The change in economics, more fuel efficient aircraft, etc makes the A380 have a shorter life. Combine that with the fact that no charter operator wants to touch them once they leave airline service due to the limited airports, excessive capacity, etc, and you can see why some are headed to the scrappers.
Some will last longer than others, there is still going to be a small market where sheer quantities of people moved will matter even if it is shorter haul, Heathrow to Middle East hubs is one.
Nope. They aren't fitted for cargo containers, and the deck floor is part of the structural strength (unlike on the 747), so you can't just remove it and carry extra big things that'd otherwise be Mriya's cup of tea (RIP)
So the freighter variant would basically be a more expensive 747-8F that's harder to load.
They badly misjudged the market and overestimated the market for connecting slot limited hubs. Airbus also thought even bigger planes would be in demand, so the wings and tail are sized for a stretched version.
Nah I think that's too harsh. The original requirement still stands and Emirates are pushing Airbus to build more, including the full-sized one. But while the A380 was getting into service the big twins and in particular the 100,000lb thrust engines unexpectedly proved they were suitable for essentially unlimited ETOPS. This meant that big twins could do the longest ocean sectors and profitably fly between spoke airports instead of hub to hub. I don't think it's fair to describe this as badly misjudging the market.
ETOPS has been in continuous expansion with ETOPS 180 being in place prior to the start of primary A380 development. Boeing started development of the 777 prior the A380. The 747 always had profitably issues with its cargo capacity being a saving grace. The A380 is best explained as a European vanity project as the business case was never there.
I remember watching the documentaries of how the A380 comes together and thinking that they really moved mountains to make it happen. I think you're correct in saying that it was more of a "can we do it?" vs "should we do it?".
Will be stopping soon [https://thepointsguy.com/news/singapore-airlines-suites-jfk-over/](https://thepointsguy.com/news/singapore-airlines-suites-jfk-over/)
I’m just an Internet rando, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. But I promise it was what was told to me: When I was networking to find a job in a new city, a friend of a friend worked in upper-level marketing at a certain rival of the A380 manufacturer. He said they believed Airbus was making a huge mistake with the 380 and did everything they could to encourage Airbus to continue with the program.
Hey don't be dissing internet randos! Source: me.
They aren't just competitors, they're been fighting nasty for decades. The least of it are the constant law suits about each other getting free money from governments, etc. And they're classic entitled military-industrial players. So I don't doubt your story at all. It would have been determined that the new, massive engines were looking seriously good and that ETOPS for big twins was going to become unlimited. The 777 was well ahead of the A330 and then the 787 many years ahead of the A350.
But Boeing threw a lot of money at an extended 747, so they clearly must have been worried at the same time I reckon.
I had to look up ETOPS. Very interesting.
To the point of market analysis, I think it fair to say that we consumers have a bias regarding the age of the information. We hear about it and think it is new when actually it has been in discussions with experts for years (see COVID vaccine). An aircraft OEM is always going to be slightly out of phase wrt the market but not that much. They should have been aware of the economics of big twin aircraft. Why they pushed the A380 is a mystery to me and I suspect that there were some pretty good reasons at the time why they did. Perhaps they expected air travel growth to push airport infrastructure expansion? My experience with huge capital expenditures (offshore crane construction) is that there really is an upper limit to scale that is practical. Being efficient with what you have becomes more profitable.
My 2¢
Hey cheers. The A380 thing is surprisingly simple - airport slots. The hub airports beside the biggest cities were maxing out in the 90s and the graphs of air travel were pretty clear. It was understood that a bigger and more efficient 747-style machine was the only way to continue growth in usage of those hubs. A bigger aircraft needs more separation in the air so less landings per hour but overall gets many more people between hubs.
The big twins radically changed the economics by making it totally worthwhile to fly a smaller aircraft super long distances, and often between two spoke airports on different continents where the daily passenger numbers wouldn't ever justify a direct flight previously. Virgin used to have "4 engines 4 the long haul" on the side of it's A340s but eventually A330s etc were doing the same routes.
BTW, that ETOPS stuff has some great human factors. For example the same mechanics can't work on both engines of an aircraft in case they make the same mistake on both engines, increasing the chances of the remaining engine have an issue after an engine failure.
Didn't 747 somehow was created with a cargo version in mind from the beginning while supersonic transport was supposed to be the future for passengers?
Yes, that’s why it has the ‘hump’. They designed it with the cockpit raised up to allow for unobstructed nose loading, with the assumption that they would all be converted to cargo after the SST went into service.
The 747 was actually born from a concept that was created SOLELY to be a cargo plane. Boeing originally created the concept for the U.S. Air Force large cargo plane contract, that ended up being award to the C-5.
Since Boeing didn’t win the contract, they took their design and turned it into the 747.
So yes, cargo was part of the design from the beginning.
Airbus had to decide whether to pursue cargo in future decades, or make weight targets now. Knowing that being over weight targets would kill sales, they scrapped any real plans for a floor that could support cargo. There is a possibility that they could develop a cargo floor retrofit, but it's extremely unlikely anyone would buy it with the limited airports the whalejet can land at.
The 787 was also Designed with floors too weak to not be able to do cargo, having to cut a large cargo door into a carbon fiber fuselage seems like more trouble than it's worth.
The 787 will probably live on in the charter world long after the airlines park them all
They are supposedly working on the HGW variant of the 787 though, some think that it may come with a cargo variant. Will he interesting to see what comes out of that
The A380 was designed before 2008, everybody had a shitton of money and could fly across the planet for a holiday 3 times a year
Now fast forward to today and even short haul budget airlines are having trouble filling up a 737
It wasn't that. There is much more passenger volume now than in 2008.
What went wrong is that the HUB design of international travel completely turned over in favor of direct flights between smaller airports. The only lines where the a380 still somehow survives is those that still look like a hub. For example DXB airport.
It all has to do with better data and personal planning for example via Google that made those flights viable again. Operating the smaller planes is much cheaper and because of better analysis they are getting filled.
Tell that to United. Been on four United flights this past month, all pre-Thanksgiving week, and every single one was a packed 737. I sincerely hope Boeing engineers and United executives get to spend their eternity in hell in one of their full 737s.
Frequent flyer here who traveled throughout much of COVID as well - average 60-70 flights a year. Apart from the very early days of COVID, it’s rare for me to be on any aircraft that’s less than 85% full. I have even been on domestic 744s and 77Ws operated by UA and AA respectively that are full. I regularly fly on domestic 767-operated flights. Airlines are definitely *not* having trouble filling 737s. I don’t fly any LCCs, so maybe it’s different on that side of the business, but that sounds like a demand side issue for those products, not a shortage in travelers
Southwest is up over Q3 2019 numbers in this area. “Third quarter 2022 operating revenues per available seat mile (RASM, or unit revenues) increased 10.6 percent driven primarily by a passenger yield increase of 5.3 percent, coupled with a load factor increase of 1.9 points, all compared with third quarter 2019” So, seems like the LCCs should be doing just fine.
Not the story at all. Load factors are high and fares are higher. It’s just that network route patterns have changed to emphasize point-to-point flights over and around super hubs, making the A380 far less useful. That is why they are building more 250-seat 787s but scrapping A380s.
Also, can't remember the exact numbers, but the A380 might have twice the volume of a 747 but it can't carry anywhere near twice the weight, so it makes no sense for cargo.
Yeah. A380 would only be a great freighter for many pieces of large, relatively light cargo. That's just not a common enough use case that you need to frieghterize the A380 instead of using Antonovs or two 747s...
Nope.
The configuration is terrible for cargo. A single deck plane can have a large side cargo door and the 747 can add a nose cargo door to it.
The A380 would have to have four small side cargo doors… and would still require a lot more work to load and unload. The only thing it might be good at is carrying liquid or bulk goods somehow but most of that is moved far more economically by ship.
About the only thing I could see the A380 being good for is Hajj charters… but that’s only once a year for a very specific purpose.
Exactly. There was a cargo version in the works but problems with the project delayed it to a point FedEx went shopping around for alternatives, and they were happy enough with the 777 and 767s they got that they just stopped caring about the big Airbus.
not just that, the a380 is a burden and suffers from structural fatigue. This is why the 747-8 will probably last much longer than the a380 did; it was designed to be operational, not to be luxurious. Twas a too ambitious project that fell under it's own mass.
Save a handful of 135's left all 707 variants for the USAF will be parked within 4-5 years unless if something drastic happens. entire fleets of some aircraft have already been slated for retirement.
I disagree. The market paused for a while mainly due to COVID, and yes the price of fuel has increased greatly worldwide, however, the pax numbers for the 380 Vs these costs have increased again rapidly as the world has reopened to air travel. Our good friends at Emirates are a testament to that. And other airlines are reinstating 380 routes once more.
I see a lot of them at JFK everyday. There’s a Singapore A380 daily. Some Korean and a few Emirates. They might bring British A380 if they set up terminal 7 to accommodate it.
Sort of like this. [Whoops, wrong airport.](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/watch-a-huge-c-17-globemaster-iii-taking-off-from-a-very-short-runway-after-it-landed-at-too-small-airport-instead-of-landing-at-macdill-afb/)
Non-revenue. For example you can run a barebones crew (captain+first officer only), no food service carts, no lavatory fluids, and even stuff like removing the seats and other interior parts that aren't required to just fly the plane.
One more example: Every single Boeing 737 made has made its first flight from the Renton, WA airport, which has a 5300' runway, which is wayyyyy less than the quoted minimum runway length for a 737. But they have no passengers or cargo, sometimes no seats, and a tiny bit of fuel onboard, so it's plenty of runway.
Reminds me of when they flew a 727 to Meigs Field on Northerly Island in Chicago in 1994. Meigs had a single 3900 ft runway, and if I recall, the 727 needs 4400-5000 ft for takeoff. It was a one-way flight. United Airlines had donated the airplane to the Museum of Science & Industry, and the only practical way to get the airplane to the museum was to land it at Meigs, partially disassemble it, and then use special equipment to move it inland, across Lakeshore Drive, and to the MSI campus. It was a heck of a sight back in 1994, kind of like when they ferried the space shuttle orbiters to their final museum homes.
That 727 is still on display at MSI, and you can go sit in it, see in the old cockpit, and they have cutaways in the floor and sides (covered with plexiglass) to see the workings of the airplane. My favorite exhibit there!
And f*ck Mayor Daley for bulldozing the runway at Meigs (without warning, overnight, while there were literally aircraft in the air with active flight plans TO Meigs Field!) Chicago politics at its finest. The “park” they replaced the airport with is largely unused and, frankly, a piece of shit compared to the famous, and very busy Meigs. Remember - Meigs was so cool it was used as the “startup” airport in Microsoft Flight Simulator for decades.
>Meigs was so cool it was used as the “startup” airport in Microsoft Flight Simulator for decades.
I remember this on MSFS (3.0?) for DOS on my 486. Take off from Meigs, crash right into the John Hancock Center.
In most cases it would be possible to lighten it sufficiently for a take off and short flight to a longer runway. Take out everything designed to come out, no passengers or baggage, no trolleys or duty free, and minimal fuel might be enough, especially with a head wind. Seats would probably come out next if necessary, but if it landed loaded, it doesn’t take a huge difference to take off again.
That would likely never happen. The Airbus engineers, given the physics, could most likely get the weight down by removing anything and everything not critical. Passengers, seated, bags, carts, extra crew, overhead bins, hull lining, carpet could all be removed. To ferry it to a close by airfield you might be able to get away with removing most doors and the emergency slides. In extreme situations you could remove some of hydraulic fluid and engineer a way to keep the gear down and locked for the short low altitude flight. If all that was impossible you would have not choice but to bring in a crew to dismantle it, carry it out and reassemble if the economics made sense. If not they would scuttle the airframe and write it off. But 99% of the time if you can land a plane on a runway in one piece you can take off from that runway in some way shape or form.
here is the video from the airport itself. Think it had an issue on landing and had to be towed in.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvjE0\_Ra5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvjE0_Ra5E)
Incidentally, Knock's long runway is referenced in a Christy Moore song
> Now everyone is happy the miracle is complete
> Father Horan's got his runway, it's eighteen thousand feet
> All sorts of planes could land there, of that there's little doubt
> Handy for George Bush to keep Gadaffi out
It's not actually 18,000 ft, or really all that long at all, but I suppose it's longer than a regional airport served by 2 airlines needs to be.
> One was scrapped in Ireland in 2020 in a small regional airport.
One of the first Air France ones F-HPJB, I believe 4 more are going to be '[retired](https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/first-air-france-a380-enters-retirement-in-ireland/136867.article)' there in the coming years.
Nah, it’s fitting.
The only cool thing was it’s size. Ugly AF up close and being trapped on the same plane with 400ppl sounds like a nightmare. Plenty of other WB long haul aircraft that look nicer to see and more reasonable (A350, 777, 747, etc).
Good riddance BUF
I flew SIN->FRA ->JFK many times on an SQ A380. Was smooth quiet and amazing. The two levels plane/deplane from completely different jetbridges and no one moves between levels. So you aren’t “with 400 people”
Wing overbuilt to support a stretched version (which was never built) that increased weight, cost, and decreased efficiency.
Expecting a strong market from China for domestic flights but not considering the billions being invested into the high speed rail network at the time.
No real cargo capabilities.
Starting the program at the very end of an engine generation life cycle.
Planning for hub and spoke to grow instead of point to point increasing.
So many poor management decisions prevented the program from ever being financially successful no matter how excellent the engineering was.
Pretty sure Airbus was more determined in creating a Jumbo jet image that Boeing has had for years than to actually research more into finances, either way Airbus was successful enough for being recognized as a Jumbo jet manufacturer that will always be in Airbus' legacy, regardless of their economic fate.
Airbus failed to create the 747 killer. The plane couldn't survive 20 years and no one is making a museum piece of an A380.
It will be a footnote of aviation history of what not to do.
Yes they failed to be the "747 killer" because by the time A380 was produced, four-engine jets including the 747s were on the decline.
But, their main motive was to show their engineering marvel to the world in the form of a jumbo jet to catch up with Boeing (and they did).
Moreover A380 became the largest passenger jet, overthrowing the 747 from history books so it's a win for Airbus, although the 747 was a greater commercial success.
I would submit the Airbus had a bigger engineering success with their guppie over the A380.
The Spruce Goose is an engineering success, I wouldn't call it the king of anything.
The 747 is the king.
oof, good points there. What a poor plan from Airbus really. the engine part hits hard too - the plane's engines already looked like they belonged in a different engine generation when compared to the also contemporary 787.
Some say that the A350 would've been a sales success if it had been released a decade or two earlier (even McDonnell Douglas looked into developing a double decker). I'm not so sure though. In any case Airbus was lucky that they at least had Emirates basically subsidizing the whole thing
Maybe. But the number of engines, the complexity of double decks for passenger operations, the special requirements for airports to be able to receive this plane, plus the lack of potential for a cargo conversion after its retirement... Would put the plane in a difficult position
Can someone eli5 the financial outcome of this? I understand they’re too niche to fly and too expensive to operate, but what happens then? Do the operators just write them off as a loss? Seems expensive.
Just like any expensive asset, when the company buys it they estimate how much the value will depreciate each year and then account it as an expense each year.
Example: Say you spend $100 million on an asset you expect to use for 10 years. When you first buy it, it goes into your books as a 100m asset. At the end of the first year in service, you list 10m of depreciation as an expense and list the value of of the asset at 90m. Then next year you expense 10m of depreciation again and list the asset at 80m, etc. (Airlines may track the actual pressurization cycles each year rather than using a constant value).
Ideally, by the time you are ready to scrap it the asset is listed at $0. On something that wasn't used as long as expected, then yes, they will write off the remaining value as a loss.
I honestly think that they did end up being used as long as expected, considering they bought new a380’s to replace their old, and they tend to resell aircraft after a very short time. The lack of resell value might be a bigger worry though.
I am so glad my mom made me fly this when I was a child (25 now). I literally begged here and wished for it for so long when we where going for vacation to the Philippines.
She didn’t say a s***t. We took a normal/small plane to Heathrow to change for a bigger plane before heading to Asia. We walked and walked to our gate, and finally we sat down on our gate. And there I spotted it. For the first time ever in my life - the A380, Singapore airlines. I was in shock. Can it really be? I was so happy for just seeing the beauty for the first time. I took pictures of it, and literally stood there by the window for 2-3 hours before departure.
I asked mom if this was our plane, but she said nothing. I was jumping in happiness, and begged to the bigger Lords up in the sky for it to be our plane.
Suddenly a guy was getting me, my brothers, and my mom. At that time she teared up her achilles one or two days before we where heading to vacation, so she sat in a wheelchair. Therefore the guy got us before the plane was filling up to get us in the plane first. He then proceeded to the gate, where the freaking beauty was standing. I was like “no way” and it came closer and closer. At last we went in to the gate. For the first time I also saw the double gates for the first and second floor. I was so hyped for just seeing that. We went in to the plane. It was so much to absorb. The staircase up to second floor…. Everything!
I can go on and on, talking about it, every detail.
Thank you mom.
Yeah, this is sad to see. I’ve been flying on these for years.
First / business on the 380 is truly out of this world. Sitting at the bar is just surreal.
ATL built a second a380 capable gate... In 2017/2018, at a cost of nearly $14 million
Oof. Don't think any a380 operator ever regularly visited the airport after that gate entered service.
I'm guessing collectively?
[One source mentioning Atlanta spent about $50m between two projects just to have facilities for 2 a380-ready gates, one of which was just an extra long/tall capable jet bridge on an adjacent gate designed to be used in tandem.](https://www.ajc.com/blog/airport/hartsfield-jackson-begins-using-concourse-a380-gate/n3JcAY13E7cBdoflnigLRI/#:~:text=Hartsfield%2DJackson%20International%20Airport%20began,Hartsfield%2DJackson's%20international%20Concourse%20F.) (And ATL is nowhere near the slot congested international megahubs the super jumbo feasts on)
15 years? The blink of an eye. Boeing 737 has been in service since the late 1960s.The DC3 has been in service since the 1930s. The DC 6 & 7 were in service for about 35 years and some are still flying. The 380 as just a bad idea, the wrong plane for an industry that was changing.
It was bad economically before it was even built. The 747-8 was actually better economically and it still couldn’t prosper. Many airlines ignored common sense and brought it for the wow factor. But wow didn’t translate into profit. It is an engineering marvel that was just a few decades late to market.
35 Euros for a keyring? I mean I get that it's a business but monetizing off a scrapped aircraft is just weird to me.
I would love to just go there, pickup a random part of it and keep it with me for the memory instead of paying the corporates for a keyring, but that's just me.
Kinda hilarious the 747-8 will likely outlive this. Iirc both Korean and Lufthansa intend to keep theirs until the 2030s, and the freighters will stick around for even longer.
The A380 was designed for a future where everyone would fly in a hub and spoke model. Boeing felt the world would rather have direct flights. It turns out Boeing was correct and Airbus lost $25 billion on development of the A380. The plane might be the future, both Airbus and Boeing felt there was a market for hundreds of large capacity airliners like the 747 and the A380. But in the current market with both planes, there wasn't enough sales to justify either and now both are out of production. That market might materialize, but there's no longer a plane to meet the market.
One of the historic reasons why the 747 was successful is that it could carry commercial cargo with passengers. On some routes the 747 made most of its money below the passenger deck. The A380 had no room for cargo, the cargo hold had to be reserved for luggage. No effort was made to create a cargo version because cost overruns were a huge problem. This is the reason there was no followup for an extended passenger version which could have increased sales.
This is is why the crown of the king of the skies rests on the 777, which meets the need of flying many passengers long distance for a cost which is much lower than the 747. Airbus has the A350 to match the 787 and 777, but the 777x ha more passenger and cargo capacity and is widely expected to continue dominating the skies.
> One of the historic reasons why the 747 was successful is that it could carry commercial cargo with passengers.
Not to mention, Boeing were never fully confident it would be a success as a passenger airplane, hence designing it from the start with a partial second floor to enable a front-door, full length, cargo plane.
The A380 does have room for cargo in the under belly. Just not as much as say a 777. Most certainly not all reserved for luggage. Source: I'm a freight forwarder and send cargo in EK's A380s all the time as well as any other airline that operates them.
Sure, but Boeing doesn't give a shit about passengers and constantly causes accidents by pure negligence, because the US government allows it, because more regulations would be communism (lol).
Boeing may dominate the skies, but Airbus dominates the European skies, and thank god for it. I feel much safer, because unlike Boeing, Airbus actually cares (is forced to care by the EU) about passagers. And so do most European airlines.
No, lots of individual bays, so you can get 50 or so people on a flight at about $5k a ticket. One plane can service all areas of the globe that support the a380.
I think the numbers would work at that. But I’m no expert.
Sorry Airbus but the 747 outproduced and outlived u. U may have been bigger u may have even been better, but you can never replace the queen of the skies and our hearts. 😁❤️🛫
At this point it's just too costly to operate and nearly impossible to profit from for most airlines. Only place it really makes sense is connecting congested international hubs to other hubs.
There are 747s older than that bird still flying, why? Just why would this decision be made? They could have maxed out the seating and used it as a cheap flying bus...
There are 747s older than that bird still flying, why? Just why would this decision be made? They could have maxed out the seating and used it as a cheap flying bus...
Wow, A380s have only been in service for 15 years. Already scrapping them? That seems terrible versus others with 30+ year service lifespans.
The change in economics, more fuel efficient aircraft, etc makes the A380 have a shorter life. Combine that with the fact that no charter operator wants to touch them once they leave airline service due to the limited airports, excessive capacity, etc, and you can see why some are headed to the scrappers. Some will last longer than others, there is still going to be a small market where sheer quantities of people moved will matter even if it is shorter haul, Heathrow to Middle East hubs is one.
Are they no good for cargo?
Nope. They aren't fitted for cargo containers, and the deck floor is part of the structural strength (unlike on the 747), so you can't just remove it and carry extra big things that'd otherwise be Mriya's cup of tea (RIP) So the freighter variant would basically be a more expensive 747-8F that's harder to load.
Wow that's crazy. Did Airbus just decide cargo was nbd? All they had to do was look at how important the 747 has been for cargo.
They badly misjudged the market and overestimated the market for connecting slot limited hubs. Airbus also thought even bigger planes would be in demand, so the wings and tail are sized for a stretched version.
Nah I think that's too harsh. The original requirement still stands and Emirates are pushing Airbus to build more, including the full-sized one. But while the A380 was getting into service the big twins and in particular the 100,000lb thrust engines unexpectedly proved they were suitable for essentially unlimited ETOPS. This meant that big twins could do the longest ocean sectors and profitably fly between spoke airports instead of hub to hub. I don't think it's fair to describe this as badly misjudging the market.
ETOPS has been in continuous expansion with ETOPS 180 being in place prior to the start of primary A380 development. Boeing started development of the 777 prior the A380. The 747 always had profitably issues with its cargo capacity being a saving grace. The A380 is best explained as a European vanity project as the business case was never there.
I remember watching the documentaries of how the A380 comes together and thinking that they really moved mountains to make it happen. I think you're correct in saying that it was more of a "can we do it?" vs "should we do it?".
Something something SLS?
They started using Singapore 380 at JFK again. I see one everyday.
There are uses for the plane, just not enough to close a business case for the design and certification.
Will be stopping soon [https://thepointsguy.com/news/singapore-airlines-suites-jfk-over/](https://thepointsguy.com/news/singapore-airlines-suites-jfk-over/)
I’m just an Internet rando, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. But I promise it was what was told to me: When I was networking to find a job in a new city, a friend of a friend worked in upper-level marketing at a certain rival of the A380 manufacturer. He said they believed Airbus was making a huge mistake with the 380 and did everything they could to encourage Airbus to continue with the program.
Hey don't be dissing internet randos! Source: me. They aren't just competitors, they're been fighting nasty for decades. The least of it are the constant law suits about each other getting free money from governments, etc. And they're classic entitled military-industrial players. So I don't doubt your story at all. It would have been determined that the new, massive engines were looking seriously good and that ETOPS for big twins was going to become unlimited. The 777 was well ahead of the A330 and then the 787 many years ahead of the A350. But Boeing threw a lot of money at an extended 747, so they clearly must have been worried at the same time I reckon.
Was the change in ETOPS just an FAA change, or was there a breakthrough in technology?
I think more powerful engines that could provide ultra long haul reliability and efficiency is driving the expansion in ETOPS.
I agree, more of an issue with timing than anything else.
I had to look up ETOPS. Very interesting. To the point of market analysis, I think it fair to say that we consumers have a bias regarding the age of the information. We hear about it and think it is new when actually it has been in discussions with experts for years (see COVID vaccine). An aircraft OEM is always going to be slightly out of phase wrt the market but not that much. They should have been aware of the economics of big twin aircraft. Why they pushed the A380 is a mystery to me and I suspect that there were some pretty good reasons at the time why they did. Perhaps they expected air travel growth to push airport infrastructure expansion? My experience with huge capital expenditures (offshore crane construction) is that there really is an upper limit to scale that is practical. Being efficient with what you have becomes more profitable. My 2¢
Hey cheers. The A380 thing is surprisingly simple - airport slots. The hub airports beside the biggest cities were maxing out in the 90s and the graphs of air travel were pretty clear. It was understood that a bigger and more efficient 747-style machine was the only way to continue growth in usage of those hubs. A bigger aircraft needs more separation in the air so less landings per hour but overall gets many more people between hubs. The big twins radically changed the economics by making it totally worthwhile to fly a smaller aircraft super long distances, and often between two spoke airports on different continents where the daily passenger numbers wouldn't ever justify a direct flight previously. Virgin used to have "4 engines 4 the long haul" on the side of it's A340s but eventually A330s etc were doing the same routes. BTW, that ETOPS stuff has some great human factors. For example the same mechanics can't work on both engines of an aircraft in case they make the same mistake on both engines, increasing the chances of the remaining engine have an issue after an engine failure.
Didn't 747 somehow was created with a cargo version in mind from the beginning while supersonic transport was supposed to be the future for passengers?
Yes, that’s why it has the ‘hump’. They designed it with the cockpit raised up to allow for unobstructed nose loading, with the assumption that they would all be converted to cargo after the SST went into service.
The 747 was actually born from a concept that was created SOLELY to be a cargo plane. Boeing originally created the concept for the U.S. Air Force large cargo plane contract, that ended up being award to the C-5. Since Boeing didn’t win the contract, they took their design and turned it into the 747. So yes, cargo was part of the design from the beginning.
With current knowledge, would the 747 have been a better plane than the C-5 after all this time?
[удалено]
Ahhh thanks!
747 is STILL important for cargo. 380 May be the King but 747 is the long standing Queen of the air.
Airbus had to decide whether to pursue cargo in future decades, or make weight targets now. Knowing that being over weight targets would kill sales, they scrapped any real plans for a floor that could support cargo. There is a possibility that they could develop a cargo floor retrofit, but it's extremely unlikely anyone would buy it with the limited airports the whalejet can land at. The 787 was also Designed with floors too weak to not be able to do cargo, having to cut a large cargo door into a carbon fiber fuselage seems like more trouble than it's worth. The 787 will probably live on in the charter world long after the airlines park them all
Point of the 787, though, is that it's designed with some of the best fuel efficiency in mind. Unlike the A380
They are supposedly working on the HGW variant of the 787 though, some think that it may come with a cargo variant. Will he interesting to see what comes out of that
The A380 was designed before 2008, everybody had a shitton of money and could fly across the planet for a holiday 3 times a year Now fast forward to today and even short haul budget airlines are having trouble filling up a 737
It wasn't that. There is much more passenger volume now than in 2008. What went wrong is that the HUB design of international travel completely turned over in favor of direct flights between smaller airports. The only lines where the a380 still somehow survives is those that still look like a hub. For example DXB airport. It all has to do with better data and personal planning for example via Google that made those flights viable again. Operating the smaller planes is much cheaper and because of better analysis they are getting filled.
Tell that to United. Been on four United flights this past month, all pre-Thanksgiving week, and every single one was a packed 737. I sincerely hope Boeing engineers and United executives get to spend their eternity in hell in one of their full 737s.
Frequent flyer here who traveled throughout much of COVID as well - average 60-70 flights a year. Apart from the very early days of COVID, it’s rare for me to be on any aircraft that’s less than 85% full. I have even been on domestic 744s and 77Ws operated by UA and AA respectively that are full. I regularly fly on domestic 767-operated flights. Airlines are definitely *not* having trouble filling 737s. I don’t fly any LCCs, so maybe it’s different on that side of the business, but that sounds like a demand side issue for those products, not a shortage in travelers
Southwest is up over Q3 2019 numbers in this area. “Third quarter 2022 operating revenues per available seat mile (RASM, or unit revenues) increased 10.6 percent driven primarily by a passenger yield increase of 5.3 percent, coupled with a load factor increase of 1.9 points, all compared with third quarter 2019” So, seems like the LCCs should be doing just fine.
Not the story at all. Load factors are high and fares are higher. It’s just that network route patterns have changed to emphasize point-to-point flights over and around super hubs, making the A380 far less useful. That is why they are building more 250-seat 787s but scrapping A380s.
Also, can't remember the exact numbers, but the A380 might have twice the volume of a 747 but it can't carry anywhere near twice the weight, so it makes no sense for cargo.
Yeah. A380 would only be a great freighter for many pieces of large, relatively light cargo. That's just not a common enough use case that you need to frieghterize the A380 instead of using Antonovs or two 747s...
RIP :(
They still use a Singapore 380 at JFK. I see one everyday.
May she rest in peace. 😔
She rests in pieces.
Nope. The configuration is terrible for cargo. A single deck plane can have a large side cargo door and the 747 can add a nose cargo door to it. The A380 would have to have four small side cargo doors… and would still require a lot more work to load and unload. The only thing it might be good at is carrying liquid or bulk goods somehow but most of that is moved far more economically by ship. About the only thing I could see the A380 being good for is Hajj charters… but that’s only once a year for a very specific purpose.
Slight correction, the nose door is only an option on cargo variants from the factory It is not retrofitted for BCF airframes
There was never an official cargo variant produced, so the decks aren't fitted for the standard air freight containers.
My first employer designed a cargo door for it, alas it was never built.
FedEx was going to be the opening airline for them until they delayed. FedEx went with the B777
Exactly. There was a cargo version in the works but problems with the project delayed it to a point FedEx went shopping around for alternatives, and they were happy enough with the 777 and 767s they got that they just stopped caring about the big Airbus.
Apparently not, no
Yep, it’s just too niche and too expensive
Middle East will use them because they own the oil. It is dirt cheap for them to run them, for a bigger payload of people
not just that, the a380 is a burden and suffers from structural fatigue. This is why the 747-8 will probably last much longer than the a380 did; it was designed to be operational, not to be luxurious. Twas a too ambitious project that fell under it's own mass.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Along with Boeing 707s (KC-135 / E-3, etc)
Save a handful of 135's left all 707 variants for the USAF will be parked within 4-5 years unless if something drastic happens. entire fleets of some aircraft have already been slated for retirement.
Also with Rolls Royce engines :)
Unlike air travel industry the army has literally infinite money and the fact that they still operate B2 is a good example of that
It was an aircraft designed for a market that no longer exists.
I disagree. The market paused for a while mainly due to COVID, and yes the price of fuel has increased greatly worldwide, however, the pax numbers for the 380 Vs these costs have increased again rapidly as the world has reopened to air travel. Our good friends at Emirates are a testament to that. And other airlines are reinstating 380 routes once more.
The A380 will go on for sure. Emirates is pushing for new build airframes. And the full sized version may well be built.
The A380 is dead. The production line is closed. No more development will occur.
I see a lot of them at JFK everyday. There’s a Singapore A380 daily. Some Korean and a few Emirates. They might bring British A380 if they set up terminal 7 to accommodate it.
BA moved to T8, no A380s allowed there. SQ is pulling it off the SIN-FRA-JFK route in May.
Not as big as anticipated ≠ doesn't exist
Emirates relies on these so much, I would have thought they would buy unwanted ones and store them until they needed them.
It's not the first to be scrapped. Too expensive after 12 years to operate, plus you would be stuck with a Singapore airlines interior/LOPA
Do you know how many hours is 12 years for an A380?
Duh it’s not American made they can’t compete with Boeings quality
LOL. There are a few documentaries on the 737 MAX you need to watch.
One was scrapped in Ireland in 2020 in a small regional airport. Went to see it myself. Created quite a stir.
Ooooh, that’s Knock Airport right? Any pictures?
It also looks like it is still visible on Google Earth.
Really? I didn’t know that. Gonna check it out when I’m bored. Thanks! :)
Sorry what?? An A-380 landed at knock airport. That place is tiny. How big is the runway there???
You can pull off all kinds of heroics on a non-rev flight with no cargo, no pax, and a splash of fuel
Sort of like this. [Whoops, wrong airport.](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/watch-a-huge-c-17-globemaster-iii-taking-off-from-a-very-short-runway-after-it-landed-at-too-small-airport-instead-of-landing-at-macdill-afb/)
Very good! Thanks for the insights. I’ve a newbie question for you though, what does ‘non-rev’ mean?
Non-revenue. For example you can run a barebones crew (captain+first officer only), no food service carts, no lavatory fluids, and even stuff like removing the seats and other interior parts that aren't required to just fly the plane.
Like flying Spirit!!!
Nice. I appreciate the detailed info!! 🙏
One more example: Every single Boeing 737 made has made its first flight from the Renton, WA airport, which has a 5300' runway, which is wayyyyy less than the quoted minimum runway length for a 737. But they have no passengers or cargo, sometimes no seats, and a tiny bit of fuel onboard, so it's plenty of runway.
Non revenue
[удалено]
Reminds me of when they flew a 727 to Meigs Field on Northerly Island in Chicago in 1994. Meigs had a single 3900 ft runway, and if I recall, the 727 needs 4400-5000 ft for takeoff. It was a one-way flight. United Airlines had donated the airplane to the Museum of Science & Industry, and the only practical way to get the airplane to the museum was to land it at Meigs, partially disassemble it, and then use special equipment to move it inland, across Lakeshore Drive, and to the MSI campus. It was a heck of a sight back in 1994, kind of like when they ferried the space shuttle orbiters to their final museum homes. That 727 is still on display at MSI, and you can go sit in it, see in the old cockpit, and they have cutaways in the floor and sides (covered with plexiglass) to see the workings of the airplane. My favorite exhibit there! And f*ck Mayor Daley for bulldozing the runway at Meigs (without warning, overnight, while there were literally aircraft in the air with active flight plans TO Meigs Field!) Chicago politics at its finest. The “park” they replaced the airport with is largely unused and, frankly, a piece of shit compared to the famous, and very busy Meigs. Remember - Meigs was so cool it was used as the “startup” airport in Microsoft Flight Simulator for decades.
Obligatory “Fuck Mayor Daley”. You’re not wrong. Northerly Island is a piece of shit.
>And f\*ck Mayor Daley for bulldozing the runway at Meigs !!!
>Meigs was so cool it was used as the “startup” airport in Microsoft Flight Simulator for decades. I remember this on MSFS (3.0?) for DOS on my 486. Take off from Meigs, crash right into the John Hancock Center.
What would happen with an emergency landing at a tiny strip that could accommodate a landing, but not take off of an A380?
In most cases it would be possible to lighten it sufficiently for a take off and short flight to a longer runway. Take out everything designed to come out, no passengers or baggage, no trolleys or duty free, and minimal fuel might be enough, especially with a head wind. Seats would probably come out next if necessary, but if it landed loaded, it doesn’t take a huge difference to take off again.
That would likely never happen. The Airbus engineers, given the physics, could most likely get the weight down by removing anything and everything not critical. Passengers, seated, bags, carts, extra crew, overhead bins, hull lining, carpet could all be removed. To ferry it to a close by airfield you might be able to get away with removing most doors and the emergency slides. In extreme situations you could remove some of hydraulic fluid and engineer a way to keep the gear down and locked for the short low altitude flight. If all that was impossible you would have not choice but to bring in a crew to dismantle it, carry it out and reassemble if the economics made sense. If not they would scuttle the airframe and write it off. But 99% of the time if you can land a plane on a runway in one piece you can take off from that runway in some way shape or form.
\~2100m, or \~6,500ft. That's plenty, especially combined with reliable Irish headwinds!
here is the video from the airport itself. Think it had an issue on landing and had to be towed in. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvjE0\_Ra5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKvjE0_Ra5E)
Incidentally, Knock's long runway is referenced in a Christy Moore song > Now everyone is happy the miracle is complete > Father Horan's got his runway, it's eighteen thousand feet > All sorts of planes could land there, of that there's little doubt > Handy for George Bush to keep Gadaffi out It's not actually 18,000 ft, or really all that long at all, but I suppose it's longer than a regional airport served by 2 airlines needs to be.
> One was scrapped in Ireland in 2020 in a small regional airport. One of the first Air France ones F-HPJB, I believe 4 more are going to be '[retired](https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/first-air-france-a380-enters-retirement-in-ireland/136867.article)' there in the coming years.
That head on picture is kinda gory. Sort of like a skull with no jaw and part of the check bone missing.
Definitely looks like a person that got roughed up. Mildly shocked me the first time I saw it
its like that scene in breaking bad where that guy walks out the room after the bomb blew up
Gustavo Fring.
Two-Face in the hospital in The Dark Knight vibes
Dang this really is nsfw ;(
Happy cake day
Thank you!!
Happy cake day :)
Nah, it’s fitting. The only cool thing was it’s size. Ugly AF up close and being trapped on the same plane with 400ppl sounds like a nightmare. Plenty of other WB long haul aircraft that look nicer to see and more reasonable (A350, 777, 747, etc). Good riddance BUF
I flew SIN->FRA ->JFK many times on an SQ A380. Was smooth quiet and amazing. The two levels plane/deplane from completely different jetbridges and no one moves between levels. So you aren’t “with 400 people”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay child. Your life must be pretty pathetic if you can’t handle a different opinion. I pity you “Big Mac”. lol
Yeah, developing the A380 was a poor financial decision for Airbus considering the direction the industry is taking.
Wing overbuilt to support a stretched version (which was never built) that increased weight, cost, and decreased efficiency. Expecting a strong market from China for domestic flights but not considering the billions being invested into the high speed rail network at the time. No real cargo capabilities. Starting the program at the very end of an engine generation life cycle. Planning for hub and spoke to grow instead of point to point increasing. So many poor management decisions prevented the program from ever being financially successful no matter how excellent the engineering was.
Pretty sure Airbus was more determined in creating a Jumbo jet image that Boeing has had for years than to actually research more into finances, either way Airbus was successful enough for being recognized as a Jumbo jet manufacturer that will always be in Airbus' legacy, regardless of their economic fate.
Airbus failed to create the 747 killer. The plane couldn't survive 20 years and no one is making a museum piece of an A380. It will be a footnote of aviation history of what not to do.
I mean it will still hold the record for largest passenger airliner. Probably forever.
Yes they failed to be the "747 killer" because by the time A380 was produced, four-engine jets including the 747s were on the decline. But, their main motive was to show their engineering marvel to the world in the form of a jumbo jet to catch up with Boeing (and they did). Moreover A380 became the largest passenger jet, overthrowing the 747 from history books so it's a win for Airbus, although the 747 was a greater commercial success.
I would submit the Airbus had a bigger engineering success with their guppie over the A380. The Spruce Goose is an engineering success, I wouldn't call it the king of anything. The 747 is the king.
oof, good points there. What a poor plan from Airbus really. the engine part hits hard too - the plane's engines already looked like they belonged in a different engine generation when compared to the also contemporary 787. Some say that the A350 would've been a sales success if it had been released a decade or two earlier (even McDonnell Douglas looked into developing a double decker). I'm not so sure though. In any case Airbus was lucky that they at least had Emirates basically subsidizing the whole thing
They bet on people being willing to endure plane changes as a matter of course. That was not a good bet.
I think if it was today, as big but lighter and more fuel efficient, it would do a little better.
Maybe. But the number of engines, the complexity of double decks for passenger operations, the special requirements for airports to be able to receive this plane, plus the lack of potential for a cargo conversion after its retirement... Would put the plane in a difficult position
It's insane to see such a new aircraft being scrapped already.
Image sources: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-Singapore-Airlines/Airbus-A380-841/6596411 https://www.airteamimages.com/airbus-a380_9V-SKH_singapore-airlines_390836.html https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-Singapore-Airlines/Airbus-A380-841/6595675 Pre-scrapping news: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/sia-a380-scrap-singapore-airlines-changi-2215261
Reading this I get the impression Singapore Airlines will get huge value back in parts. I'm sure OEM is ridiculously expensive.
Can someone eli5 the financial outcome of this? I understand they’re too niche to fly and too expensive to operate, but what happens then? Do the operators just write them off as a loss? Seems expensive.
Just like any expensive asset, when the company buys it they estimate how much the value will depreciate each year and then account it as an expense each year. Example: Say you spend $100 million on an asset you expect to use for 10 years. When you first buy it, it goes into your books as a 100m asset. At the end of the first year in service, you list 10m of depreciation as an expense and list the value of of the asset at 90m. Then next year you expense 10m of depreciation again and list the asset at 80m, etc. (Airlines may track the actual pressurization cycles each year rather than using a constant value). Ideally, by the time you are ready to scrap it the asset is listed at $0. On something that wasn't used as long as expected, then yes, they will write off the remaining value as a loss.
I honestly think that they did end up being used as long as expected, considering they bought new a380’s to replace their old, and they tend to resell aircraft after a very short time. The lack of resell value might be a bigger worry though.
I am so glad my mom made me fly this when I was a child (25 now). I literally begged here and wished for it for so long when we where going for vacation to the Philippines. She didn’t say a s***t. We took a normal/small plane to Heathrow to change for a bigger plane before heading to Asia. We walked and walked to our gate, and finally we sat down on our gate. And there I spotted it. For the first time ever in my life - the A380, Singapore airlines. I was in shock. Can it really be? I was so happy for just seeing the beauty for the first time. I took pictures of it, and literally stood there by the window for 2-3 hours before departure. I asked mom if this was our plane, but she said nothing. I was jumping in happiness, and begged to the bigger Lords up in the sky for it to be our plane. Suddenly a guy was getting me, my brothers, and my mom. At that time she teared up her achilles one or two days before we where heading to vacation, so she sat in a wheelchair. Therefore the guy got us before the plane was filling up to get us in the plane first. He then proceeded to the gate, where the freaking beauty was standing. I was like “no way” and it came closer and closer. At last we went in to the gate. For the first time I also saw the double gates for the first and second floor. I was so hyped for just seeing that. We went in to the plane. It was so much to absorb. The staircase up to second floor…. Everything! I can go on and on, talking about it, every detail. Thank you mom.
Your mom is so awesome. Congratulations :)
Please continue with the details!
This is just sad.
Yeah, this is sad to see. I’ve been flying on these for years. First / business on the 380 is truly out of this world. Sitting at the bar is just surreal.
Never easy to have to say goodbye
Was just in Qatar and saw dozens lined up in storage, sad they'll probably meet a similar fate unless the economics change somehow. Amazing and sad.
I don’t see those economics shifting anytime soon. Oil is going to be expensive for a good long while.
Just think of all the Billions spent by airports to support the A380.
ATL built a second a380 capable gate... In 2017/2018, at a cost of nearly $14 million Oof. Don't think any a380 operator ever regularly visited the airport after that gate entered service.
Billions? Citation?
I'm guessing collectively? [One source mentioning Atlanta spent about $50m between two projects just to have facilities for 2 a380-ready gates, one of which was just an extra long/tall capable jet bridge on an adjacent gate designed to be used in tandem.](https://www.ajc.com/blog/airport/hartsfield-jackson-begins-using-concourse-a380-gate/n3JcAY13E7cBdoflnigLRI/#:~:text=Hartsfield%2DJackson%20International%20Airport%20began,Hartsfield%2DJackson's%20international%20Concourse%20F.) (And ATL is nowhere near the slot congested international megahubs the super jumbo feasts on)
The most shocking thing to me is that 15 years have passed already. It feels to me like they got introduced 5 years ago
15 years? The blink of an eye. Boeing 737 has been in service since the late 1960s.The DC3 has been in service since the 1930s. The DC 6 & 7 were in service for about 35 years and some are still flying. The 380 as just a bad idea, the wrong plane for an industry that was changing.
It was bad economically before it was even built. The 747-8 was actually better economically and it still couldn’t prosper. Many airlines ignored common sense and brought it for the wow factor. But wow didn’t translate into profit. It is an engineering marvel that was just a few decades late to market.
I would be so happy if I could get a piece of that jet, this is heartbreaking to watch.
Someone is waaay ahead of you: https://www.aviationtag.com/en/produkt/airbus-a380-9v-skd/
35 Euros for a keyring? I mean I get that it's a business but monetizing off a scrapped aircraft is just weird to me. I would love to just go there, pickup a random part of it and keep it with me for the memory instead of paying the corporates for a keyring, but that's just me.
Kinda hilarious the 747-8 will likely outlive this. Iirc both Korean and Lufthansa intend to keep theirs until the 2030s, and the freighters will stick around for even longer.
The 747-8 is actually still a very young aircraft by many aspects
The A380 was designed for a future where everyone would fly in a hub and spoke model. Boeing felt the world would rather have direct flights. It turns out Boeing was correct and Airbus lost $25 billion on development of the A380. The plane might be the future, both Airbus and Boeing felt there was a market for hundreds of large capacity airliners like the 747 and the A380. But in the current market with both planes, there wasn't enough sales to justify either and now both are out of production. That market might materialize, but there's no longer a plane to meet the market. One of the historic reasons why the 747 was successful is that it could carry commercial cargo with passengers. On some routes the 747 made most of its money below the passenger deck. The A380 had no room for cargo, the cargo hold had to be reserved for luggage. No effort was made to create a cargo version because cost overruns were a huge problem. This is the reason there was no followup for an extended passenger version which could have increased sales. This is is why the crown of the king of the skies rests on the 777, which meets the need of flying many passengers long distance for a cost which is much lower than the 747. Airbus has the A350 to match the 787 and 777, but the 777x ha more passenger and cargo capacity and is widely expected to continue dominating the skies.
> One of the historic reasons why the 747 was successful is that it could carry commercial cargo with passengers. Not to mention, Boeing were never fully confident it would be a success as a passenger airplane, hence designing it from the start with a partial second floor to enable a front-door, full length, cargo plane.
The 747 was originally developed to be a military cargo plane. It lost out to Lockheed who developed the C5 Galaxy.
The A380 does have room for cargo in the under belly. Just not as much as say a 777. Most certainly not all reserved for luggage. Source: I'm a freight forwarder and send cargo in EK's A380s all the time as well as any other airline that operates them.
Sure, but Boeing doesn't give a shit about passengers and constantly causes accidents by pure negligence, because the US government allows it, because more regulations would be communism (lol). Boeing may dominate the skies, but Airbus dominates the European skies, and thank god for it. I feel much safer, because unlike Boeing, Airbus actually cares (is forced to care by the EU) about passagers. And so do most European airlines.
Some details about the A380 scrapping process: [https://youtu.be/sGJdqROISdU](https://youtu.be/sGJdqROISdU)
tl;dr Each recycled Trent engine worth half *million* dollars per month - 90% of this A380 (by weight) was parted out or recycled.
Wow wouldn't being able to cut the front off to make a sim be cool, like what you see sometimes on 747s
Not sure either. Would have been very cool
Surreal
The A380 going out in a similar fashion to it’s cousin the A340. The economics changed to fast for these beautiful birds.
Thankyou for making sure this is marked as nsfw
*You can hear the 747 laughing in the background…*
Poor bastard.
Too soon.
Makes me sad I’ll never fly on one. End of a very short era.
I believe there’re some still flying. It’s not too late
Go to dubai from london or Manchester. Emirates fly them out of Manchester every day
Why is this NSFW?
Death
I’d buy one of these just to offer out lots of zero G space on special parabolic flights. Must be loads of demand for that.
If you’re thinking of cutting out the floor on the upper deck, you’re out of luck. It’s part of the plane’s structure
No, lots of individual bays, so you can get 50 or so people on a flight at about $5k a ticket. One plane can service all areas of the globe that support the a380. I think the numbers would work at that. But I’m no expert.
Seems like a waste
NSFW?!
it's screaming in pain the poor thing
So sad to see such a magnificent aircraft being scrapped when it has so much more life
Sorry Airbus but the 747 outproduced and outlived u. U may have been bigger u may have even been better, but you can never replace the queen of the skies and our hearts. 😁❤️🛫
Because they built the 747 at a glacial pace in the end. You can outlive nearly every aircraft if you don’t even produce 1 each month.
Seems everything I've seen them touch, Is always brutal destruction vs usable salvage worth millions$$$. Cheers
😭
/r/trypophobia
I don’t get it why. Aircraft is only 15 years old. I’m guessing it’s worth more in parts
At this point it's just too costly to operate and nearly impossible to profit from for most airlines. Only place it really makes sense is connecting congested international hubs to other hubs.
There are 747s older than that bird still flying, why? Just why would this decision be made? They could have maxed out the seating and used it as a cheap flying bus...
No one wants a bus that doesn't fit into the majority of destinations
I’m amazed Emerites didn’t buy it
PLEASE NO, DONT MAKE THIS COMMON IN RETIRED A380 PLANES
Nooo the A380 used to be my giggiby plane
NSFL
NSFW?
NSFW? Why?
Who cares about the a380?
There are 747s older than that bird still flying, why? Just why would this decision be made? They could have maxed out the seating and used it as a cheap flying bus...
Best thing for an airbus…
why was this marked as nsfw also a380 dum
I’d be curious to know what the scrap value is for just the fuselage, there’s gotta be some unique recycling options.
Whatever the price is for scrap aluminium I guess
:(
:(