Not so much customers, but Airlines. A Jumbo is a massive asset, the more flexibility an airline has with its asset the better it can service customers and adjust to market changes.
The 380 was from its inception, ONLY going to be able to service, high demand large demand routes, not only for passenger, but even FREIGHT, due to the need for stronger and longer runways.. It was always limited to where it could service, and route length further restricted this in where it would be financially viable for service. IE two airports relatively close MAY be able to service the 380, but the 4 jet burn, costs on a shorter trip could not be profitable without a full plane, which the shorter route may not have the demand to fill a 380 consistently.
I can understand why Airbus thought this thing wasn’t going to turn out the dog that it did, asian growth over the last few decades has meant far more transpacific traffic, and long routes to both the Americas over the pacific and Europe as well.. However, the initial sales forecast of 1200 such planes, seemed VERY optimistic to me, even when I first read about this thing being built. And I admit NO knowledge of the airline industry. However I do know that the 747, only about 1500 total were produced by Boeing over its 40 year production cycle, and it was basically killed by the ETOPS, had ETOPS never come to be, I am sure Boeing would likely still be making them.. but as ETOPS certification allowed twin engines to fly further and further from airports, the 4 engine 747 was going to go away.
But anyway, the idea that 380 would get close to the same sales as the 747 sounded pipe dream from the start.
Its a very interesting airplane, don’t get me wrong, but it just misread the market.
Airbus, backed by the taxpayers of Europe, doesn't have to worry about going bankrupt, so it can afford to pursue a pipe dream, conceived of in order to bolster the egos of Airbus management.
Once jet engines became reliable enough to trust (ie be certified) only two vs three/four engine configurations - it was all over for the super jumbos. The graph above clearly demonstrates the fuel/pay load differentials.
I first flew on a 747 (Pan Am) in the mid-70s as a young teen on my first trip to Europe. We left out of SFO, and had to land in Labrador to re-fuel in order to reach Heathrow. I've been fortunate to be able to travel to many places in the world, and have traveled on 747s to/from Asia, as well as 380s to/from Europe.
In fact, 380s take so long to board that once when we were connecting from Rome through DeGaul and were delayed through customs (non EU have passport control when leaving) that we almost missed our flight. We thought we were the last ones to board, but the plane sat for another 1/2 hour as more people and more supplies continued to be loaded. They literally take hours to prep, load and fly.
As so many posters above have already pointed out, it's just easier on airports, passengers, crew and maintenance to fly mid-range planes with two engines. They are more flexible, more fuel efficient, and more comfortable for passengers.
Whether it's Boeing's Dreamliner 787 (flew that to Greece last fall), or Airbus' 320 line up (countless times), this is where the industry is headed - actually, already there.
And the thing is the A380 will never be a widely used freighter like the 747 (all the unfilled orders for the 747-8 are freighters).
The upper deck on the A380 makes for a lot of wasted space on a freighter.
The freighter version of the 747-8 has a much shorter upper deck than the passenger version.