An Airbus A380 an an air show with an A350 approaching. (Image: Airbus)
Effective this month, Boeing has cut back production of its iconic 747 to just six planes a year, as we noted several months ago when we speculated that the big plane might be on its way out of the aviation scene altogether in the months and years ahead. And now there is talk that the 747’s only double-decker rival, the Airbus A380, might be nearing a similar fate.
The latest blow to the A380 came from Singapore Airlines, which has decided not to renew a lease for one of its A380 after it expires about a year from now. The airline operates 19 of the planes.
The Wall Street Journal noted that the rejection of a single leased plane isn’t a huge blow to Airbus, but represents “a symbolic hit” for the A380, for which it said Airbus has been struggling to find customers.
The manufacturer said recently that its A380 production will be reduced from 27 planes a year in 2015 to just 12 a year by 2018. “The backlog of A380s to be delivered has eroded during years of no or few orders,” the Journal noted. It said that Airbus was expected to start losing money on the A380 once again under the lower production rate, and suggested that not even the manufacturer’s existing backlog of scheduled production is completely safe since some airlines are canceling their earlier orders.
Don’t miss: How Emirates glamorously welcomes a new plane (photos)
Emirates’ new version of the A380 has 617 seats. (Image: Emirates)
A recent article in TheStreet.com cited one aerospace expert who noted that the international aviation market’s interest has shifted from ultra-large passenger jets like the 747 and A380 to somewhat smaller, newer twin-aisle jets like the 787 and A350 that are more fuel-efficient and can be deployed more profitably on longer non-stop routes. He said the sweet spot now is for planes that carry 300 to 370 passengers.
The Airbus A380s currently in use carry from 400 to 538 passengers in a three-class configuration, although the plane is certified to carry up to 853 in a one-class layout, and Emirates has come out with a 615-passenger version with two classes.
Manufacturers are turning to larger versions of the 787, 777 and A350 for the years ahead, a trend that could siphon even more business away from the double-deckers from airlines that want aircraft with more capacity, the article noted.
Readers: Could you live comfortably in a world without double-decker jumbo jets? What do you think of the A380?
Don’t miss out on these popular TravelSkills posts! Shocked passenger refuses to pay $3 for water | More Delta SkyMiles for Asian trips | Tips from a Hawaiian Vacation | JetBlue-Delta slugfest means lower fares | Test your planespotting skills! )
Do you follow us on Twitter? It’s a great way to keep up with the latest news!
Please join the 125,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!
Bay_Area_Husky says
September 16, 2016 at 9:28 amare you the same guy who comments on a lot of Wilner’s stuff?
phoenix00 says
September 15, 2016 at 5:34 pmAhh the heyday of the 747…. I’m already missing the A340 in some respects, I suspect I’ll miss the 747 even worse….. yes I know why the hump is there, but it still turned out to be a damn good airliner no? 🙂
As far as airport expansion in Asia goes I think China is a special case – a combination of rapidly growing middle class, more money than things to do with said money, non-pluralistic/non-democratic government, and excess available land. I know the political situation has put the brakes on expansions in Turkish secondary cities, and low energy prices are slowing things down in the Middle East outside of Iran. And then in the rest of Southeast Asia you may have relatively stable governments but slow-growing economies and little-no land to expand. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And yeah I grumble with you re: the London sitch. Boris Johnson did the world no favors.
Lastly what else is going to further enable long-haul LCCs? The A321neoLR. I believe Russia and eastern Europe are in reach of most major Asian cities, we shall see if these routes are economically viable.
Tom McNamara says
September 15, 2016 at 5:05 pmDon’t forget most commercial aircraft design originated for the need for bombers. The 747, by contrast was a purely consumer-oriented model which was dependent on regulation to survive. But the new twist is that with the TPP on the horizon, Boeing specificially designed a plane that would be a big seller in Asia and offset a big post TPP trade deficit.
Janak Parekh says
September 15, 2016 at 11:23 amThanks, tweaked the language. That was a typo.
Whether or not we like 4 engines from a mental perception of safetiness, the reality is 2 engines are the future. 4 engines are too expensive, and engines today are much more reliable than they used to be. Apart from that one US Airways flight, there simply aren’t regular issues with 2 engines anymore, which is why ETOPS certification has basically expanded to cover any possible destination.
Frankly, I’m amazed at what aircraft can get ETOPS now. It was long thought that the A320 series wasn’t good enough to cover, e.g., LA to Hawaii, and yet we have Virgin sending A320s from SFO to HNL/OGG and AA sending A321s from LAX to all the Hawaiian Islands, without issues, day in and day out. Wing redesigns have made these planes incredibly fuel-efficient and increased range even beyond their original parameters.
RichLL says
September 15, 2016 at 11:09 amNor always – SwissAir used to put a ton of economy seats in the bubble.
RichLL says
September 15, 2016 at 11:07 am“many routes simply can’t afford or don’t need the widebodies”
The issue isn’t widebodies surely, because the A330, A350, 767, 777 and 787 are all widebodies (which I define as having two aisles)
The issue is two decks and.or 4 engines. The A340 is out of favor even though it isn’t double-decked. It just is 4-engined and burns fuel.
But, post-Sully, I still prefer 4 engines
Janak Parekh says
September 15, 2016 at 9:00 amFascinating retrospective! Do note that EWR wasn’t in United’s network back then, and “gouging” was relative, since airline tickets were just plain expensive. 🙂
Ironically, UA (in particular) is planning a return to domestic widebodies, with a special subfleet of 777-300ERs for, amongst others, you guessed it: ORD-SFO. The 777, though, is of course much more fuel-efficient than the 747, and it’ll be in a high-density configuration. I think they also got a good deal on the planes…
John R. Grout says
September 15, 2016 at 8:52 amYears ago, before yield-driven seat pricing and people being forced to transfer at out-of-the-way hubs like IAD and EWR to drive profits, United would operate one 747-400 each way between ORD and SFO… and you could not only choose to connect at ORD (in my case, it was the best choice for ROC), but also choose to book your seat on that flight and they wouldn’t try to gouge you in either case.
My correspondents at United said that if the bird wasn’t full, it hemorrhaged money on domestic routes… and since they could only be sure to fill one flight a day between those hubs no matter what, that’s all they would run year-round. In tourist season, they’d sometimes add a second, and they would also reposition 747-400’s that had been flying internationally to SFO for maintenance, so occasionally passengers would get a pleasant surprise and be up-planed. They usually had Spanish and Portuguese flight magazines on board, so I assume they were flying to BA and Rio and Sao Paolo and places like that.
Chris McGinnis says
September 15, 2016 at 7:47 amThanks for your comment! Very interesting.
Janak Parekh says
September 15, 2016 at 7:05 amTrue, many airports in Asia are lagging demand, but they have been expanding or have plans to expand. Look at airports in China, for instance. This is still far better than what goes on in Europe, where the busiest airport dithers for decades whether to add a third runway. 🙂 And, of course, there’s the huge expansion or planned expansion of airports and capacity in the Middle East, Turkey, etc.
The situation is somewhat ameliorated by the 777 and 777X programs, whose ability to allow dense 3-4-3 seating helps 2-engine planes come close enough to the 747 in capacity. The 777X’s large variants in particular will enable virtually the same number of seats as a 747, which was never designed for the role it grew into; that iconic hump, after all, was Boeing’s hedge that the 747 would never be good for passenger traffic, just for freight.
Also great point about low-cost carriers. These are carriers for whom the new A320 program and the 787 have allowed low cost-of-entry. You’re also seeing mainline carriers start to adopt low-cost alternatives, especially in Asia (e.g., the growth of Jetstar), which also fuels the use of smaller narrow bodies and widebodies. That, in turn, also feeds into the dense seating plans we have today.
None of it is as glorious as the heyday of the 747, but in terms of seat capacity, many routes simply can’t afford or don’t need the widebodies.
phoenix00 says
September 15, 2016 at 12:11 amIt’s not just the fuel consumption, but also the cost of engine maintenance and overhauls that weighs down quad-engine jets. Shame, as the 747 and A340 are amongst my favorite aircraft.
You’re off regarding capacity increases at airports though. Investments in infrastructure have not kept up with growth in passenger movements, and airports especially in Asia are increasingly slot-constrained ie. Haneda, Japan; Manilla, Phillipines; and Busan, South Korea. Even HKG is slot-constrained until the third runway is built.
I think one of the biggest factors which the author misses is the growth in low-cost airlines, who a) cannot operate very-large quad-engine jets from secondary airports; b) favor higher frequencies with smaller aircraft; and c) are unwilling to pay the leases these aircraft demand!
Janak Parekh says
September 14, 2016 at 6:50 pmYes, they’re doomed… or, more precisely, 4-engine jets are doomed (including the 747, A380, and the A340) since they consume too much fuel.
Apart from a few airports (London is on the top of the list—though I wonder if Brexit changes demand at LHR long-term), the A380 simply isn’t necessary for most carriers. They can run more smaller planes more efficiently, especially with the A350, 777, and 787. When the 777X comes out, which packs even more seats than the 777, I think that’ll spell doom.
Apart from fuel costs, the other reason this is happening is many airports have been increasing capacity. Many of the major airports in North America and Asia now have more runways and can handle more simultaneous jets.
cahdot says
September 14, 2016 at 5:50 pmi want them to stay so i can get a ride up top someday!!!!
Bullet Bob says
September 14, 2016 at 5:19 pmMy only trip on an A380 was a RT SFO SIN on SQ in January 2013. The business class section on the upper deck was only half full, so the flights were delightful. However, if you look at the seat maps on SeatGuru, even the business class cabins look cramped and without enough toilets. Most airport immigration facilities really aren’t equipped to handle the hordes of passengers that come off in bunches, so I avoid A380’s when I book.
On the other hand, the 747-400 was my favorite plane. On some airlines, such as VS, the business class portion of the upper deck was like flying on a private plane. VS has replaced their 747-400’s with 787-9’s. The improved humidity didn’t offset the smaller Upper Class Suite and fewer toilets for me.
Kirk says
September 14, 2016 at 5:12 pmI generally agree. However, the upstairs of Delta’s 747 is pretty special with 1+1 seating (that is unique in North America) and makes for a special experience. However, they will all be retired within a year and I doubt we’ll ever see something like that again in North America.
Kirk says
September 14, 2016 at 5:08 pmI suggest you hurry up and book that flight. I don’t think your hashtags will help keep these planes flying unfortunately
JD says
September 14, 2016 at 5:02 pm#savethequeenofthesikes
#savethe747
my dream is to fly in the upper cabin of one someday. Can’t do that if they no longer fly them!!
jeff says
September 14, 2016 at 5:01 pmAs a passenger the size makes little difference. You still only have 18″ (if you’re lucky) of seat width. I think the Asian carriers can still justify them fiscally but with some of them going to non major airports i.e. SJU this siphon has to be making a difference in heading to SFO or LAX.