99% of the potential risk to life and limb has already been resolved in my favor simply by way of surviving the taxi/uber/lyft ride over.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

caravanman said:


> It is a shame of course for employment this side of the pond, as wing parts of the A380 are made in the UK.


Airbus has already threatened to move that part out of the UK if there is a no deal Brexit. So stay tuned while that circus carries on.


----------



## saxman (Feb 14, 2019)

I've been on an A380 only twice now. First being Thai Airways from HKG to BKK, a fairly quick flight, and then on Qantas DFW to SYD. Hopefully one of these day I can predict when I have time off and clamor my miles together and enjoy Singapore Suites, Emirates, or Etihad's A380 product. Since my overseas business travel will be picking up soon, hopefully I'll have no problem getting to experience it soon. 

No one is surprised. Airbus just wanted to make something bigger than a 747 for bragging rights. I think their A350 program will be successful though, a true competitor to the 787.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 14, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> In my experience A380 flights have the most spacious seating, the smoothest movement, the most amenities, and the best long haul experience.  It has almost everything passengers have claimed they wanted out of a modern long haul aircraft.  It also remains relatively efficient on a per-seat fuel burn basis


Couldn't agree more. My one ride on an A380 (Air France in coach from CDG to JFK) was exceedingly smooth, spacious, and comfortable.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 14, 2019)

saxman said:


> Airbus just wanted to make something bigger than a 747 for bragging rights.


You mean like how some cities hand out free money for vanity flights?

It may seem irrational now, but back when the A388 was first announced it actually came with a reasonable sales pitch.  The vast majority of intercontinental traffic was still handled through a relatively small number of gateway airports, several of which were running out of options for additional frequencies.  Only a few outliers like CO were routinely flying long and narrow flights across oceans back then.  Originally there was also going to be a freighter variant for long and medium haul parcel freight that could have helped offset the massive design and development costs. 

Unfortunately multiple schedule setbacks and lack of immediate interest sank the freighter version while in the passenger market long and narrow flights started attracting government giveaways.  Now that every mid-sized airport seems to fancy itself as the next global gateway they're handing out operational discounts and taxpayer funded incentives for almost any intercontinental route they can get their hands on.  That dynamic has become a boon for more mid-sized high density aircraft like the A350 and B787 that can make a tidy profit on subsidized routes with questionable long term demand.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 14, 2019)

caravanman said:


> Straying off topic, are planes with 4 engines going to be safer if one engine fails than a 2 engine plane suffering one engine shutting down?


There isn't really much different in terms of safety nowadays. Any twin engine plane flying out over the ocean needs to be tested and ETOPS (*E*xtended-Range *T*win-Engined *O*peration *P*erformance *S*tandards) certified. Among other things, this means that the plane is verified to be able to fly a certain number of minutes with only one engine. Any flight plan for that aircraft must then be calculated such that at any given point in the flight, there will always be an airport capable of handling the aircraft within range with one engine. They also need to plan in advance how the passengers will be handled at each one of those possible emergency airports. This video does a great job explaining it.



caravanman said:


> I assume the engines on a twin engine plane will each be more powerful, anyway...?


Nope, not really. Aircraft manufacturers don't put four engines on a plane just for the sake of it. They put all those engines on if two of even the most powerful would be unable to produce enough thrust. The fact is that the vast majority of air routes (and airports) are unable to support a plane so massive that it needs four engines.  There really aren't any benefits nowadays of having four if it's not strictly necessary, so quad-engined planes really are a dying breed.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

Even twin engines are becoming so large that they have to have folding wings to fit into most airports.

The engines on the twins are vastly more powerful than the individual engines on the four engine planes. Even the old GE90-115s are a thing of wonder on the 777-300ERs. The new engines for the 777Xs will be even larger.

BTW, not only do the twins have to fly a number of minutes as per their ETOPS rating on a single engine, but they also have to be able to take off on a single engine should one fail after the commit point. That is why they are more powerful than they would have to be just to take off and fly.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 14, 2019)

jis said:


> Even twin engines are becoming so large that they have to have folding wings to fit into most airports.
> 
> The engines on the twins are vastly more powerful than the individual engines on the four engine planes. Even the old GE90-115s are a thing of wonder on the 777-300ERs. The new engines for the 777Xs will be even larger and more powerful.


Actually, the GE9X engines to be used on the 777X are a fair bit _less_ powerful than the GE90. The 9X is rated for 105,000 pounds of thrust, while the 90-115B (the most powerful variant of the GE90) is rated for 115,540 pounds of thrust, even reaching 127,900 on one takeoff back in 2002. The point of the GE9X design is not improved thrust, but rather incredible fuel efficiency, which is why the fan is significantly wider than its predecessor, making the engine even wider than the actual fuselage of a 737.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2019)

jis said:


> ANA is in the process of receiving new ones for their fleet of 4 or 5. Only the Emirates order of 15 or so and ANA's remaining 3 are on the order book, which is now apparently closed.




ANA is only getting a total of 3 (not 4 or 5).  Those three were essentially Airbus's conditions for allowing ANA to take over defunct Skymark Airlines (to whom Airbus was a major creditor).

Incidentally, the first of ANA's A380s made its first flight in full paint today.



cpotisch said:


> Nope, not really. Aircraft manufacturers don't put four engines on a plane just for the sake of it. They put all those engines on if two of even the most powerful would be unable to produce enough thrust. The fact is that the vast majority of air routes (and airports) are unable to support a plane so massive that it needs four engines.  There really aren't any benefits nowadays of having four if it's not strictly necessary, so quad-engined planes really are a dying breed.




I believe the requirement is that the airplane must be able to takeoff at whatever its calculated takeoff weight is, within the available runway, and clear any obstacles that may be higher than ground level, if one engine fails at the critical decision speed (V1).  Therefore, a four-engined airplane will have engines at least 33% more powerful than needed for takeoff thrust, whereas a twin will have engines that are at least 100% more powerful than needed.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 14, 2019)

Trogdor said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, not really. Aircraft manufacturers don't put four engines on a plane just for the sake of it. They put all those engines on if two of even the most powerful would be unable to produce enough thrust. The fact is that the vast majority of air routes (and airports) are unable to support a plane so massive that it needs four engines.  There really aren't any benefits nowadays of having four if it's not strictly necessary, so quad-engined planes really are a dying breed.
> ...


Most planes can take off at around 50% thrust anyway, so I'm not sure how much of an issue that is...


----------



## PVD (Feb 14, 2019)

I would say that is a gross overstatement. What it takes to get a lightly loaded and/or fueled aircraft off the ground in optimal altitude and temperature conditions is very different from that which is required at the other end of the spectrum. Available runway length and obstructions are major factors. Look at thrust to weight ratio, engine out climb capability, but at the difficult, not optimum end of the scale. It is one of the reasons many 757 got sold.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Feb 14, 2019)

My thoughts have nothing to do with engine capabilities or any other technical and comfort aspects of these very large planes.

What about the passengers' ability to survive an accident?  I understand that for the plane to be certified to fly, certain evacuation standards must be met.  With an A380 or similar aircraft when one is traveling with your closest hundreds friends, what truly will be reality?

My comment applies to the cruise industry as well.  The most recent disaster of which I am aware was the Costa Concordia accident.  A few lost their lives.  Most were saved.  But, many had to use extraordinarily means to do so.  (When was the last time that you crawled along the side of a ship in order to be rescued by a helicopter hovering overhead?)  These huge new ships coming into service with 5,000-6,000 passengers and crew:  do they meet USCG certification?  Surely, they do or they would not be in-service.  But....

Bigger and newer is not always better in my humble opinion.


----------



## JRR (Feb 14, 2019)

jis said:


> Even twin engines are becoming so large that they have to have folding wings to fit into most airports.
> The engines on the twins are vastly more powerful than the individual engines on the four engine planes. Even the old GE90-115s are a thing of wonder on the 777-300ERs. The new engines for the 777Xs will be even larger.
> BTW, not only do the twins have to fly a number of minutes as per their ETOPS rating on a single engine, but they also have to be able to take off on a single engine should one fail after the commit point. That is why they are more powerful than they would have to be just to take off and fly.


On my return from my yearlong, all expense paid vacation by Uncle Sam in SE Asia, I was in a 707 stretch TWA charter when shortly after the pilot announced that we had reached the point of no return on the Honolulu to Travis Airforce base segment of the trip, there was a bump and then those in my row (we were sitting 4 to a row on each side of the isle) saw the outter starboard engine flare up and catch on fire. It burned for a short time, probably 15 seconds or so when it went out. The steward came running over and leaned across me to look out the window. I told him that “the fire is out”. The steward said that the engine had been shut down and could fly well with just three engines.

It seemed that we continued to slowly lose some altitude for another 15 minutes or so and then seemed to stabilize.

When we passed over the Golden Gate Bridge all lit up in the pre dawn morning, it was a beautiful sight!

I was later told that we could have flown with just two engines without any problems.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 15, 2019)

caravanman said:


> It is a shame of course for employment this side of the pond, as wing parts of the A380 are made in the UK.
> 
> I am not a plane "buff", but I always tried to choose Emirates A380 flights, finding the coach option was fine, at least for me.
> 
> ...


A friend of mine was on a two-engine plane once when one engine failed and they had to turn around (mid Atlantic) and go back to the starting airport.

On a four engine plane I understand you can keep going, as even if a second one fails you can still continue.


----------



## chakk (Feb 16, 2019)

caravanman said:


> It is a shame of course for employment this side of the pond, as wing parts of the A380 are made in the UK.
> I am not a plane "buff", but I always tried to choose Emirates A380 flights, finding the coach option was fine, at least for me.
> Straying off topic, are planes with 4 engines going to be safer if one engine fails than a 2 engine plane suffering one engine shutting down?
> I assume the engines on a twin engine plane will each be more powerful, anyway...?
> Ed.


Twin engine planes are now quite reliable over long distances — like oceans — and get certified (e.g. Southwest 737s now between Calif and Hawaii) for such Extended Twin OPerationS. (ETOPS means “Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim”)


----------



## jis (Feb 16, 2019)

The longest ETOPS flight  today is apparently Air New Zealand's Auckland to Buenos Aires, which requires ETOPS 330 (i.e. 330 mins on single engine certification), flown using a 777-200ER with RR Trent 800 engines. Compared to that mainland US to Hawaii is peanuts.

At present there is no known commercial flight that requires ETOPS 370, but QANTAS is exploring a couple.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 16, 2019)

I've never flown on an A-380 and never expect to.

However, my Sister has on what seems to have become her annual pilgrimage to Australia "to be part of the Grandchildren's lives".

Her only comment on the Qantas A-380 was "the whale" (that was one year; other years have been Virgin and Delta - both 772's).

As for me, another odyssey to Salzburg this year on my "go to"; United (ORD-MUC). The August flights still show 772-Q (Unitedese for Aft facing Business Class) but "hopefully" by then there will be enough 772's retroed to W-Polaris so I have Forward facing "myspace".


----------



## PVD (Feb 16, 2019)

http://view.ceros.com/united/polaris-tracker-desktop-4/p/3

for your perusal


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 16, 2019)

Looks like my '17 journey ORD-MUC-ORD with 763's both ways was a "luckout".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 17, 2019)

cirdan said:


> On a four engine plane I understand you can keep going, as even if a second one fails you can still continue.


Yes, you can still continue straight to the closest emergency alternate.  Failure of multiple engines is considered a very serious event.  I'm unaware of any commercial airline/insurer/regulator careless enough to allow an aircraft with two failed engines the option to resume travel to the original destination unimpeded.



GBNorman said:


> I've never flown on an A-380 and never expect to...As for me, another odyssey to Salzburg this year on my "go to"; United (ORD-MUC). The August flights still show 772-Q (Unitedese for Aft facing Business Class) but "hopefully" by then there will be enough 772's retroed to W-Polaris so I have Forward facing "myspace".


You don't know or care anything about the A380, which is the actual topic of this thread, but you just wanted to remind us about your passive aggressive marriage to United?  OK.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 17, 2019)

Somehow, Advocate, I doubt if I'm the first around here to stand "guilty as charged" for drawing a topic away from its subject.

"Passive/Aggressive" is an interesting comment. Since I only fly three trips a year, this (almost) 78yo does not wish to be "thrown" having to learn new Terminals at (again) "the World's Busiest" and for that matter, destination airports.

So, along with every other goods and service provider I have, United is my "go to".


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2019)

As I transition away from United to Emirates for my annual trips to India due to greater convenience and better fares - one stop from Orlando to Kolkata, I am hoping that I will eventually get to ride the Emirates 380s, though in the immediate future it looks like 777 all the way even on Emirates, since both the Orlando and Kolkata flights are 77Ws at present.

My next trip to Asia though is not to India, but elsewhere - specifically Almaty, Kazakhstan, and it is by Lufthansa from MCO and the aircraft is a venerable 744, so I am looking forward to that.

Back on 380 and Airbus, I wonder how the cancellation of the 380 program will play with Brexit. I am certain that a lot of folks in Filton are not feeling very warm and cozy at present.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 17, 2019)

jis said:


> As I transition away from United to Emirates for my annual trips to India due to greater convenience and better fares - one stop from Orlando to Kolkata, I am hoping that I will eventually get to ride the Emirates 380s, though in the immediate future it looks like 777 all the way even on Emirates, since both the Orlando and Kolkata flights are 77Ws at present.
> 
> My next trip to Asia though is not to India, but elsewhere - specifically Almaty, Kazakhstan, and it is by Lufthansa from MCO and the aircraft is a venerable 744, so I am looking forward to that.
> 
> Back on 380 and Airbus, I wonder how the cancellation of the 380 program will play with Brexit. I am certain that a lot of folks in Filton are not feeling very warm and cozy at present.


Gosh, Kazakhstan eh? I am still nursing a desire to take the "golden road to Samarkand".  Feeling envious !

Ed.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 18, 2019)

jis said:


> ......it looks like 777 all the way even on Emirates, since both the Orlando and Kolkata flights are 77Ws at present.


Jishnu, you clearly "know more about this stuff" than do I. So with that being said,  I must wonder if these configuration designations, such as Q or W, are manufacturer's or individual airline's designations? I only learned of them from Maureen, my United FA friend, but in your immediate, you note them with regard  to another airline.

"Enquiring mind wants to know".


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Jishnu, you clearly "know more about this stuff" than do I. So with that being said,  I must wonder if these configuration designations, such as Q or W, are manufacturer's or individual airline's designations? I only learned of them from Maureen, my United FA friend, but in your immediate, you note them with regard  to another airline.
> 
> "Enquiring mind wants to know".


AFAIK, the Q is a United internal thing. I have never heard that used by anyone outside United.

The W for 777-300ER is pretty universal in the community. Vanilla 777-300s are apparently called 773. AFAIK, I see these designations first on airliners.net. I am not sure where it originates. I heard the lady from Boeing who was out guide on the VIP tour at the Everett Plant also use the W term. That of course does not mean it originates at Boeing. Afterall they are as much a part of the community and freely use terms invented by others when it suits them.

And BTW, W is not a designation for seat type in the aircraft. It is a designation for an aircraft type. The new Polaris seats used by United is generally referred to as Polaris Pods, to differentiate them from the old ex-Con BF seats and the crummy old ex-United excuses for a BC seat, which United internally likes to call Q apparently.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 18, 2019)

77W is the IATA code for the 777-300ER.  The ICAO code is B77W.

The IATA and ICAO codes generally correspond for Airbus and Boeing types, except for the 787-10 (781 vs B78X), A350-1000 (351 vs A35K), and 737 MAX (7M# vs B3#M) (where # is the variant type, i.e. MAX *7*, MAX *8*, or MAX *9*).  (I've actually seen conflicting reports that the 787-10 is either 78J or 781 in IATA-land, but I can't seem to find an *official* designation anywhere).

The code for the A380-800 is 388/A388, which is the topic of this thread.

I also don't see how there is any particular link between the cancellation of the A380 and Brexit, at least not any moreso than Airbus as a whole and Brexit.  The A380 is but one money-losing model with no orders left.  Its production would have to end with or without Brexit.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 18, 2019)

jis said:


> ....and the crummy old ex-United excuses for a BC seat, which United internally likes to call Q apparently.


....sure hope by August they have enough (Unitedese) "W" (Polaris) configured aircraft to assign them ORD-MUC. The link provided by PVD @ post 26 is most interesting.

Also, an interesting but hardly surprising "quirk" when booking Business Class on United. First, United no longer sells First Class, however their "Q" aircraft still have the eight seats.

After selecting a flight but before actually booking it in Business, their site shows a seat map of all seats - including those that were formerly First. Now actually booking and they know your "mileage" standing and they further know that you are "just plain vanilla", those First seats miraculously are unavailable.

Obviously, they're held for the "Elites".


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

I was assigned one of those "first class" pods on a Q configured aircraft on a flight back from London on a paid BC ticket by an agent, when I had to change a flight due to a problem on my side. I had to postpone my entire trip by a day and that involved among other things, a reroute of the return trip from via IAH to via EWR. I am not sure to whom those are made available when. But on a trip back from AMS this coming summer on a paid BC ticket, I was not offered one of those as a choice, so I changed flight to one that has a Polaris Pod equipped 787-10. For context, I am a 1K, 2 million miler.

Again in general 'W' is not a designation of what kind of seats are installed, but of an aircraft type. 

787-10s with Polaris Pods are not 'W' aircraft. As it happens United happened to introduce its Polaris Pods on 77Ws, but that does not make every aircraft type that gets Polaris Pod seats 'W's.

But none of this has to do with A380. I would recommend that the Mods hive off this United 777 stuff and place it in a different thread.


----------



## flitcraft (Feb 18, 2019)

Trogdor said:


> I also don't see how there is any particular link between the cancellation of the A380 and Brexit, at least not any moreso than Airbus as a whole and Brexit.  The A380 is but one money-losing model with no orders left.  Its production would have to end with or without Brexit.


You're quite right, the A380 was a goner regardless. On the other hand, the end of the A380 will allow Filton to be wrapped up more quickly so as to acccelerate the end of British involvement in Airbus via Brexit. So there is a connection, though not a causative one. 

My husband worked for years at Weybridge back  in the British Aerospace days--it's sad to think that Britain will soon be completely out of the aircraft business.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 18, 2019)

At least we will see a few ANA A380s ("ANA380"?) entering service in a few months, which I imagine won't be leaving service anytime soon.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 18, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> At least we will see a few ANA A380s ("ANA380"?) entering service in a few months, which I imagine won't be leaving service anytime soon.


I doubt they'll be retired soon but they might leave NH in short order.  If it remains a three unit fleet then I wouldn't be surprised if they're sold/leased after the 2020 Olympics.  Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of a market for secondhand A388's at the moment. Perhaps Airbus will setup a parcel/pilgrimage refurbishment program to wring a bit more money from their sunk development costs.  Places like India, China, and Saudi Arabia could probably find a role for an all-coach charter aircraft at the right price.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2019)

Haaj pilgrimage flights come to mind. That is the only reason Air India still maintains a few 747s other than to enhance the prestige of the Prime Minister when he goes to visit someone. But of late even for that they have been using the 777-300ERs.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 19, 2019)

jis said:


> At present there is no known commercial flight that requires ETOPS 370, but QANTAS is exploring a couple.


Interesting. I wonder what the hypothetical max would be for an ETOPS certification? Not from an engineering standpoint, but from a route standpoint. It's hard to imagine there would be very many city pairs that would even require ETOPS 370 from a purely geographic standpoint, customer demand notwithstanding.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2019)

There are no city pairs apparently that requires more than 370.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 19, 2019)

jis said:


> There are no city pairs apparently that requires more than 370.


Well, I guess there IS that Florida<-->Moon route, but that was discontinued back in '72.  :blink:


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 19, 2019)

The A350 is rated for ETOPS 370, giving it the highest rating of any airliner, and I guess giving it the ability to take on any city pair.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 20, 2019)

I guess one would expect a  Wall Street Journal columnist to hold such a position:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbuss-lesson-for-young-socialists-11550619950?shareToken=st35cb96d146ad411c87d3bb85b3c0691d&amp;reflink=article_email_share

Fair Use:



> Years ago, when an editor asked me ifBoeing would be around to pay off a 100-year bond it had recently offered, I flippantly replied that 100 years was only two product cycles for the company.
> 
> I underestimated the duration of its products. The Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and a freighter version will continue to be built near Seattle at least through 2022. The Boeing 737, which first flew in 1967, faces an order backlog that extends through 2027. An all-new replacement for the commuter workhorse is unlikely to appear until the 2030s.Which makes all the more anomalous Airbus’s decision to end production of its impressive and giant A380, which has been flying only since 2005


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 20, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Link to an article entitled "Airbus’s Lesson for Young Socialists"


Nobody asked what some old priest at the Church of Capitalism thinks young socialists need to learn behind a partisan paywall.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 20, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Nobody asked what some old priest at the Church of Capitalism thinks young socialists need to learn behind a partisan paywall.


It’s not giving me a paywall. :wacko:


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 21, 2019)

Additional _REPORTING_ from that "Cathedral of Capitalism" regarding the A-380 debacle. Maybe there is a "konthole in the paywall":

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-airbuss-a380-went-from-wonder-to-blunder-11550599532?shareToken=st8695e7b416e4418884a35f5d67e9023b&amp;reflink=article_email_share

Fair Use



> Quote
> When Airbus lunched the A380 superjumbo in 2000, it touted the two-deck plane as “the Eighth Wonder of the World.” Instead, the world’s largest passenger plane exposed dysfunction inside the European aerospace company and now offers a textbook case of a company misjudging its market and losing big.
> 
> Airbus has sunk at least $17 billion into the project yet sold fewer than half of the 750 superjumbo jetliners it promised to deliver by the end of this year. On Thursday Airbus said it would cease producing the 555-seat plane at the end of 2021.
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Feb 22, 2019)

I've had the pleasure of flying in Business Class on an A380 on SQ, and I hope that at some point I will be able to travel on one in F/J on Emirates as well (and indeed on some other airlines).

My experience is that the "upstairs" all-J approach is exceedingly nice (separate boarding door, etc.).  With that being said, I'm also hoping to get a decent sense for how it compares to the 747 (I've only had one flight on one, and that was on DL back in 2017).


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2019)

Next time you go to Germany try the Lufthansa 747-8i.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 25, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Additional _REPORTING_ from that "Cathedral of Capitalism" regarding the A-380 debacle...


The A380 project ran into numerous setbacks, never earned a profit and will probably never break even, but in an industry that has a long and sordid list of viability-risking catastrophes this event barely even registers.  The A380 was by no means a resounding success but it did sell well enough to recoup some of the early losses and it remains a safe and popular option for passengers today.  I've personally gone out of my way to fly the A380 in the past and I am very likely to do so again in the future.  As I mentioned previously out of roughly 45 aircraft models flown I'd put the A380 at the top of the list for passenger comfort and spaciousness.  Early units were retired ahead of schedule, probably due to heavier weights and lower performance, but it's possible that Airbus may be able to recoup more money by jump starting a secondary market for later units with specialized refurbishment programs and extended maintenance contracts with attractive buyback and releasing terms. 



Anderson said:


> I've had the pleasure of flying in Business Class on an A380 on SQ, and I hope that at some point I will be able to travel on one in F/J on Emirates as well (and indeed on some other airlines).  My experience is that the "upstairs" all-J approach is exceedingly nice (separate boarding door, etc.).  With that being said, I'm also hoping to get a decent sense for how it compares to the 747 (I've only had one flight on one, and that was on DL back in 2017).


I've flown the 742, 743, and 744.  In my view none of them can hold a candle to the A388.  Maybe the 748 can, but that's a rare enough bird that I've never seen her offered as an option for any of my flights.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2019)

I flew on a 748 on an LH flight FRA-ORD.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 26, 2019)

The LH 748 is a great experience I recommend it.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 26, 2019)

I think I've got a 748 lined up in April (AS award on BA).  That trip also features a rather amusing side-trip to Brussels called "The Eurostar is cheaper than APD".


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 26, 2019)

Anderson said:


> I think I've got a 748 lined up in April (AS award on BA).  That trip also features a rather amusing side-trip to Brussels called "The Eurostar is cheaper than APD".


BA mean British Airways? Because that BA doesn’t have any 748s.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2019)

Right. The only 747s that BA has are 744s. No 748.

You are basically stuck with four passenger carriers if you want to fly a 747-8i: Air China, Cathay Pacific, Korean and Lufthansa.

If you can swing a ride on a cargo carrier then you have many more choices, but they would all be 747-8F or variants - short upper deck.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 26, 2019)

Seaboard92 said:


> The LH 748 is a great experience I recommend it.


That's a really vague endorsement.  Is the 748 substantially better than another aircraft with a similar mission profile?


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 26, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> That's a really vague endorsement.  Is the 748 substantially better than another aircraft with a similar mission profile?


The 747-8I is the flagship aircraft for some operators, so they are often equipped particularly well. It also doesn’t hurt that the -8 is a bit quieter and smoother than previous generations.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> That's a really vague endorsement.  Is the 748 substantially better than another aircraft with a similar mission profile?


From a passenger's perspective it is at par with the 380, and better than a 744. I am comparing an LH 388 with an LH 748, which I have both flown in. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 26, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> The 747-I is the flagship aircraft for some operators, so they are often equipped particularly well. It also doesn’t hurt that the -8 is a bit quieter and smoother than previous generations.


KE and LH also fly the A380.  CX only seems to fly the 748F variant so that doesn't really count.  I don't know much about CA but I wouldn't exactly call the 748i a flagship, at least in the usual meaning.  The B787, A330, A340, A350, A380, and even the B77W are already pretty quiet and smooth so that's not quite the draw it once was.



jis said:


> From a passenger's perspective it is at par with the 380, and better than a 744. I am comparing an LH 388 with an LH 748, which I have both flown in. Just IMHO of course.


Does the 748 have those gimmicky electro-shades of the 787?  I really dislike the faint blue light those things create.  Instead of providing a premium experience it feels like you're sleeping on a sofa bed in some dingy trailer park with all-night television glow.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2019)

I don't recall what kind of shades it has since I was in a middle set of seats and not by a window. But in at least the LH incarnation it had the three external cameras like the 380 with feeds available on the FE system.

I understand that the 777X (-8 and -9) will have 787 sized windows and possibly those funky shades come with it.

On the 380 upstairs, due to curvature of the fuselage, the window is of much reduced value since you can't see much close to the aircraft down below. That is where the downward facing camera comes in handy. They unfortunately did not keep it on at high altitude though. Still it was nice.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 26, 2019)

jis said:


> Right. The only 747s that BA has are 744s. No 748.
> 
> You are basically stuck with four passenger carriers if you want to fly a 747-8i: Air China, Cathay Pacific, Korean and Lufthansa.
> 
> If you can swing a ride on a cargo carrier then you have many more choices, but they would all be 747-8F or variants - short upper deck.




Good luck trying to fly on a Cathay Pacific 747-8i.


----------



## jis (Feb 26, 2019)

My mistake in including Cathay on the passenger side. They have 8fs not 8is.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 27, 2019)

From Holiday Inn Express Macon--

En route home from Boca.

747 related was a "vignette" I had during my January trip "down below" (MIA). Arriving back at ORD  I went to United Customer Service to find out how to get my refund for an involuntary downgrade from First to Coach. Needless to say, during the "Vortex" it was busy.

They had an agent at the beginning of the line to screen passengers. He said to me "you can do it on the web" and he gave me a flier. On the cover was a photo of a 744. I said "this looks a bit dated", to which he said "to any of us at United who either flown or worked her, she will always be the Queen of the fleet".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 27, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> They had an agent at the beginning of the line to screen passengers. He said to me "you can do it on the web" and he gave me a flier. On the cover was a photo of a 744. I said "this looks a bit dated", to which he said "to any of us at United who either flown or worked her, she will always be the Queen of the fleet". ﻿


In my experience UA didn't really treat their 747's like queens so much as a housemaids.  Frayed outdated interiors with a tired hard product and in-flight entertainment that would feel at home in the 1970's.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoyed flying 747's for the pop culture novelty, but the customer facing aspects weren't well maintained or updated often.  Most airlines seemed to treat their 747's like a dilapidated sub-fleet with one wheel already in the desert.  The other benefit of flying 747's was the people watching aspect.  Seeing passenger reactions to flying aircraft with bent ashtrays, pull down projector screens, and air tube headphones was rather entertaining.


----------

