Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The end of the A380

Noe wrote:

I wouldn’t consider the 747 a failure

Not the right word, how about “old but not obsolete”? (Terminator Genisys)

Yes, I guess after a long trip in a B787/A350 you are much good shape than half of that time in a tight/noisy Concord

Two trips in B787s/A350s should be enough to get you anywhere around the earth where real demand exist, you still have those old 777 for a direct but still A380 is very comfy, in the other hand air travel is a very competitive market where customer service smile or existing guaranteed contracts does make a huge difference than the range of your aircraft

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Passenger expectations have changed and point to point is now the name of the game, I was lucky enough to be at a presentation in Seattle given by a senior guy from Boeing who’s contention was hub & spoke was not the way to develop the market.

New routes are being developed now with smaller aircraft, ten years back I whould not have dreamed of flying a 737 across the Atlantic but the 737Max has the legs to do this and land the passengers at an airport that will get them into the centre of New York faster than landing in JFK.

The 737Max gives an airline a cheap way to start a new point to point route, if it works you can upgrade to a B787 and if it fails you have not lost too much money and can move onto another idea.

There will always be a few routes that have the high demand that will fill an A380 but it would seem that Airbus have satisfied the demand for aircraft for these routes.

A_and_C wrote:

737 across the Atlantic but the 737Max has the legs to do this and land the passengers at an airport that will get them into the centre of New York faster than landing in JFK.

I’m flying across on a A318 next week, and I’ll take that it any day over a larger plane, or even better cabin (for instance Virgin’s), mostly because
1) It lands at LCY (I live and work on the eastern side of london, so Luton and Heathrow are tied for worst airport to get to (possibly even if you Consider "Southend London airport).
2) Smaller plane (in this case, only 32 seats) means faster boarding / faster in flight service. Last time we were full boarded 35 minutes before the flight and started the taxi about 30 minutes before (but still took off late, with the queues at JFK). Faster service means that the cabin in in “sleep mode” for longer.

I fly on the A380 as pax a few times per year and love it, mainly due to the fact that the cabin ‘flies’ at a lower altitude than most airplanes and is super quiet. That said, even on the upper deck the service takes forever and it takes way too long for the cabin to ‘bed down’ for the night. So far never been on a 787 or A350 but look fwd to trying them.

That said, wasn’t one of the biggest mistakes Airbus made in the whole 380 saga the decision not to build a freighter version? The 747-8 is still selling as freighter and I’m pretty sure we’ll see the Queen of the Skies for many years to come in this role. The A380 cannot be reconfigured and will – sadly – disappear pretty quickly.

Noe wrote:

I’m flying across on a A318 next week, and I’ll take that it any day over a larger plane

Keep shrinking it in size, by the time it looks like a DA42 it should be able to do a direct St John’s to Porto

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

Keep shrinking it in size, by the time it looks like a DA42 it should be able to do a direct St John’s to Porto

I have a “dream” plan of doing a version of it this summer, I have a bachelor party in Chicago on last weekend of July and another one in Iceland the weekend after. It would allow for a stop at Oshkosh on the way to Chicago. Can you convince the head office to let you take the time and do your MEP?

Last Edited by Noe at 14 Feb 18:09

Yeah, the new A200 series (formally the Bombardier C300) is also getting poised for doing transatlantic work. I’m all for it myself, if it means I can fly more direct or at different times. One of the problems here in the western part of the US, is that it’s hard to get departing LR flights in “off” hours. If I want to go to Europe, they leave between 2pm and 9pm and that’s it. And sometimes in my line of work it just becomes a date or time game – need to be there by that date to get the job. Problem I run into is I can not put in a full days work here in LA and catch the last plane out for a job in Europe or Asia. Tend to lose another day, which means they call someone else. Oh well, probably very few that have that need, so maybe it’s not commercially viable to have really late departures. But with a single aisle transatlantic aircraft, I’d think the chances would increase, no?

AdamFrisch wrote:

Oh well, probably very few that have that need, so maybe it’s not commercially viable to have really late departures

It really boils down to the question: which day do you want to lose? With the 9 hours time difference we have to Europe (8 to the UK), any LAX – EU flight will either leave early and get in early or leave late and get in late. That said, I agree – I’d also prefer late flights, that way you only really lose one day as opposed to pretty much two right now.

A380 is a wonderful plane but only makes sense on the high volume long distance routes like the Kangaroo route (UK to Australia).

Last Edited by JasonC at 14 Feb 18:29
EGTK Oxford

Can’t remember ever having flown in the A380. I remember some 10-20? years ago, when the 380 fist flew we talked about this. Boeing had announced the 787, and consensus in the aviation media and us was that the 787 was the future, not the 380. Very few expected the 380 to be a success. The 787 is flying well, but few expected the 737 to do the same job. Today even smaller planes are taking over for the 737 many places.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top