What is your honest opinion of the Airbus A380?

Question

I think it looks like an amazing aircraft, but a lot of people have been criticising it. I'm just interested in other people's opinions too. What do you think of it?

Answer 1

Airbus has made the A380 for a record.As of now 3 A380s are in service all in Singapore Airlines.The A380 is way more than any one can think of.It has proven to land in normal airports,become a luxury jet and is very environmental-friendly

Answer 2

Failure to Launch.

If you have some time google MD12 you will find a picture that you will believe is a A380. The 380 was designed by people that worked for MD but left when it was taken over by Boeing. Boeing  reilzed it was 50 years to early for a aircraft of that size.

Airbus has got 143 orders on the A380 they need 300 to break even. Boeing has got more than 700 orders on the B787 that only came after the release of the A380.

I think airbus relized what happend and that is why they designed the A350 so quickly after the A380

Answer 3

It's an amazing achievement but probably not a winner.  It's huge, expensive, and suited only to a very few long international routes.  It may not ever make any money for the manufacturer because too few may be ordered.  Fuel prices could turn it into a white elephant overnight.  The 747 almost suffered the same fate in the mid 70s.    

.

Time will tell but I don't see it becoming the big deal that the 747 was when they first came into service.  At that time that the 747 came into use all airliners were long thin tubes and the switch to the spacious wide body cabin was much awaited by the public and advertised in the media.  People went out of their way to just see one and to fly on them.  

.

In the last 30 years the traveling public has gotten used to wide bodies of different types and probably not all that much in a hurry to travel on one that seats twice as many people.

Imagine that crowd!  Also the A380 is really only suited to feed in to large hub airports.  Precisely the kind of airport people are looking to avoid.

.

From a purely aesthetic point of view.  The A380 is kinda homely.  It's got a little too much of a "beluga" look to it. The new larger than ever 747-8 with the high windscreen and new wing looks more stately.

.

Answer 4

It's too big for many airports, and will need to sell a lot of tickets to be worth the cost. It would make a great cargo plane, if there weren't already so many good, older planes to be converted to that.

Answer 5

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

My brother fly's one

Answer 6

I heard heathrow had to extend the runway for it right? that plane is far too big... :)

Answer 7

There are a few airports in the US that are building the necessary structures to accomodate it, LAX is one, and I believe JFK is the other.

I think it's used for the Pacific routes right now. And some trans-Pacific routes are very popular, so I don't see a problem, eventually, with selling enough seats on the A380.

It's not just a Singapore Airlines thing. There are a couple of airlines getting the big jet, and if they did not think it would be profitable AT SOME POINT, they would not be ordering it.

And BTW, the 747's first commercial flight was in 1970, not 1975.

Answer 8

Anything new which is different than the current or conventional always brings some criticism along with it, especially if the people are satisfied with the current or conventional technology. If it works well people give credit or if fails people make it a history. What happened with Boeing 747 when it was flown for the first time in 1975. People made fun of it saying that this machine will never fly. Today the same people don't get tired of singing praise of this JUMBO. They say that this is one of best aircraft man has made. Same will happen with 380. Problems do come. Solutions are there. It is the 'time' which will test & tell the outcome of all such man made marvels.

Answer 9

I think it's probably too big to see widespread use.  It might be practical on high volume routes like the Pacific runs, but I don't see it becoming popular in domestic service or even Transatlantic.  I could be wrong.

Many existing airports will lack facilities to accomodate an aircraft this large.

Something worthy of note is that the longest range airliner during most of the 70's was the old standby, Boeing 707-320, which had been redesigned for longer range.  707 was a sound design that dominated for a long time, but was not practical on short to medium length runs.

That's why the trend in the late 60's and 70's was toward shorter haul jets such as the DC-9 and Boeing 727.  The 747 proved most practical in long hauls such as Dallas to Hawaii or across oceans.  Even then, one 747 with 300-400 passengers could overwhelm a terminal or customs facility.

The trend since the 80's has been toward very heavy twin jets such as the A300, 767, 777 and others.  This is possible in part because of improved reliability of engines.

I think there could be a niche for the A380, but it is a huge (pun not intended) gamble for Airbus, which by and large has made good business decisions.

Answer 10

There a380 in my opinion will suffer particularly in an emergency! For instance, if it's supposed to make an emergency landing at a small airport anywhere. It cannot and although it might land safely, it will overshoot the small runway and probably with it's long wings, it will start to hit other things in it's ways upon touch down.

Answer 11

When the 747 entered service in 1970, it was intended long term as a freighter- that's why the cockpit is on the upper deck, and the freighter has a nose door.  

The 747 passenger airplanes did well because the airplane had more range than anything else.  The A380 has no range advantage over A350, A340-600, 787, 777-200LR, 777-300ER...  what it mainly has is that it is really big.  So, on high density routes, fewer flights- but, needs more 'feeder' flights (small airplanes) to fill it too.  

Fuel economy- it's not really much better than the (newer technology) 787 or A350 will have.

not a good freighter- the existing freighter orders were cancelled- because it can't carry dense cargo.  

Luxury- well, there is a lot of floor space.  That will sell to some degree.

The market for it seems relatively limited; presumably that's why Airbus only set up production for no more than 4/month.

Answer 12

To be honest about it, I don't think it will  be economically sound, look at the 747 classic or 400 most of it were now converted to freighter cargo. Look at SQ or Emirates they all turned theirs into cargo or lease their 747.SQ or Singapore Airlines are just like that they want to be the first to use the A380 in the same way they had so many 747 before now all of them are gone if not lease. The Emirates their 747 400 are being lease by Atlas Air and raking money doing cargo from as far as Africa & Europe to Asia via Middle East.