What If The Airbus A380 Had Been Released 50 Years Ago?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 03. 2020
- The Airbus A380 was never the huge success it could, or should, have been. While everyone agrees it’s a superb aircraft, its release coincided with a number of external factors that meant it never achieved its full potential. We take a look at how things could have been different for the Airbus superjumbo if it had been created around the same time as the Boeing 747.
Article Link: simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-...
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
Video source list:
British Airways A380: • British Airways -- Tak...
British Airways A380 in Hangar • British Airways' first...
Air France A380 • Air France - Airbus A3...
Air France A380 • Air France F-HPJB Airb...
Airbus A380 Production: • A380 from dream to rea...
Singapore Airlines A380: • The Singapore Airlines...
Singapore Airlines A380: • A380 Aerial Flypast | ...
Singapore Airlines A380: • Singapore Airlines A38...
Singapore Airlines A380: • Roaring Singapore Airl...
Singapore Airlines A380: • Inside Singapore Airli...
Misc A380 footage: • The Airbus A380: New g...
Star Alliance Thai 747-400: • Thai Airways Boeing 74...
Air China 747-400: • PRESIDENT OF CHINA lan...
Philippine Airlines 747-400: • Philippine Airlines RP...
Air Bridge Cargo 747-8: • Boeing 747-8 Freighter... and • Air Bridge Cargo B747-...
Lufthansa 747-8: • Bouncing Beauty! Lufth...
Cathay Pacific Cargo 747-8: • Inaugural Flight: Cath...
CargoLogic Air 747-8: • 【4Ｋ】カーゴロジックエア Boeing ...
A380Plus and FedEx A380 photo: • Airbus A380 Variants T...
for those who wonder. The reason the a380 wings are insanely massive is not only to lift the giant but also because airbus was planning to build a 900 and 1000 version. imagine that. an a380-1000
Yeah, just imagine when the first A380-1000 went down in an accident and 1000 people died.
@@johnbeaulieu2404 or a second Tenerife 2 A380's coliding on the runway 😱
Ryanair could fit 2000 seats on it
@@electric7487 in cattletruck class
That would've been awesome
The A380 is my favorite civilian aircraft. Its a shame that such a beautiful aircraft is no longer needed. RIP A380
Dylan Valenti ikr, it’s so comfortable even in economy class, on any other wide body i try to get premium tickets, meanwhile the A380, i just choose economy because it’s so spacious
Airbus A380 for sale. Only 20 million dollars including seating installations and new liverys. LOL
The A380 got most of the new generation of aircraft fan, its just a shame it couldn't succeed financially as well.
747 is better.
@@Cringehandleupdate Wrong video
I feel sad knowing that few years down the road, we are going to see the A380 going out of service.
You can feel sad already as Lufthansa is already grounding the entire A380 fleet, and the few other airlines are trying all their might to unload their A380 operating losses.
We see Qantas state that they're not interested in operating their A380's beyond 2030, and even Emirates' last A380 is expected to be retired in 2035.
Sebastian Lim the 747 was always the superior double engined aircraft
gino enas thats because of coronavirus
@@iamLODD superior and being overyhyped yes
These what-if videos rarely address the issue of whether or not the aircraft could even have been built. First, you have to consider the technical differences of a plane built then and one built now. First, no carbon composites for structural parts. All structure would be metal and the non-structure surfaces would be fiberglass or tedlar. Titanium was much more precious, so aluminum would be used as the metal of choice. The 747 taxed the world's supply of aluminum back then, and trying to build the A380 would have really strained the abilities of the aluminum industry to supply the proper alloys at the needed quantities. Getting enough fasteners would also be an issue, since they would compete again with the 747.
Secondly is systems. No fly by wire. Everything would be cables and pulleys. No personal entertainment system. Didn't exist. No USB plug-ins. No wi-fi. You either watched the movie, listened to their music, or read.
Suppliers. Airbus was pretty new back then, and didn't have the supply base they do now. Boeing already had a developed base of suppliers.
Customers. Airbus had a different reputation back then. I don' think people would have rushed to get on this huge airplane built by this new French company. Boeing was very strong and very respected back then. Even now, the market would not bear two jumbos. It certainly wouldn't have back then, especially with the L-1011 and DC-10 coming around.
"You either watched the movie, listened to their music, or read."
Me, who flies only with Ryanair: "Wow, they provide movies and music?!"
No USBs, no Wi-Fi? How did planes even get off the ground back then without those much-needed accessories, having to watch movies with your eyeballs and listen to the music with your ears how dare they sounds like they flew covered wagons back in the day
Also, the 70's oil crisis was partially to blame as well. It's why the wide-bodied tri-jets became popular at that time. Pan Am, on the other hand had massive fleets of 747s that were flying with less than half of the passenger capacity (which ironically collapsed Pan Am too). UAE airline companies only got away with this with their massive A380 fleets because they owned oil.
@@Inpreesme it's about it not being the comfortable massive plane it is used as today with some airliners (namely Emirates as far as I know). It would just be gigantic and that's it.
True, and one more thing I would add to that: one of the biggest problems for Airbus on the cost part of the A380 is just how hard it is to produce and transport around the gigantic sections of it through Europe. That would still be a problem, if not a bigger problem back then. Heck, they bought the old Boeing Super Guppies to use as transport for their aircraft through the production facilities, what kind of logistics problems would they have in the 60s if they dared that?
Their biggest cost problem wasn't even orders, they did have quite a bit specially at the beginning (heck it has already outsold the MD-11), they just couldn't deliver enough quickly enough, and of course the market change.
I can see the future of the aircraft now being a combi type with the middle deck (lower passenger one) converted to cargo, while keeping the top deck passenger only. Many say it's impossible through the wisdom of CZcams comments, but even if that would be light cargo, still would be an interesting conversion if the economics prove worthy.
It's an interesting thought, but in truth the A380 couldn't have been created back then because it relies heavily on composite materials that were not available and on very advanced manufacturing processes to make it light enough and strong enough to fly. Just the wings of the A380 requires special machinery and material-handling technology to make them light enough without compromising strength.
That, and the fact that the Airbus company was only starting to make a name for itself in the early 1980s. If Airbus got that ambitious back then, it would've gone bankrupt.
Even if Airbus had existed in the 1960s or 1970s, when would the engine technology have evolved to the point where powerful enough engines could have been built?
With this plane survive if we pushed it to 50 years into the future?
@@WebLogicUser I think it was only close to early 90s, with the introduction of the 777 (EDIT: early 90s is the release of the 777, would have been in development from about the same time the 777 started at best case).
That one has significantly more powerful engines than the 747 ones, I think they're even a bit more powerful than the A380 engines, tho too lazy to check right now.
Imagine equipped with GE TF-39 engines from the C-5 Galaxy
the A380 would be the noisest after the AN124
Got a stomach ache 1:01 when he said "It was the plane nobody wanted". The A380 is such a beauty
Its good to hear all of the updates on all of the great aircrafts
The engine technology was not there at that time even for the 747.
Great video. Thanks 👍🏻
It's such a shame that the A380 programme has been terminated, it's an outstanding engineering marvel that really deserved more success. I don't think that we'll ever see a supersize passenger aircraft ever again.
Very good Video!
Silly question. Airbus didn’t exist at that time nor did the technology. It was just a bad economic decision to move forward with the program when they were capable to do so. Twin engine smaller aircraft were already stating to rule the market well before its official launch
NOT silly !
The Bristol Brabazon could have been fitted with Comet-style turbojet- engines , and been the world's first superjumbo , way back in the 1950s . Engine reliability would have been good , jet-gas would have been cheap , and range would have been superior to the smaller jet-liners of the time . Air-transport companies would have jumped on the money bandwagon , and jumbo-jets would have become all the rage !
*Aeronautic history would definitely have been very different ! .😎
Derek Hendricks yeah we see how wee the Comet worked out
@@johniii8147
The Comet worked well in most respects , the skin-failure occurred because company administrators overrode the engineers , in regards to the round-vs-square window issue. .🤨
Yeah, imagine how even more terrible the economics would be with 6 engines.
@@bftjoe
Actually... NO jet-engine of the day got good gas-mileage ; the Brabazon's range would have been halved . The 8-pairs of giant centrifugal engines would have been relatively cheap , maintenance-easy , and reliable . The fuel/maint. bills would definitely have been manageable , while customer satisfaction would have been great !
*More comfortable , safer , what's not to like ? .😁
While a lot of people are correct that A380 used new technology not available 50 years ago, they are missing the point. It is fundamentally possible to build a large aircraft back then, there was no inherent reason that 747's bump was only a bump because thats the largest a aircraft can be. You couldn't build any of the Neo family aircrafts back then either, nor the 787; these airplanes defeated the A380. The point is, what if its competition was the 747, which forced both companies to modernize their respective behemoths.
What would had been interesting is if it was built in the early 90s/late 80s. Just as ETOPS rules were changed. Airbus released their 3rd biggest ever passenger plane in A340. They are more likely to have the resource as a company to build it. ETOPS certainly harmed the A340; but most airlines still used the hub and spoke method back then; and a lot the smaller markets wouldn't had been as able to support many long haul routes, not to mention the lesser number of ultra long range planes available. Would this A380--like airplane die like all quad engines, or would the new generation, ultra large capacity, a more efficient 747 delayed the rise of point-to-point.
B777 kill off the larger carrying passenger airplanes because a twin was able to carry between 260 to 400 or more. The B747 was dead at point but still needed for long haul but that was recently changed with increased to ETOPS
I doubt that. The infrastructure jump from 4D to 4E was already a tough sale but still somewhat achievable (just like when airports converting their infrastructure to 4F for A380 when it actually launched), asking airports to convert directly from 4D to 4F is most likely impossible at the time. Basically only newly built airport from that moment on that had A380 in mind would be able to support its operation. A smaller 4E version may have worked, but just maybe.
I am very happy that I was able to fly the Air France A380 round trip LAX to Paris in 2019.
A380 project survived majorly because of the Emirates order. It is very efficient and profitable, but only if it fully loaded.
When Air France retired their 747 in 2016, their A380 would also be retired as well in the same year and perhaps in 2024, Emirates would retire their A380 alongside British Airways' 747
Air France are getting rid of their A380's in 2022.
4:57 the a350 broke even tho
Here is the problem with this assumption(s) they are making: 1) Components "Being a more modern than its American Cousin" Indicates that the technology used in the 60's and 70's were available and that Boeing decided not to use them. --> Simply not true. The A380 uses composite materials such as Carbon Fiber, which was not readily available at the time the original 747 was built. 2) The A380 was a government sponsored aircraft in terms of the loans they received (WTO ruled them illegal). If it wasn't for these loans, which probably wouldn't have been made in the 60's and 70's, Airbus wouldn't have built the aircraft, especially if they had to pay back with interest the loans (Last I read, Airbus had owed Germany 500 Mil Euros for the program, but because they didn't reach the number sold to repay, Airbus doesn't legally have to repay that balance, which miffed the German Government) Point of this, the cost would have been far greater back in the 60's and 70's even if today's technology were available.
In fact, I believe strongly, that the A380 was introduced too early. As more and more people start to travel, and Airports such as Heathrow, John F Kennedy, LAX, SFO, Hong Kong, Dubai which currently have capacity restraints, get strained to further have more passengers, the A380 and 747-8I would become more feasible to running routes in and out of these airports. The problem we have now is that we can't predict exactly when Demand will extremely outweigh the supply for seats in and out of these Airports. With Heathrow, the additional runway option is in limbo, Gatwick can't handle the A380 to my knowledge and is also close to capacity. London City Airport has too many noise and approach restrictions for any aircraft outside the A319 and regional aircraft, which makes demand at Heathrow and Gatwick more intense.
With all that said, it is an interesting thought of what could have happened if Airbus was able to afford to build the A380 earlier and the video does do a good job at pointing out how that could have worked.
I agree the double decker arrived somewhat too early, but having flown in it, I'm happy it did.
@Aangsaka Emirates sends the a380 to Gatwick
By the time passenger numbers would increase to that amount, Airbus would likely no longer have the tooling for the A380. Boeing on the other hand will have the tooling for the 747-8 in the form of the freighter, and the 777X can also be stretched to make the 777-10X, putting Boeing in the best position to meet that demand.
The a380-200 was them renamed to the a380-900 but then was cancealed.
This highly under estimates things. Keep in mind, the 747 was almost a failure at launch, and was only successful first because PanAm was the launch customer and known for luxury international service that everyone else wanted to copy and second because the Concord failed. Also, Airbus didn't exist in the 60's and wouldn't really come around till almost the 80's. Assuming that as the earliest point which Airbus could have launched an A380 like aircraft you still have a lot of major problems. Many US carriers stopped ordering 747's around this time, never to pick them back up. However, it could have cut into the 747-400's order book, but it would still face all the problems it had today: Too big for most airports, its not shaped properly for cargo (you'd run out of space before you'd max out the weight) and no major gulf carriers at this time looking for a fully unique product. Sure, it would have sold way better than today, but keep this in mind, Douglas, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, and Lockheed all conceived of building a full double decked as early as the 70's and as late 90's, and tried to shop them around to no avail. The 747 was built to be just small enough to fit into the major hubs at the time (it is a myth that airports were built bigger for the aircraft, as the 747 nearly failed several times during development. Airports wouldn't customize themselves for the plane till the 70's), but by the 80's most airports were already in trouble finding more space, another problem which dodged the A380 when it finally did make it to the market. You also don't have the lightweight materials and efficient engines, meaning it wasn't going to be as attractive. Then you would still have the fact that the 767 was getting ETOPs certified in about 5 years, then the 777 would enter development almost immediately after that.
To their credit, Airbus was right about eventually the world needing super large aircraft, they just got the numbers wrong. The design isn't efficient enough to make it work year round on most routes, so having only a dozen in a fleet for most major carriers was all that was ever necessary. Not to mention the same realities that were killing the 747 basically were killing the A380 from the start. had Emirates not come in to save the day from up front, this plane would have never sold. If it had been earlier, like around when the 744 came out, it probably would have sold more, but I doubt it would have been truly successful even then.
What is the plane in 1:52 ?
Totally true !
Knack for being in the right place at the right time in the context of the very delayed Dreamliner. But sure, its delay did end up introducing the plane at the perfect time
What about the engines for the A380? That would be weird
Icelandair_va_ rfs maybe it would have a new engine created by either Pratt and Whitney or General Electric
The best fantasised idea ever
Lufthansa grounding the entire A380 fleet until May. What a disaster.
sweetwater88 However, I heard that is due to COVID-19 (Coronavirus (2019)).
First, the 737 MAX crisis. Now coronavirus. Aviation is going through tough times, and it's only going to get worse. At least OPEC lowered oil prices.
Edit: Low oil prices are good for airlines and can help lessen the blow of lower passenger counts. However, the lack of demand for more efficient planes is terrible for manufacturers. Even though Boeing and Airbus have large backlogs, they may see less orders for years, as some airlines die or at least find themselves in debt, but with a large underutilized fleet.
sweetwater88 thats bc of coronavirus
It's really sad to see airlines are retiring this giant. A380 is so spacious and passenger comfort is top notch. Lucky to see that still Emirates operates A380 with airline's legendary First class cabins. A350 and A380 are true passengers flights
Am I only one that thinks that the A380 is a lot like Concorde?
Actually Airbus should build an A380-900 and an A380-1000 just for us enthusiasts, they should just sometimes fly them, and then keep them (A380-800/900 and 1000) in the Museum.
It is ridiculous that A380 was never created in a Freighter version
Thank you for your interesting video. Besides the engineering and technology not
available 50 years back, a very important element is missing in the story - Pan Am.
Boeing 747 was created at the request of Pan Am in anticipation of a growing market. It was demand driven, so to speak.
“If you build it, we buy it.” CEO of Pan Am, Mr. Juan Trippe told Boeing. Boeing and Pan Am were closely associated. To use an American term, the CEOs of Boeing and Pan Am were buddies. Even if Airbus existed, there was no such relationship.
When the first Pan Am 747 rolled out, it was a public relation success. The image building for both Boeing and Pan Am was amazing. Back then, Pan Am’s advertisement of flying a Pan Am Boeing 747 had a big impact on the flying public as well as other airlines. As a result, no other airlines could afford missing out Boeing 747 in its team.
The Boeing 747 was a revolution. It was a technological and engineering breakthrough. It was a game-changer in terms of passenger capacity. It revolutionized operation of airport, and it revolutionized on-board service. More importantly, it actually changed the concept of traveling.
The Airbus A380 was the wrong plane at the wrong time. To be fair, credit must be given to Airbus in the design of A380. However, for economy class passengers, there are no significant difference in comfort, A380 over 747. At best, it tried to emulate the success of Boeing 747. Airbus tried to recreate an European version of 747.
What if 747 was released 75 years ago?
And that's a story for another... What if.
747-787 win win situation both ways
Just 7-10 years before and the A380 program would have reached breakeven. Plus the lack of a freighter version, which was a catastrophic mistake.
As long as that bar would be still be in the back I’d have no issues...
If only airbus had produced the a380 before they became a company.
50 yrs ago...this plane was in the drawing board with mcdonnell douglas company
The 747 has a very high cockpit, allowing the option of a giant nose door for cargo. (I suspect this is why it has its famous hump.) The A380 cockpit is lower, not allowing nose loading. How much does this influence the desirability of the 747 for cargo compared to the never-built A380 freighter?
We need a a380 twin jet
Imagine if it did not have 20 year old engines and had the same engines as the B747-8 it may have been more economical to operate. It's got to be back in the not so far away future with more modern engines. Ten years and a version of sorts will be being promoted.
The engine technology wasn’t there 50 years ago for this aircraft to be commercially viable.
It's sad that engineering marvels like the Concorde, the L1011, and the A380 are hampered severely by economics. I wish that wasn't a factor. Then we would still retain the elegance of these beautiful machines.
If that would have happened it won't have failed yet
I don’t think this is accurate. The problems most airlines have with it at the moment and the main reason for poor sales is it’s too big! The problem is using such a large plan when there is seasonal variability. They work great in summer but too big in winter. It is not surprising Lufthansa is looking at grounding its fleet. The 747 never had such a problem because it’s size is very similar to the current upper end of the market starting off just less than 300 pax to the current generation at just over 430 in typical configuration. And even that is considered too big in the current market.
I don’t think you are accurate either. If so then why is emirates is so successful. You might say. Well yeah: dubai is situated in a perfect place. Airlines should use the a380 with connections rather than fixed seasonal routes. Like emirates does. I use this example a lot. But think about it. About 6 full emirates a380s leave LHR everyday. You think those people only have dubai as their main destination? Nope. They will be connected to other countries or continents. Any airlines can use this tactic. And which 747 are we talking about? The 400 or 8i. But you are right. The 747 has a lower capacity and needed be a problem. I find it disturbing how airlines just use the a380 for fixed routes. That’s not what is was made for.
HODB I think you will only use a380s on routes you can fill it on. No point achieving load factors of less than 70% to with such heavy metal. As you said emarates is a special case and even they don’t use 380s to all their markets. Fact is there are very few markets and airports that can take multiple 380 services all year round. Especially not if you are running point to point services. You are better off with smaller planes and charging more for your tickets like the American carriers do.
Patrick Ogunmuyiwa 70%? Even a 2 class configurated a380 with 600+ passengers. Plus a380s are profitable on medium to long haul routes. Air france and lufthansa for example can connect trans atlantic routes with those scattered through asia. Singapore can connect oceania with SEA and so on. Airlines need to use their position more effectively. Creating connection and thus demand and therefore revenue. Yes an a380 is heavy. But when fully loaded makes it is a profit churning machine.
It’s not Airbus don’t want to produce a freighter version of the A380, it’s….To put it simply, if there ever is a lesson on, “when is too big too big?” Then the A380 is lesson number 1.
Ummmmmm, no. The flaw to this whole premise is assuming the technology was there to build it 50 years ago. Quick hint; it wasn't.
The 2nd flaw is assuming Boeing would not have done something different with the 747 to counter the A380. Another quick hint; they would have.
The 3rd flaw; a large number of the original B747 buyers sold them off early on and replaced them with DC-10/L-1011 aircraft because the B747 was too large. This could have caused the A380 to fail sooner.
Airbus only built the A380 for the bragging rights. Boeing had already done the market research and knew that size of aircraft would not work.
If Airbus wasn't fully backed by the EU and therefore held financially reasonable for their losses, they would have gone bankrupt over this.
Most true comment in this whole thread. Well said! Nothing can ever replace the TRUE Queen of the Skies!
With the power form 50 year old engines it would have to have 4 engines..... under each wing.
Kieran Macdonald like the B-52
Assuming all technologies related to the manufacture and use of the A380 were also made 50 years ago then the world will have much better technologies in many fields and aspects of daily life (ex:advanced computers,composite materials,gps etc.)
The A380 couldn't have been built in the 1960s, it requires 3dprinting to make parts light enough to fly. Engines that could fly an A380 were also unavailable.It would have been a 6 or 8 engine aircraft, with the extra maintenance It also was doomed by the full double deck.
The 747 has room for Cargo on passenger planes, the full double deck of the A380 needs the entire Cargo space for Luggage. Cargo pays better.
The C5 which was bigger than the 747 had lots of maintenance problems due to the size. The 747 hit the sweet spot for a large airplane with the technology available. The 747 was designed from the start with Cargo in mind, everybody assumed passengers would go supersonic, but cargo would be better served on economical subsonic aircraft.
Martin Horowitz 💯%
best plane of all time
By any business standard, the A380 is an absolute failure.
@@77l96 I'm listening. What's your business justification?
Paul Cheek 747 is superior to the 380
Linus Romey I agree with you mate the 747 was built to carry cargo first, and it even carries cargo on passenger planes and the full double deck of the 380 requires the entire cargo space for luggage
When B747 was being developed PA wanted an AC that could do both jobs. Juan Trip wanted a plane and Boeing almost went bankrupt trying at end they succeed Is A380 marvel of technology may be did it change aviation nope because B747 did that 40yrs ago Airbus marvel include A320 and the Concorde that's an amazing their many advancements they did
That's a good question, for sure there would have been a bigger upstairs in the map cs_747 (@ beta6.0) obviously the name also would have differed. I can only imagine the huge impact on the ct teams progress in the quest of securing the hostages succesfully if this plane had been 50 y earlier :) #CS
There is a lot of stuff that is just wrong here.
The 747 was pretty much to large when it was launched. The DC10 was keeping pace with it really the first 10 years (from launch). While the 100, 200 and 300 model did sell decent. It was really with the 400 model the sales took of. Between 1987 and 1997, more 747 was sold than between 1966 and 1986. This was really the glorydays of the 747 more so than the early days. Interestingly the 747-400 is considerately larger than the 100, but with out being either longer or wider. The volume is made by the extended hump (well and reduced cockpit size)
The premise of launching the A380 that earlier is kind of... well just not reasonable. The issue is that A380 contain a lot of technology that simply didn´t exist prior, and a lot of it is vital to its existence. Like turbofan engines of that size simply didn´t exist prior to 1994.
The oil price really wasn´t that high. What people fail to consider is the inflation. While it was sort of very high during a short period of time. During a majority of the 00-tys the oil price have been about the level of post oil crisis price. it was rather very low during a short period of time in the 90-tys.
What happen was that people got used to ultra low fair price in Europe. 4 engines aircraft being more thirsty is mostly a myth (its true to a degree, but really a fairly small one). The major drawback of 4 engines aircraft is maintenance cost.
Its the low ticket price that have pushed aircraft development the last 20 years, not the high oil price.
What happens only the last 10 years it the turbine gearing that not only increased fuel efficiency of the engines, but it also unlocked larger diameters and higher low speed thrust.
Compare the 747-100 to the 777-300ER.. The 747-100 have a thrust of about 800kN. 777-300ER have one of over 1000.
Also don´t get fooled by the 777x lower thrust number. The reason for that is because it get ram air recovery much earlier due to gearing, so it preform full thrust pretty much on runway, while the older non X have to reach about 200 knots.
So is the 1968 747-100 to big for today. MTOW of 334 tons, that is actually less than the A340-500/600.
Is the 1962 747-200 to big for today. with its 366 typical seating. That is less so than the A350-1000 369,
Is the 1989 747-400 to big for today with its 416 standard seating, compare to the 414 of the 777x?
The fact is that the Jumbo have been deplaced from underneath, and either forced to be bigger or die of. Its not that we don´t use large jets any more. The large jets of our day is 2 engined.
Many times people talk about "smaler aircrafts" like the 787... The 787 take almost as many passengers as the 747-200 and have 33% more cargo capacity, its range is on par, despite it being 123 tons lighter.
Maybe by 2035 Airbus can release a game-changing twin engine mini-jumbo! he he Ok, I gota admit they responded quite quickly to the DreamLiner, that was the only exception.
Well the passenger version wasn't a huge sucess. But what about the fereigter version? Will we ever see an A380F in the future like in a decade or 2?
Short answer is no due to the construction of the A380. The dry weight is too high compared to GTOW and was never built with a freighter in mind whereas the B747 was built as a freighter first (hence the location of the flight deck). The maintenance cost would also be a lot higher then the B747 due to a lack of parts on the secondary market.
MashAllah Excellent
If B747 Queen of the sky's
Then
B380 King of the sky
We love ❤️ Boeing
We love ❤️ to fly
Great People to fly with
B380 OR A380?
It's not B380 it's A380
Boeing Mom of all flying Machines
I can't express my feelings as friend soon Inshallah everything will be done very well
they would have had to use the technology around at the time of the 65-70's and not today, so the weight would have been even more and might have required 6 engines to make it fly perhaps?. You can't really compare a 1970's 747 and a 2007 A380 as they are totally different carbon fibre panels and all.. My 2 cents anyway.
If the a380 was launched in the late 80's or the 90's maybe would ve a sucess because the 747-400 was sold in that years like hot bread, so the a380 would make airbus as a serious competence for boeing in the wide-body jets market
P.D.: Sorry of my bad grammar
I'll try and shut up soon but this is a very interesting subject Boeing took a huge expensive gamble building the 747, they didn't even have an engine they knew would lift the plane when they started they had a fairly good possibility but not certain. Boeing is older than Airbus so probably in a better financial position to take the Gamble in the late sixties, truthfully I had not heard of Airbus in the late sixties I was not even 20 years old. And one could easily argue the 747 was designed as a freighter hence the opening nose and it was converted to a passenger liner or at least was meant to be a passenger liner because of the SST and you mentioned this in the video. SSG or supposed to take over the passenger transport business but that flopped. My contention is the 747 cargo hauler made one hell of a passenger liner it was way ahead of its time it's one of the safest planes you'll find terrorist bombs and Runway crashes have killed probably half of the passengers that have died on 747 over 50 years most planes don't have a production run of nearly 50 years so Boeing got something right with the jet 2 questions was Airbus in a position to take the Gamble on a A380 roughly 40 years ago and was the technology available to build it double deckers at least to my knowledge we're on heard of back then. I don't know if Airbus had an engine that would have lifted the A380 either 40 years ago. Second question how in the hell did the Airbus engineers not calculate the operating cost or miscalculate it when it's basic math and fairly constant fuel was getting more expensive and it had to most things do when the A380 was launched maintenance is twice as high on a Ford engine jet fuel consumption is probably twice as high and most of the 380s that flew we're almost 25% empty that's the average and I've said it a hundred times there is there profit. If hub-and-spoke would have prevailed over point to point maybe the A380 would have succeeded I don't know another interesting argument but I don't see how the Mist on the operating cost of a 380 they are almost outlandish I've heard 27,000 to $30,000 an hour. Anyway it's all very thought-provoking.
you have to explain then why Emirates was so successful in employing scores of 380s in its routes and network. the Emirates chief thinks others failed because they did not ramp up their own use of the aircraft. but the 380s may yet make a comeback sooner or later...
Tony de Castro there is a video about that on this channel 😊
@@chrislohphotography exactly, but the video above is presented as if that other video was not made. qualifiers like "except Emirates" would have been apropos...
@@tonydecastro6340 good point :)
These aircraft is good for one carrier that's EK because they've money and internal market is small so all their flight are long haul this plane allow them to better compete but even they stop ordering those planes and went to the new B777 series 9.
The A380 is a white elephant
It depends on the livery actually
He's more beautiful than 747
Thunderworks - The 747-8 looks waaay better in my opinion, it’s a Boeing for goodness sake
@@Thunderworks The 747-8 is a beautiful airplane and despite its size it has a very elegant appearance. The A-380 is a morbidly obese lump. That's probably why some refer to it as the flying forehead.
it would be very efficient
Would’ve killed it much like the 747 at its peak but those massive planes aren’t nearly as viable in 2020. Though releasing a product that would have done well 50 years ago is hardly a win for Airbus.
As others have pointed out, Airbus didn't even exist in the 60s, so your main premise is flawed. That said, had the A380 come out in time to compete with the 747-400, it might have had a chance. A lot of airlines replaced older 747-100/200s at the time, and had Airbus been able to capture some of that market, they may have sold enough to at least break even before the large four-engine jet market's demise.
A380 launches late 60s would have been similarly hit by the 70s oil embargoes. So the real question would be down to Airbus’ ability to maintain production as Boeing did. Certainly there would be no room for a similarly sized competitor then.
Also 747 had success as a freighter which the A380 didn’t.
A380 would not be one of the Quietest planes like the 787 or A350 if it was released 50 years ago! It would be one of the loudest planes like the 747 or 777!
Then the 747 would be 16 years old
It would've burned 15 gallons per mile instead of only 9 XD
It would have been even more early than it should be. Airbus shouldn't have released it before the a350. A380s time isnt yet here
Airbus should revive this as a twinjet with more composite materials.... probably naming it a370. Anyway rolls royce is developing most powerful engine, so this should be possible in near future. Also they have got the time to develop because of the pandemic
0:17 best A380
No Chinese airlines suck so much
It was NOT the plane too late to the party. In less than 20 years I bet airlines will be crying for an A380/747 type aircraft and there will be NONE available. So sad so few see this coming and are so willing to remove a vital aircraft from their fleet before the super surge in jet travel has even begun.
Airbus didn't exist in the 1960s. When they started building airliners, the first focus, rightly, was to build smaller and medium sized airliners, to gain experience, like the A300 and A320. Building a 4-engine jumbo would logically follow at least 20 years after they first started building airliners.
it would be mega fuel efficent
The 747 was designed as a freighter, only because PanAm ordered them for passengers Boeing built it. Secondly the A380 never could have been built in the early 70's as the technology was there yet.
Right
why does the A350 have a black cockpit windows its the only thing i hate about the A350
simpleflying.com/airbus-a350-eye-mask/
I love your posts but this "what if" is a bit absurd... Airbus hadn't even properly launched until Dec 1970. By then the B747 had been flying for almost two years. The A300 was the perfect product at the perfect time for Airbus to launch and even that was a huge risk. On a side note, the fact that Airbus did not design a freighter version for such a massive airplane really says a lot about how little the company understands the market sometimes.
I qui te sure that airbus would not have been able To develop the 380 at that time Because airbus was not as profitable and bad not the financial capacity To lunch such a development ...
Such a pitty that the A 380 came at the right time such a beauty To figh with ... spacious ... silent ...
Mentioned there would be no technology!
It would be the 747, next question
It would have failed. The A380 is for the most part an updated copy of the 1960s C-5 Galaxy. I think all of the measurements are within 6" of each other. I checked. Only it was done without computers, composites, etc. Just superior American Engineering with slide rules (an actual guy with engineering know how looking instead of a computer). Lockheed thought about making an airliner out of it. The 747 filled in that requirement not leaving anything to be filled by a larger plane. Like the concorde, it's a plane that nobody wanted. Market research, there's no substitute for it.
What very strange convoluted logic. Quote no one wanted the A380 but some airlines did. By the same twisted logic I could say that if the A380 was built in 1915 then air transport would have been quite different.
Well if it was made made 50 years ago it would be less modern and less safe
@@wilburfinnigan2142 well it would of been less safe then today because of other stuff not saying the 747 was unsafe
IMAGINE THE 747 WAS CREATED IN 1945
This is stupid..
Imagine the ME 262 was developed in 1915.
The CVN in 1900.
The mini gun in 1825.
i really really really really like airbus more than Boeing the only Boeing planes i like are the 777 7779x 787 767 757
I will be very sad for the day that Boeing cuts the production of the 747. Actually no. I might be happy because then it might allow another aircraft of its type to take its throne of Queen of The Skies
Yes its call the B777 family that's who took crown now its king.
Mervin Pocasangre ah dope
China southern business class A380!!............ 👍 😍.
4:18 best B747
But what if there will be a powerful, very efficient and reliable twin engine a380?😂 literally *stonks* 💵 💵🤑🤑
1:14 best A380
Would have failed just like it did last few years!
Then the 747 would be gone and Pan Am and Trans world airway will be on the A380
What can we say but Boeing is indeed better!
1st
I want the a380 I’m sad 😞
If the a380 was built 50 yrs ago
The trent 1000 didn't exist yet.
What if it had been released 50 years ago? What if pigs flew out of my butt?
It was failing even without the CORVID-19. The 747 will solder on due to its freighter configuration.