Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
with the poor to no sales of the A380, we can guess the world isnt ready for a plane this big,like the concorde before it its another example of a supply looking for a demand.
with the poor to no sales of the A380, we can guess the world isnt ready for a plane this big,like the concorde before it its another example of a supply looking for a demand.
The A380 was never meant to compete against the 787 for orders, so what's the problem ?
And with over 300 orders( there are surely more to come) i wouldn't call it a total failure.
It's most likely gonna be the last 4-engined airliner.And to me, it will be the last exciting plane for a long time.
Agreed - The 380 and 787 are geared towards different markets. Its also costs a lot more to buy a 380 than 787.. A better comparison would be the 787 v 350
The A380 was never meant to compete against the 787 for orders, so what's the problem ?
And with over 300 orders( there are surely more to come) i wouldn't call it a total failure.
It's most likely gonna be the last 4-engined airliner.And to me, it will be the last exciting plane for a long time.
As far as I know, they haven't sold enough of them to break even on the costs to make them.
As far as I know, they haven't sold enough of them to break even on the costs to make them.
I think its still pretty young it its lifecycle and is too early to come to the conclusion as a failure. It is still in prod and from what I know will be for awhile to come. It is the best plane for the job for long haul (heavy) flights. Having flown on one - I must say hands down it is more comfortable to fly in than the 777 (which is still better for long haul than any other plane except maybe 787 and 380)
Both are great planes and each one serves a different segment of the business. I wonder what the profit margin is for these planes. The Airbus A380 costs $403.9 million and the 787 costs $290 million per the article provided above. I'm sure there's some heavy wheeling and dealing because these planes carry a HUGE sticker price. Yikes.
Those are list prices of planes. Airlines pay less than that.
You are comparing different animals. The A380 was built for slot limited airports (like LHR) or an increase of capacity that adding a second flight wouldn't be warranted or cost effective.
The 787 was designed for long thin routes (such as IAH-LOS or DEN-NRT like UA is doing) that otherwise would not be feasible.
I think its still pretty young it its lifecycle and is too early to come to the conclusion as a failure. It is still in prod and from what I know will be for awhile to come. It is the best plane for the job for long haul (heavy) flights. Having flown on one - I must say hands down it is more comfortable to fly in than the 777 (which is still better for long haul than any other plane except maybe 787 and 380)
Definitely agree. I don't think it is a failure. It just hasn't generated any profits yet for Airbus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
