do you think the Airbus A380 is practical?

Question

The double decker airliner

Answer 1

No. Airbus were hoping for the same success with the A380 as Boeing enjoyed with the B747. In my opinion, the aircraft is too large for economic viabilty. Large volumes of passengers are required to fly the routes that the aircraft is to service. Airlines flying the A380 will most likely reduce the number of flights per week on those routes. But flexibilty is often what attracts a passegner to fly a particular airline over another.

Can you imagine being on an aircraft with 600 other people. Imagine waiting to disembark. And as mentioned before, the customs and immigrations congestions.

I believe the only way the A380 will be attractive to passengers is as a luxery aircraft. More legroom and services on board such as open bars and such.

Answer 2

Practical for the airlines that use it if it's promised "numbers" hold true. Airliners are rated in the industry by seat-mile cost. Obviously that means how much it costs to move that seat you're sitting in 1 mile. Everything from the cost of fuel, maintenance, landing fees, and the salaries of the crew are all figured in. If the A380 can move X numbers of passengers X number of miles cheaper than the aircraft that said airline was using before means yes the plane is practical.

Now if you want to know if Airbus spent the money wisely to develop the plane I would have to say it is not practical. Few airlines need this size plane except the Asia carriers. I believe that in the long run the A380 will not be seen as a success and too few will be built to break even on the cost of development. If this does indeed turn out to be true, just like the Concorde the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and U.K. will write off the project as a bad investment and the citizens of those countries will have spent their tax money to furnish a few airlines with some very big planes.

Answer 3

It depends on who you ask, and what kind of market do you see.

For a "main trunk line" it can be made profitable. By that, I mean a MAJOR route, freight or passenger. The longer the distance, the better.

The idea is instead of buying MORE planes to handle increased capacity, simply switch to LARGER planes. Thus, same crew can generate more revenue (25%-50% more passengers), but just a little more expenses (mainly fuel).

Is it realistic? Depends on the market. Singapore Airline, which specialized in deluxe accommodations over long distances, likes the idea, as they serve Australia and Europe in very long-range flights (8-12 hours at a time) Other long-haul carriers are interested as well, esp. with Airbus's name behind it. Imagine Fedex's air freight capacity on a main route increase 40% without adding additional flight crew...

However, it would ONLY work on the main trunks, and being so big, it can only land at certain airports that can handle its mass and maintainence. Smaller planes gives you more flexible scheduling options, and ability to spread them out throughout the day to have MORE flights instead of just a few flights of larger planes. The short-haul lines like SFO to LAX (roughly 1 hour and 10 minutes) is ONLY flown by 737s because it is so short and up to 15-20 flights are scheduled per carrier per day (just check Southwest and United schedule!) If you fly a A380 one of these will take place of 3-4 of these 737s, but then you will get a flight every 3-4 hours... something people don't want.

Add to that the delays that Airbus has getting the product out, and you'll see charges that A380 is "not" practical, it's too big, and so forth.

Well, when 747 first came out people also thought it was too big, we'll never need something that big, so on and so forth.

Answer 4

The intent of such very large airliner is to benefit for the large scale advantage. If you have twice as many passenger, but still one pilot and one co-pilot, one radar, one auto-pilot, etc; then the % of the airplane that is non revenue reduces proportionally, making the airplane more economical per passenger carried. This, of course, is provided that you have enough passenger; a half empty plane is not that good a business.
So, yes, if the conditions are right, the A380 may make a lot of sense and be practical.

Answer 5

Well considering it can only land at some 20 airports (I mean land and taxi to a gate) i would say no. Airbus was banking on size and not route flexibility. Boeing took the approach of Route flexablity over size in its new 787..and look the 787 has become the best selling pre-roll out commercial jet in history. Over 550 orders before it has even come out of the hanger. Airbus might want to move there efforts to the A350XWB

Answer 6

Of course not, but isn't that part of the point? Like a flying hotel (or warehouse depending on the configuration).

I remember working at the FedEx hub in Memphis when they were talking about getting a fleet of those a few years ago. I was always geeked whenever they talked about the sheer size of the thing and how much cargo it could carry. I was almost sad when I left because I knew I probably would not get another chance to look around the 380. I think FedEx cancelled the order--they were delaying too much or something.

That was one of the coolest things about working FedEx was being on the planes.

Answer 7

Think of it this way...
Imagine 600 (or more) people getting off of a plane all at once and going through customs...
Very few airports are equipped to handle such a large aircraft both in terms of number of passengers and in gate space. Few airports could accommodate the 747 when it first came out.

Answer 8

Airlines make money for people to fly. The more they fly the more they make.
understand it is bigger than others but due to the new technology it is better on jet fuel and cost the same as most much smaller jets.

Answer 9

Not so practical. If they added 1 more engine, yes. Because there is alot of weight from passengers, luggage, and fuel.

Answer 10

If they can sell these behemoths for $180 million, I guess there are enough people who think they are.

...and they're selling them.