Posted on 06/05/2018 5:57:10 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
A German investment company said on Tuesday it would strip two unwanted Airbus A380 superjumbo passenger jets for parts after failing to find an airline willing to keep them flying following a decision by Singapore Airlines not to keep them in service... ...Throwing the loss-making program a lifeline for a decade, Emirates recently ordered up to 36 more A380s and set out plans on Tuesday to install 56 Premium Economy seats.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Cite? I'm not finding anything like that, other than production being scaled back from 2 per month to 1.5 in 2017.
The A380 had a $US20 billion development cost. The cost of developing the 747-8 was only a fraction of that – around $US4 billion.
Boeing has delivered 124 of the 150 ordered thus far... at $400m each... including 28 new orders from UPS in 2016, and the USAF ordering 2 for the next Air Force One last year.
Thanks! That definitely didn’t sound right to me. :)
The first one was delivered in late October of 2011, so that means they're turning out almost nine Dreamliners per month, if one assumes a constant production rate (which is probably not the case, usually production rate increases as time goes on due to the learning curve).
I flew on a 787 from Tokyo to San Francisco, it’s a very nice aircraft.
Good ol’ Europe.
The Concorde, now the fat goofy A380.
One too skinny and expensive running to pay per trip, the other designed without much forward thought to cargo and versatility. Neither could outdo the 747.
Thanks for the info. Did not think of going to Wiki. They have a lot if info. I fly a lot and know the planes, but not the nuts and bolts of the industry.
Have not yet flown on the 787. Maybe next trip to Frankfurt.
Here’s a great video which explains why Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner is kicking Airbus’s butt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIdzF1_b5M&index=8&list=PLqtidGFC6X0sv52gdw5i0TYHBShxHhldi
This guy has some great videos.
The Concorde, now the fat goofy A380.
One too skinny and expensive running to pay per trip, the other designed without much forward thought to cargo and versatility. Neither could outdo the 747.
You can line up PhDs from here to the moon to run your economy, but they won't be as careful, as circumspect, and as thrifty with taxpayer money as are managers who are spending their own money and the money of private investors.
But ONLY IF (big IF there!) the A380 was completely full, flying at nameplated fuel efficiency.
If you fly only 3/4 the full planeload of people, you burn (nearly) the same amount of fuel, but get only 3/4 the revenue = even higher per passenger fuel rate.
If you fly only 3/4 the full planeload of people, you burn (nearly) the same amount of fuel, but get only 3/4 the revenue = even higher per passenger fuel rate.
Great point.
According to the video cited by FReeper mkleesma (in post #28 above), Airbus had cut back A380 production to one per month back in October 2016, whereas Boeing was cranking out 787s at the rate of approximately two per week.
If they're breaking up A380s and scrapping them (as this article says), I think they're probably producing them at a rate of approximately zero.
According to the excellent video cited by mkleesma, the 787 (and other super-efficient long-haul aircraft) are changing the whole passenger route business model of the airline industry worldwide.
A 10 year service life is not very long in aviation. As stated it must be the operating costs.
“very nice aircraft.”
Agreed. I flew it round-trip once from Tokyo to Singapore - business class; gotta love those fully reclining seats.
Unfortunately on the return leg I had a killer migraine, and the moment we touched down in Tokyo, I was using the vomit bag. Such a waste of flying first class...
Source(s), please?
Thanks.
Not very good sources. This one has basically nothing but the headline.
I think it’s funny stating “747 loses its crown”. First because the 747 overall is 50 years old. So what if it took that long to lose? Second, because it’s apparent the 380 is a “bust”, within 10 years. They can hardly use it for cargo even, if at all. It may be a nice plane, but sounds like once again the gov-funded morons failed to deliver something that is actually “efficient” - i.e., value for the money, ROI. Just like Concorde. All alot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. A speck on the landscape of aviation history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.