Why US Airlines Don’t Fly The Airbus A380?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- No US-based airline ever ordered the Airbus A380. With production ending next year, none ever will. Why was it that the A380 never sold in America, and what does that tell us about the issues with the plane? Let’s find out.
Article link: simpleflying.com/why-us-airli...
Video source links:
A380 Qatar Airways production • Video
A380 British Airways • British Airways -- Tak...
A380 Thai • Crosswind landing!!! T...
A380 Emirates • HEAVY Emirates A380-86...
A380 Qantas Heathrow • Ten years of the A380 ...
A380 Qatar Airways • Video
A380 Emirates Dubai DXB • Video
A380 Air France • Air France F-HPJB Airb...
A380 Air France • Air France - Airbus A3...
A380 Production • A380 from dream to rea...
A380 Air France • Air France F-HPJC Airb...
777 Delta • Delta Air Lines 777-20...
A330-300 Delta • Delta Air Lines N810NW...
747 United • United - A fond farewe...
757-300 United • United Airlines N75858...
777-200 United Airlines • Boeing 777-200 United ...
787 American • FINAL FLIGHT - America...
Photo links:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.flickr.com/photos/rodeime...
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
Delta will probably buy some used ones in 20 years to ensure that they keep their fleet old.
John P lmao
@@Penske_Penguin It was a joke dood
Next Trump personal jet
@@calidude1114 YUUUGE
As someone who’s flown a lot of Delta, I can confirm they’ll use only the oldest of old planes.
That one time bigger wasn't better for the USA
Actually it wasn’t a new trend. US carriers have long preferred frequency over consolidation of traffic onto a huge aircraft
When it was to BIG and POWERFUL for USA
Oh yeah yeah
No doubt that there is something bigger in Texas anyway since they claim "Everything is bigger in Texas!"
KAOS especially the asylums.
The Final A-380 and 747 are going away around a similar time, except 747 has been around since 1969 and A380 since early 2007. Really shows how airlines needs have changed and how the end of super jumbos is over. The 747 and A-380 will live in our hearts forever.
Why I really like this channel: short and tightly edited content delivered in less than 5 minutes. No ads interrupting and NO begging for money! Subscribed and always pleased to watch a new released video.
Totally agree. Every word adds value, contrary to many other sites where people just spend too much time talking without adding any real information.
Yes I totally agree
I flew on the A380 once! Smooth as silk! Very gentle take-off, spacious business class seats, lots of bathroom space, space to get up and stretch your legs, visit the snack bar, and the landing was barely perceptible! Quite the experience!
Cheers from California!
Oh yes, it's a great plane. I love that A380 Emirates from LAX to Dubai. But as a machine it's a beast, hard on runways, costly to fly, and requires special airport modifications. So it has limited applicability compared to the 7-series wide bodies.
@@genkibob A tough business model!
The A380 is by far the quietest bird up there, and I’ve flown in them all in over the past 50 years. Since Air France got rid of theirs, I’ve missed them sorely.
Remember, most US airports are not slot-restricted like other airports around the world. As such, the need for a plane as big as the A380 by US based airlines is essentially zero. That's why US based airlines fly large fleets of widebody two-engined jets instead.
@RandomDefaultGamer United needed them because they had a lot of busy intercontinental routes, especially after they bought Pan American's Pacific operations in 1985. That's why United was one of the first airlines to buy the 747-400 and ended up with a fleet for 44 planes at its peak.
@RandomDefaultGamer Delta inherited the 747-400 fleet from Northwest Airlines when they merged with that airline in 2005.
.....That and the fact that it is quite difficult, even internationally, to find 500-700 people who want to travel from one airport to another airport at one particular time. This drastically cuts down on the ability for this airplane to stay in the air the requisite number of hours per day to have its inherently high fixed costs make any fiscal sense.
@RandomDefaultGamer So getting rid of 4 engined planes means they should buy more? Is it opposite day? You might have an actual argument if they kept their 747s and were buying more.
@@Flies2FLL There was an era when there was a hub system, you fly international and there were select few airports in every country to which international flights would go and their their codeshare with domestic or other airlines would drop passengers to their desired airports and this was the era when A-380 was envisioned.
Now as air travel has become more common and more people are flying internationally, its easy for airlines to fill up small planes to different airports in the country. So now filling up A-380 gets difficult, but as the pandemic starts to subside in a year or 2, passengers will still be less and flying them to smaller airports will become costly and there might be a chance that A-380s might still have a use for some time to come.
BA does so well with large planes is because its in the center of two huge landmasses. It can collect passengers from one side gather them all at one spot(Heathrow) and then have them take their destination flights(collect passengers from different flight to one). This makes their operations cost effective for them and then there is always British hospitality.
The A380 uses a higher proportion of its fuel on take off than any other make of airline. So, because the three major American Airlines do such a higher percentage of short - haul routes between American cities than the Asian carriers, it is not viable for them to fly A380's. Delta, for example, fly about 85% of their routes between San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. These routes are their bread and butter. However, an airline such as Qantas fly a much lower percentage of these kinds of flights as there are only two cities in Australia with anywhere near this kind of domestic traffic, Sydney and Melbourne. And any long haul flight to large centres from Sydney, for example, is seven hours or more (Dubai and Los Angeles are 14 hours, even Hong Kong is 10) because Australia is such a long way from anywhere else! So it makes much more sense for Qantas to fly A380's. And also, once an A380 takes off or lands other aircraft, even B777, cannot land or take off for another three minutes due to the air displacement by the huge A380. It is not possible to have this kind of delay at Atlanta, Dallas or Chicago where craft take off and land every 45 seconds.
I rather read comment than watch the video. 👏
The A380 is an aircraft or airplane not an airline.
Adieu Nightmare, If you'd rather read it, you can find all of our videos published as articles at simpleflying.com - TB
@riff maka or unless people are fine with the restrictions or are scared from this pandemic.
@riff maka like north korea yeah i agree.
The best flight I have ever been on was a Qantas A380 Melbourne to Singapore. So comfortable and new with a great entertainment system. 8 hours flew by
totally right, I enjoyed my flights Frankfurt - NY and SanFr - Frankfurt, also.
Love the pun, Ivor!
Emirates: *ILL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK.*
your*
I Said it right
@@literalyou104 not before you edited your comment lmaoo
@@ChrisGugliuzza ik lmao
Emirates can’t even operate them for profit. They’re constantly getting money funneled into them by the government. Just like Qatar
In the US, it’s not the number of passengers on a flight, but the number of flights a passenger can choose. Multiple frequencies to a destination drives traffic.
The number of flights and the number of airports. Americans in many US cities can choose from THREE airports (the Bay Area has SFO, OAK, and SJO; LA has LAX, Long Beach, and SNA; New York has JFK, La Guardia, and Newark). I can think of no other country where more than one city offers such a choice.
@@malvoliosf , in fact, LA has LAX, Long Beach, SNA, Ontario, and Burbank. Everyone I know who's gone through Burbank loves it compared to LAX. That's 5 airports not even counting if you expand all the way down to San Diego and Palm Springs.
@@genkibob Yup, and NYC has Teterboro and Republic Airport in addition to the Big 3. Only London has anything comparable (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Louton, City, and Southend). Paris has three (Orly, CDG, and Disneyland); Bangkok and Tokyo have 2 each; Rome only has 1, I think...
@@genkibob Absolutely. I avoid LAX any time I can when Burbank is an option.
I have flown on an A380 from Melbourne to Dubai. What a beautiful smooth flight it was. It will probably be the last time i get a chance to fly in one.After covid there probably wont be many flying again.
quietest plane I ever flew. Also the only time I ever had to spend over an extra hour sitting on the tarmac after landing to wait for an ambulance to come and fetch a heart attack victim. With 500 ish people on board, someone is going to croak. It is a mathematical certainty.
I still miss the good ole 747s ….I recall being on one of its first maiden voyage from SF to HK on a Pan Am 747..when air travel was more comfortable than now.
Ever since the FAA certified twin engine aircraft on long oversea routes, this spelled the demise of 4 engine airplanes.
What did it do to the tri-jet?
@@toemblem Killed it.
@@toemblem It's also difficult to access the 3rd engine for maintenance.
I was joking
777 is noting but a 737 scaled up. A cattle car. I’d take A380 business class all day over any Boeing product 1st class.
In America i heard that frequency is more ideal so that passengers have more flexibility on when they want to travel. That's why smaller jets are operated in those popular domestic routes
That is how it is in every airline though.
Frequency, and, as the video said, less hub and spoke and more point-to-point non-stop operations. The French were betting on having the bragging rights of building the biggest airliner ever, and thus they bet against the market.
They lost.
yeah sure - and THEN wasting hours for check in and TSA check.... wow - simple math would help ;-)
The US doesn't have a highly developed high speed passenger rail service. The US elected to build highways in the 1950s and focus on automobile travel and later on, air travel. The US had a couple key factors which made this the reality we see today. One is fuel cost. Gasoline and Diesel are cheap in the US compared to Europe. The other is public transit. European cities, even those rebuilt after WW2) were not designed with cars in mind. Sure they can accommodate them to some extent but you'd be nuts to fly to London or Berlin and rent a car to drive around town. American cities, even those predating WW2, found themselves surrounded by car-centric suburbs. Couple that with lower taxes on things like cars and you quickly get a recipe for not needing trains. Cheap fuel, cheap cars and nice highways between cities.
Today, you can fly between most American cities fairly cheaply and rent a car (or if you're in the few US cities with good public transit, use that) to get around. Or, load everyone in the car for the great American road trip. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, a fuel tank of fuel was $25 and that would get you 300ish miles. You're not going to fly 4 people from Phoenix to Los Angeles for that. There is no train between the two that comes close to the travel time you get by flying or driving (PHX to LAX is less than 2 hours and driving from Phoenix to Los Angeles is ~5hrs) between the two.
It's just a different market.
thats why america shouldve purchased like 3500 concordes and used federal subsidies to operate them on short-haul routes like billings to topkea
Flown three times on a long haul A380 from Heathrow to Kuala lumpar twice with Malaysian Airlines and both times the aircraft was full. Next time was with Quantas Heathrow to Singapore to Melbourne and plane was half empty. Had the row of seats to myself. Got plenty of sleep on that trip lol
The A380 was designed for classic wheel-and-spoke style operations; carrying passengers from hub to hub: passngers would then fly from hub to final destination on smaller planes. The A380 was introduced, just as airlines began operating point to point, using smaller; more economical aircraft (767 and 777) flying direct from one airport to another.
I think you mean hub and spoke. Unless you are departing from a major airport, nearly every option you will have is hub and spoke. How many people on any given day are flying from Kalamazoo to Topeka? Unless it is a large group traveling, not enough to justify even one point to point flight between the two. Or imagine if people from 100 different cities need to fly to Little Rock on the same day. No way LIT could handle that amount of point to point traffic. People want to fly from the nearest airport. And most of the time, those are smaller airports which necessitates the need for connections at hubs like ATL and ORD
@@kristopherloviska9042 Oh there are plenty of point-to-point flights to/from secondary airports in cities like San Antonio. Hub and Spoke still exists - don't get me wrong. But we are in an era where there is a blend of hub and spoke and point to point. Southwest Airlines has mastered and spearheaded the shift toward point to point operations even as they do hub and spoke. They are so successful that other airlines are forced to do the same in order to compete.
most people that watched this video already knew the answer
Yep
"NOT BOOOORRRNNNN IN THE USAAAAAA"
When Qantas say that they can operate TWO 787s going to the same place at the same time cheaper than one A-380 kind of says something about the economics of the plane.
thebigcnel shawty got a fatty
Because too expensive American can’t afford it.
It's still cheaper to fly 2 787 Dreamliners with the same amount of passengers as one A380.
And you could schedule the Dreamliners several hours apart to make it convenient for people who want to leave or arrive at different times. For example, and early morning departure for one of the planes and an afternoon departure for the other.
How do you work that out? Where is your information from?
@@garrett69 I believe Simple Flying or one of the airline channels mentioned it as a one liner but they have this on their site: simpleflying.com/airlines-are-grounding-their-a380s/
However this site did a really detailed cost analysis of a number of aircrafts: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936119301244
@Steve Wood I think it was Qantas’ CEO Alan Joyce who made that statement
A380 is from approx $22000 an hour to run, 787 is approx $9000.. this is coming from Qantas.. so flying 2 nose to tail would be cheaper and for Aussies.. 1/2 can go to lax and 1/2 to sfo 😄
The real reason? The A380 does not have a cargo modification. Its always going to haul people, where as the 747 can be refitted for cargo once it stops being useful for passengers, or divided to haul both.
You hit the nail on the head. The huge capacity of the A380 (and even the 747) makes no sense between US routes. In fact, more airlines are going to smaller jets (CRJs, EMBs, etc.) because, even though it is more expensive, it is more convenient for the traveler. There's a fine balance between convenience and cost, but the A380 tipped the scales way out of balance.
Boeing to US Airlines : I dare you, I double dare you !!
US airlines didn’t buy the B747-8 either.
Jon Jackson they just aren’t needed anymore. The 777 and 787 changed the game for them.
"I triple dog dare you."
@@mr.mcbeavy1443 Slight breach of etiquette, that...skipping the double-dog and triple dare before going right for the throat.
"I triple Mad Dog dare you"....lol.
The first and last time I sat on a 747 was before 2000. My first & last flight on A380 was in 2017. Flying abroad on a 737 or A320 doesn't feel like a vacation.
I took a 747 and an A380 on the same trip in 2009: LAX to AKL for the 747 and SYD to LAX for the A380.
@dangerous at any speed not yet
@@arob79 I'd be looking forward to the flying experience more than the destination 😁
@dangerous at any speed I was on a350. Hated it. Very bad ac
@dangerous at any speed LH
After around 7 long haul flights in the Emirates A380 I cannot imagine flying without it.
@IbrPlayz same, my flights were 14 hours each and felt no more than 5-6 hours
That’s obviously because you can’t fly on an Emirates 787. It’s the airline not the plan. Try an A380 on a European carrier and you’ll know how awful it can be.
@@Perejil1319 yeah but I’ve also flown same route but on the 77w and A380 is better.
@@Perejil1319 I flew on a Lufthansa A380 from Frankfurt to Delhi and it was the best flight ever. I was fortunate to have my employer pay for business class though. I can't speak for the experience of those who flew coach.
I worked at the Denver airport for a short time, I asked one of the operations people if an A380 could land there/ He said yes, but it couldn't use any of the gates, because they didn't have anything powerful enough to push an A380 away from a gate.
it does have thrust reversers
@@nutsackmania Can an A380 do a powerback? That would be something to see :)
@@TurboSpeedWiFi I know powerbacks are not allowed, I meant is it physically capable of a powerback? (Also I know they were never really done with underwing engines, because of debris).
@@TurboSpeedWiFi But in KSP, it reverses ALL of it. Too bad that isn’t true in Real Life, though…
@@wickedmuffin76 plus the a380 only uses 2 engines for reverse thrust I believe
Even the 747 wound up being used in the US only on international flights. When the 747 was at its height, there were much fewer international hubs for American domestic airlines to fly into. When the 767, 777, and the 787 came online, there were many more international airports for the Americans to fly into, thus the need even for the 747 started to dry up.
I remember when the A380 was being developed, Boeing was placing it's bet on airlines needing a smaller more fuel efficient plane instead which was the goal of the 787 program. This was before the A350 was being developed.
Just found your channel. Loved your insightful video. Thanks for the content and commentary. Subscribed.
My theory: Back in 1970, when the 747 and Lockheed and Douglas' trijet wide bodies started servicing the U.S., they founf that they could not fill these larger planes.
Besides, U.S.. passengers want infinite choices of departure points, and departure and arrival times. This model was served more flexibly by smaller planes of that time(737, 727, DC-9), and of current times(A319, 320, 737, etc).
It could make sense to have a few Airbus A380s for a smaller number of routes (especially international), but aside from the lower fuel costs to operate other jets, carriers try to stick with a smaller variety of planes. Fewer certifications for pilots and for those who service the fleet. Also a smaller range of tools needed as well.
The problem is that a new 747 is more economical than an A380, so the the 380 is actually a failed design from the very start. Of course, even the latest 747 can't compete with the newest twin engine long haul aircraft so even it is reaching the end of it's lifespan as a people transport.
I've flown on quite a few A380's and it feels so cool to get on and off it
Really it wasn't the size of the plane...it was the huge amount of upgrading the jet required. Everything in the airport needed upgrading to fit the new plane including larger taxiways. The cost was too high.
I disagree. The upgrading has already been done. For example British Airways flies its Airbus A380 Jet to San Francisco, Miami and Los Angeles.
@@ameerali.ouarda No one is gonna upgrade their airports for A380 when it isn't even being made anymore. And no, many airports still don't support it.
And many of the airports that "support" the A380 only do so at 1, maybe 2 gates. Hence the multi hour delays for HiFly when they tried to fly into an airport that "supports" the A380, JFK.
It’s just a different time in the US. When I was a kid in the 80s, every flight between big hubs were DC10s, 767s, L1011s, etc.
Eventually the airlines realized those big airplanes were almost never full so they weren’t making money.
One need only look at the horrible day of 9/11 to see how underused large airliners were on an average weekday morning. Of the four planes that were destroyed, only 232 passenger seats were occupied out of a combined total of approximately 900 seats.
I worked in Hamburg and Toulouse building the first batch of aircraft for Singapore Airlines, good times.
The A-380 was designed for long-haul, mass transport and with no exceptions, the US airlines didn't have that model, so this aircraft didn't fit. As the video said, the 777-200ER/300ER provided all the seating required for US airlines, even flying overseas. I flew the 777-300ER from SFO-ACK and it was very comfortable and efficient for passengers. Since the unveiling of the 787 however, some of those airlines are dropping the 777 and picking up the 787 instead. Now that Airbus has released the A-350-900/1000, I foresee some competition with the 787.
WHY buy something where the profits all go to an overseas country, or two, when by staying with Boeing, you are keeping more American dollars IN America? I understand that we do have an Airbus factory or two in the US but the profits, like those of the damnable Toyota, all go back to a foreign country.
@@richardcline1337 This has nothing to do with WHY THE A-380 was not used by American carriers. This sounds more like a personal rant about foreign companies taking money from American businesses. Not relevant.
A350 competes directly with the 777 variants. A330 series , epsc the new Neo model competes with the 787.
@@richardcline1337 Hey, so we Europeans should only buy Airbus planes then huh? To prevent our hard earned euros going to a foreign country like the US? Come on that’s international business. Americans buy Airbus planes and Europeans buy Boeing planes and vice versa.
We also forget about the time it takes to load and unload these huge aircrafts. Imagine over 600 passengers running down the halls all trying to get to customs first….and the line ups when they got there.
I used A380 to arrive in Paris, Sydney, and Singapore. I had no problems with customsc queue as they have well designed customs. I used B787 to arrive in LAX one time. I waited close to two hours just to pass customs, manned by only two elderly gents as two other airlines arrived at the same time. So it’s a matter of whether airports are willing to service passengers or not.
Exactly like what happens when three international flights land within 10 minutes which happens almost every day at the big airports. Having 600 people in the LAX customs hall is situation normal. I have done it around 15 times.
@@sav7568 are you an American citizen? I came as a foreigner.
@@awonoto Us Customs give foreign travellers a raw deal every single day. The foreign people might outnumber the Americans three to one especially on flights from Korea, Japan or China. Despite those numbers more than half of the customs agents will be assigned to clearing the US citizens. Once all US citizens are gone the supervisor will leave one on duty and tell all the others from the US section to take a break. There might be 500 foreigners still waiting but that's just too bad. I have seen this happen many times.
It's amazing to me how many people that are apparently fans of aviation seem to think that US based airlines only buy American built airplanes. Have any of those people ever been to an airport?
People that only have flown on Southwest apparently. I’ve been on many smaller Airbus planes flown by Delta and American.
I work at the DFW airport and like mentioned in the video it is to large, there is one gate we have for holding such a large aircraft such as the 747 series at gate D16x (we have terminal F being built that will hold more international flights). One day i hope to see the 380 pull in.
Qantas flew one of their A380's from Sydney to DFW before the pandemic.
@@Peter-vn8ue Yep. And I saw it parked at D terminal a few times while transiting thru to wherever I was going. They ran the 747-400 on that route as well. BTW, that DFW-SYD route was the longest in the world at the time - and I think holds the record. 18+ hours
At some airports I've been at, the plane can't fit at any gate, so they've shuttled passengers from the terminal to the tarmac.
McCarran Intl. here in Las Vegas added one larger gate to Terminal 3 (D gates) in order to accommodate the A380 and didn't do so until 2017. The demand just wasn't there considering most international flights prior were all 747s, planes which can use other terminals. And it looks like it may never be there.
Interestingly enough, LAS did play host to an Antonov AN-225 once, but just for cargo when it delivered a huge transformer for a solar power plant.
@@Clean97gti It's not just the gates, there are some airports where there are taxiway restrictions on A380s (and some other jumbos), because there just isn't enough room for them to taxi safely.
When the air traffic control system is fully updated, there will be more "free flight' off the major air routes and that will make the smaller and mid size airports more profitable and with it smaller jets more profitable as well.
keep one more thing in mind: The Boeing 747 was originally conceived as a pure freighter. The passenger version was dreamed up only once the American SST was cancelled.
The thinking was, long haul passengers on the SST. long haul freight on the cargo-only 747
One reason the American SST WAS cancelled was that it was going to be the biggest as well as the fastest plane ever built, and that was just such an unreachable goal, at least for the first SST.
While Concorde had trans-Atlantic range that Washington Dulles to Paris run was about it's limit, especially since it had to slow down to subsonic speed once over land. And outgoing from Dulles, it could not go supersonic until it got offshore
I just love these little snippets of info 🖤
I flew the A380 from Houston to Dubai on Emerates. It was great!
It's the most comfortable pleasant quiet plane ever
The best explanation of the A380 usage and the way US airlines operate that make it a non viable aircraft.
Europe and Asia operate very differently, and Middle Eastern countries different again. Most of it is down to geography, but the US has been operating frequent low volume routes for decades, and there never was any plan to change that.
US airlines would only buy the A380 if they could find a way to double the seating capacity. American Airlines is trying to find a way to reduce the legroom to 4.2” and convert the cargo hold to accommodate another 400 passengers.
😂 I just flew on American and this is too true.
I still have to fly in one! I am going from SFO to Heathrow hopefuly next month before the New Year.
I just feel lucky to have flown on this beauty from Italy to Japan in my lifetime, it's sad that we will se less double deck planes in the future.
Such a pleasure to fly on this it’s truly beautiful.
Andreas Jacovides I love this gorgeous plane
Il est fabriqué chez moi à Toulouse 🇫🇷
@@alexandrebenoin40 un collègue !!!!!🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
Tristan Helfenbein ouais 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
Hawaiian and probably UAL could have used the A380 on their longest hauls. But engines have become so efficient and reliable nowadays that it's routine for a stock B737 or A320 to fly between LAX-HNL or slightly further. Not having A380s on hand actually allows a carrier to match equipment with demand more nimbly.
I've flown JFK-HNL a few times on Hawaiian and they use the A330. Works well.
I remember when 744s flew between JFK and SFO. That hasn't been the case for 30 years now. It's all about economics. I do hope that I get onto an A380 before they're gone - I just love the idea of the upper deck 2x2 sitting configuration - so awesome
Brilliant Overview.
At end of the day B777, B787, A330 & A350 are the best in all accounts for any airlines around the world. Yes.. Both B747 & A380 are incredible aircrafts but not suitable for 21st century market.
In some way
One simple reason, cant fill the seats , so there is no money and cannot land in most airports, expensive to operate
Cesar Abraham thanks for explaining what the video already explained
That’s like 4 reasons.
the shiehks got this dont worry
@bojo perez IKR Lmao,I was mentioning the rich emirates and other arab people tho, they got no problemo lol
WasReloading called a summary
great vid
As I understand from working one the A380 program there is also an issue with patents making it difficult (if not impossible) for Airbus to sell A380 to the USA
Have flown in the A380 a few times and loved it. Lots of room . . . nice aircraft.
I love big jets like the A380 & 747, but they're more of halo projects now. I think the A380 could've proved to be a formidable freighter, but that was never factored into its original development like it was for the 747.
If the Airbus did come into either American or Delta I’m sure they will find a way to overbook it.
American is the biggest operator of the A321, the A350 is Delta's flagship and they also have 100 A321neos on order. They definitely do not overlook Airbus.
I live in Japan and have flown the A380 to Hawaii several times. It is a very smooth aircraft and has a lot of room.
I flew on it once between Paris and Atlanta and the flight was so empty honestly I don’t know why AirFrance used it for that flight but at least I can say I have flown on one
In April 1967 I was active duty Navy and took a TWA Boeing 707 from JFK to Rome, Italy in an all nighter. That airplane only had about 40 passengers. After an hour or two I just about had the Stewardesses all to my self. I got the phone number of two of them (all Americans) based in Rome and in September 1968 called the number and got one of the girls on the phone. I was going to be in Rome that week and asked if I could get together with her. She could and I saw Rome unlike most tourists don't.
Bottom line of my little story--- that airplane was less than 20% full. At the time, the 707 was as big as they get.
flight was empty and you're complaining.?? do you like crouched with other people in tight spaces?
@@iceman1125 Not a bit. I'm just saying that if a US airline couldn't at least half fill an international flight with around 80 people, why would they want a much bigger plane with over twice the capacity of a 707 and still only have 40 people
@@johnemerson1363 every Flight I usually catch to from Europe to the US is overbooked, regardless which Airline.... terrible. You are talking about long times ago....
@@FRITZI999 Yes, 50 plus years ago. A long time ago.
it could only in routes like lax to jfk or heathrow to jfk
What about something like SIN-LAX? Or is that too populated with options as well and not long haul enough?
Unless there’s a catastrophic pandemic US Airlines don’t usually get subsidies - thus in normal times we have to actually show a profit. Hard to do in a four engine aircraft.
Another issue with the A-380 was that a number of smaller hub airports were unwilling to completely refit for A-380's need for wider runway and taxiways, larger gate and ground handling space....and deal with the wake vortex separation issues....
The A380 would have been a financial disaster for US based airlines, it would have been a 4 engine white elephant. The US has 7 major hub airports, but the vast majority of airports, in which there are many operate with Boeing 737 size jets, the 767's & 777's serviced the the 7 hub's vary efficiently and a lot less expensive then a A380. Also note that the vast majority of US airports are set up to use boarding and unboarding gateways, the A380 is just too large, even at most of the major hub airports, those airports would have had to make major expensive modifications just to accommodate that aircraft. A lot of airlines around the world have taken a big financial loss operating the A380 and then to retire the jet after only 10 years, that jet is like new because it never accumulated many take off's and landings like smaller jets do, that is where all your wear and tear is done to modern jet aircraft, a 737 might have 6-8 take off and landing cycles a day, a A380 only one. There are a lot of airlines around the world who's balance sheets are bleeding red because of the A380, the US airline can all sit back knowing they safely dodged that bullet.
The plane still operates in American airports… just on foreign airlines is all…
Expensive enough that McCarran Intl. (LAS) here in Las Vegas added one gate that could service an A380. The 747s on the other hand, can go to other terminals. Looks like they made a good choice in not spending all that much to handle the big fat airbus.
Right. Wouldn’t be practical… at all.
@@brilliantlysplendid A very, very limited number of US airports.
I think the US carriers got it right and passed on the A380. 2007 was hell for the airlines and by 2008 many airlines ceased operations, the A380 was just not feasible.
I remember seeing in some aviation magazine (I think it was Interavia) some of the drawings done by Airbus project team for a double-decker, that was back in 1987 I think. And said drawing was pretty close to what the A380 became decades later.
In my opinion, Airbus company though the limit of landing and departing capacity in many hub airports would be very tight, so the solution is to increase the customer number of one single flight. But unfortunately, many of the airports improved the capacity by creating new run ways, changing the air control policies, even opening new airports. Therefore, airline companies were able to increased a lot of more flights.
Been on one once, a BA flight into Heathrow. It's HUGE to the point where it doesn't sound or move like any other plane when you're on board, which I liked.
The logical American purchaser would have been Pan Am, but that airline has been gone for many years.
And Juan Trippe backed the 747 not as a luxurious method of transport (that went the way of the flying boats) but as a way of cramming as many livestock, er, passengers into each flight, thus lowering the ticket price.
Another would have been Braniff. The even flew a concord at one point.
That is so iconic that today was the LAST a380 test flight around Germany skies. And this video popped to mine recommented page.
The A380 was a very comfortable business class ride when going to and from Frankfurt. I thoroughly enjoyed the trips.
Imagine Southwest trying to fly the A380
Lmao
They’d probably fill it but it still wouldn’t be profitable given the massive costs to operate the damn thing
Would be a disaster🙄😭
Asian airlines be like: I will buy all of your A380’s
**Emirates has joined the chat**
@Cream Michael Asiana Airlines is a Korean airline.
@Cream Michael I'm not rude :D
If Trudeau and Trump allow more Visa, Green Card and Citizenship to Indian, then Indian carriers may buy all the A380s in the world in the first phase.
In the second phase, we will convert all of them into cargo carriers so that mommy can send all the pickles and raw jackfruits.
(Surely for fun only)
But we have one fundamental question.
Kitna deti hai ? (Means "how much does it give?" direct reference to mileage.)
Vijay Kamat no❤️
Pre Pandemic, Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS) handled 40 million passengers a year but wasn't represented on your little U.S.A. map. I'd wager McCarran is in the top five U.S. airports for departing passengers. Other airports may handle more passengers overall but a lot are transfers which are easier to process. Former TSA TSO.
One of the other things not mentioned in this video is the sheer size of the A380 requires airports with longer runways and jet ways that are modified to allow such a large plane park at the gate. All of these require the airports to spend money for upgrades to accommodate only one type of airplane. This means that there are relatively few airports in the world, let alone in just the United States, that are set up for the A380 to fly into and out of.
A380 wing was designed too big - it was meant to accommodate a future stretch variant of the A380 without having to re-design the wing, hence all A380's are lugging around tons of extra metal they don't really need.
Ryan air a380 isn’t real, it can’t hurt you
Ryan Air A380:
I have flown on an A380 five times and have almost no complaints. The only negative is that you have to be patient when getting off because it can take 20 minutes. It doesn't bother me but some do complain. For a regular economy class passenger the plane is a great experience.
It could have worked for some West Coast US flights to Asia and Australia but it just wasn't a niche that needed filling. A good 757 replacement is what is needed now. Those flights from Chicago to Edinburgh (and the like) will need these medium twin jets to make them profitable.
What really doomed the A380, compared to the 747, is that the A380 could not easily be converted into a cargo aircraft. Cargo 747s are still flying around the world.
Yeah, the lack of Cargo adaptiveness for the A380 contributes to its underutilization and ultimate demise. Sad but true.
3:05 YES ECAir!
Rare
American carriers have largely dropped the hub-and-spoke system that made large craft like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 useful. They now try very hard to have direct flights between city pairs, and smaller, more fuel-efficient twin jets handle that nicely.
I think the primary reason is because (for example) it may be cheaper to fly two A319/A320's for example, across the country, versus a single A380. The A380 makes more sense for long-haul flights like to other continents (like from the US to Europe or the US to Australia, where some airlines like Emirates still uses A380's for international long flights). But for domestic travel, the existing A300series wide and narrow body jets (the A319/320 and 330/340 wide bodies) can probably do the same job with half or less than half of what it would take the A380. Plus, some airports, even major ones, are not equipped to handle the A380 or larger jets. I also feel that airlines want to offer multiple flights to a destination to help with demand, and if you fly a single A380, you likely are going to need to fill it up to make any money off flying it, but that would mean fewer flights per day per route so I think that is another factor in why the A380 is not flown for domestic flights (much, if at all anymore).
I wish they did lol, I would love Delta to have the A380 since they had their Boeing 747s
No
Trijetz Everyone has different opinions, and I edited the comment
@@stevensaviationspotting I was sharing mine, I just believe that the 747-8I would be a better pick.
Nope I wish AA had the 747-8
Trijetz Yeah, British Airways did have their cargo Boeing 747-800 but not anymore but since their Boeing 747-400s retired they shouldn’t have been using Boeing 747-800s to replace it but they don’t have their passenger Boeing 747-800
Am i the only people here that likes the A380?
I mean, it’s a cool aircraft, but it’s the wrong aircraft for the time.
I love it. What a lot of people don't realise is that the A380 is far superior in many ways. For a start, it's not built on a 50 year old airframe that has been self certified since inception. Secondly it is more fuel efficient than the 747. Thirdly, it has much better build quality and much more up to date tech. And it looks so much better than the 747, more streamlined.
Also worth noting, the decision to pull the plug on the A380 may be a little premature since fuel costs are currently much lower now than 5 years ago.
Steve Wood Don’t you think that’s a moot point? Both the A380 and the 747 are being discontinued, and like it was stated in the video, the reason behind the A380’s failure isn’t just because of fuel costs, but also they’re much harder to fill than smaller aircraft.
Doge Bomber Steve literally copypasted the description of the 737 max from some Boeing hater but replaced it with 747. Notice how he said ‘50 year old air frame’ as if the 747 airframe is outdated or problematic or unnecessary to improve just cause it has been around for 50 years. Also notice the use of ‘self certified’.
Nope, I love them as well.
I also understand that airports would have do a lot of re-engineering to support ground operations for the A380 driving up costs further.
Maybe United could have used it to connect passengers from the mainland US to their hub in Guam to then connect further travel into Asia and Oceana. The biggest problem with that now would be high efficiency aircraft like the 787 leading to more direct flights with less need for the traditional hub and spoke model.
It's a lovely plane in many respects, it's just that the 4 engine model of planes got outdated.
Most comfortable plane I ever flew on.
The other reason that was often quoted was it's weight. Not many airports had runways thick enough to support it's landings. Most airports would have had to spend a small fortune to upgrade it's runways. Not in the cards back then.
The A380 was obsolete the day the first one was delivered to its buyer. While Airbus was building a massive point-to-point people mover, the airline industry was shifting to more fuel efficient aircraft with an emphasis on flexible route scheduling and less reliance on central hubs to move people to their destination.
The A380 always looked to me like a European ego trip. If it had been more successful I would have had to take that back, but events seem to confirm that view.
The A380 looks so beautiful with the AA Livery!😍
Singapore airlines is the first one to retire the very first A380.
Surely one of the biggest problems was simply that there weren't gates available in most airports to accommodate them? LAX only just managed to finish adapting gates at TB for the A380 by the time it was announced it would no longer be being made.
With express cargo and online ordering, the A380's may find a home hauling cargo for the shipping carriers. FedEx. DHL, UPS etc...
Unfortunately, they're really not designed for that and would require retrofitting and perhaps a complete redesign, which isn't really worth it. Even then, some design flaws just wouldn't be able to be overcome
I was in the a380 factory last year. You should see one of those wings resting on the floor!
I have flown the A380 a couple of times and found it no more remarkable than flying a triple seven. the one clear recollection I do have however, is deplaning, baggage claim and customs. There’s a whole lot more people to go through the process with you when landing in a fully loaded a 380.
It really depends on the airport. I took A380 to arrive in Paris, Singapore, and Sydney. Had no problem with customs and baggage claims. I took B787 to LAX once, and I had to wait in customs for two hours, as there were only two customs workers handling three arrivals at the same time. So it’s a matter of airport design and whether the airport actually wants to service passengers.
Boeing’s research was right about fuel economy and passenger load made more sense. I loved watching the 747. However the A-340 and planes of that size have gone as far as they can go.
The one US carrier that could have possibly made it work was Hawaiian Airlines because of the high volume of passengers that would want to fly into Honolulu from around the world. Places such as Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, and US major places such as Chicago O'Hare would be good places for Hawaiian just by passenger volume and their hubs are exclusively in Hawaii.
I would have love to see one in a Pan Am livery
When you can schedule a direct flight on a 737 from a small or medium market to almost any market in the US why would you want expensive to operate 4 eng units?
The thing about America is it’s mainly medium haul low fuel planes that work best. But they could make an A380 from New York to London or LA to Tokyo.
The problem was that Airbus thought with their hearts and not their minds. They wanted to build the biggest jet at the time no matter what. Boeing listened to their analysts who said the market wasn't there for the big jets and that the airlines wanted smaller fuel efficient jets which could fly into more hubs. They came up with the 787 to do just that.