Airbus’s plan for the A380 exposes its own weaknesses
The A380 seems to not be a top seller, like Airbus wanted. The A380plus is a half-baked attempt to renew the airplane.
The Airbus A380 is indeed one of the most controversial airplanes in the World, with some people liking the airplane, because of its spacious cabin, and others criticising it (like Teal Group’s Richard Aboulafia) because of its high fuel consumption levels in comparison to smaller twin-jets (like the Boeing’s 777/777X and 787 Dreamliner, or Airbus’s own A330/A330neo and A350XWB), its unability to enter in 70% of the World’s major airports (like Haneda in Tokyo, Japan), or its high maintenance costs, in comparison to the smaller twins. I have a dislike for the A380 because of those aforementioned reasons above.
The Airbus A380: A great idea executed at the wrong time?
The original idea behind the Airbus A380 was to create a big airplane capable to fly a large ammounts of passengers between major hubs, while coping with the high demand for air travel of the late 1990s. However, the 11th September 2001 terror attacks and the 2008 stock market and financial crisis, with the subsequent declines of demand for air travel, proved that bigger airplanes does not always mean cheaper travel prices, in my opinion. That made the Airbus A380, one airplane which was designed at the right time, but which arrived to the market at a wrong time (it first flew in 2005), with the consequences which we’re seeing. Is my opinion that Airbus should’ve focused on a proper competitor to the Boeing’s 777 — not the Airbus A340 (a quad-engined airplane), although I still like the A340–500 and 600, since they have the charm of the older Airbuses, likewise the A330 has — instead of a large superjumbo. However, Airbus is doing now a proper competitor to both Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and the 777, and is called the A350XWB.
The A380, however, gained popularity among some airlines, like Emirates, as their flagship for the highly demanded routes which the companies already have, and with that, the possibility of offering amenities & a comfort level which the passengers indeed like. The Airbus A380 is indeed a truly great achievement of the engineering, but it comes with weaknesses (and a hefty cost of development estimated in $20–30 billion), specially on the efficiency on the mission which the airplane will perform.
A380’s own weaknesses: costs, airport adaptation and technology used on the manufacturing
The Airbus A380 was designed mostly for the Asian airlines in focus, with Airbus assuming that airports in Asia will be congested in the future, thus requiring the Airbus A380 as a solution. However, that ignores the possibility of construction of new airports or the expansion of the current ones. Another factor ignored is the management of the air traffic, which is also taking into account. Another weakness of the Airbus A380 is its own big wingspan — of 79.8 metres (262 feet) — which excludes 70% of the World’s major airports which only are able to allow airplanes with wingspans of 65 metres (213 feet) or less. Boeing solved a similar problem which the 777X would face, using folding wingtips (which will reduce the wingspan from 71.9 metres (235 feet) to just 64.8 metres (212 feet)). That allows the 777X to enter on Code E gates without major constraints, thus allowing it on 70% of the major airports in the World.
Another weakness its the fact that the A380’s maintenance costs are higher than smaller-sized twinjets, like the Airbus’s own A330 and A350XWB. That happens because the A380’s inherently large size makes it costlier to operate than the smaller ones, and because of the fact that uses four older-generation engines (like the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and the Engine Alliance GP7200), with older technology, makes the matters even worse. That alone makes the A380’s maintenance costs unbearable to some airlines. Plus, the fact that the airplane is so large, makes the airplane unattractive for airlines which seek to offer more frequencies, thus more flexibility for their customers (which is the case of Cathay Pacific of Hong Kong, which is favouring the smaller A350XWB and Boeing’s 777). The cargo volume also is not a good selling point for the A380–800, being less than offered by either Boeing’s 777–300ER or Airbus’s own A350–1000XWB.
The A380’s high fuel costs is also a weakness, since the airplane’s older-technology engines are also less fuel efficient than those ones found on the smaller twinjets (like the General Electric’s GEnx or the Rolls-Royce’s Trent 1000 on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the General Electric’s GE9X on the Boeing 777X, the Rolls-Royce’s Trent XWB on the Airbus A350XWB, or the Rolls-Royce’s Trent 7000 on the Airbus A330neo). The fuel costs are also exacerbated due to the fact that the oil prices were beyond $100 per barrel (although with some points lower) for a long time (2008–2014), thus increasing the prices of the jet fuel needed to operate any airplane.
The A380plus: Half-baked renewal of a now-undesired airplane
Due to those facts, Airbus decided to launch a new version of the A380, called A380plus, which adds a winglet (similar in shape to the one in McDonnell Douglas’s project called MD-12), in order to reduce fuel consumption and opens the possibility to install a 11-abreast economy class. However, I think the A380plus is a half-baked idea, since I feel that it does not address the weaknesses of the A380 as it should. For example, the wings of the airplane could be built in carbon fibre and titanium instead of aluminum, reducing considerable weight, thus giving to the A380 a considerable fuel efficiency.
The engine is also another point which feels that it was unaddressed. The current engines cannot provide further efficiency gains which the A380 needs in order to compete with the Boeing’s newest 777–9, which has new technology engines and a new CFRP wing, thus with high level of efficiency. So, a new engine for the airplane is required to do the job. However, the demand for the airplanes like the Airbus A380 is scarce, thus making any possibility of developing a new engine a thing which is considered unnecessary, because the demand for superjumbos like the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747–8 is so low, that the engine companies (GE, Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney) would not be able to recover the costs of the development of a engine suitable-sized for the A380.
And I cannot consider a half-baked attempt to renew the Airbus A380 superjumbo attractive enough for the World’s commercial airlines, let alone Emirates — the biggest operator of the type — since oil prices won’t stay low forever, thus making the A380, a airplane with a trully stark prospect for its future, in my opinion.
Conclusion: The A380 is a missed opportunity which Airbus failed to catch.
The Airbus A380 is a airplane which has merits, but it seems that Airbus did not predict the problems which the airplane would have to face, in terms of economics, flexibility and also in terms of technological innovations which the airplane would not see incorporated in the design. It seems to have learnt from that mistake while developing the A350XWB, which in my opinion is a much better airplane — in those points and also aesthetically, in terms of design — than the A380 (and is comparable to Boeing’s 777 and 787 Dreamliner). That makes the A380 one case of a missed opportunity. In this case, the missed opportunity was to make the A380 the airplane of the future (that title is now shared between Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and Airbus’s A350XWB).
The A380plus, despite being a good idea to solve the current problems which the A380 faces, still falls short of solving the major problems which drags the A380 to poor sales in the recent years, in comparison to both Boeing’s 777X (777–9) and Airbus’s own A350–1000XWB — the biggest twinjets in the history, in my opinion.
That’s what I’ve to say in this article about how Airbus’s idea for the A380plus could have indirectly exposed A380ceo’s own weaknesses — Please follow me on Twitter (@O530CarrisPT is my username).
