Delta will probably buy some used ones in 20 years to ensure that they keep their fleet old.
@sSSspidermanNNn
4 жыл бұрын
John P lmao
@bftjoe
4 жыл бұрын
@@Penske_Penguin It was a joke dood
@calidude1114
4 жыл бұрын
Next Trump personal jet
@pauli6043
4 жыл бұрын
@@calidude1114 YUUUGE
@thepepchannel7940
4 жыл бұрын
As someone who’s flown a lot of Delta, I can confirm they’ll use only the oldest of old planes.
@nommeouasse7717
4 жыл бұрын
That one time bigger wasn't better for the USA
@johniii8147
4 жыл бұрын
Actually it wasn’t a new trend. US carriers have long preferred frequency over consolidation of traffic onto a huge aircraft
@sokolum
4 жыл бұрын
When it was to BIG and POWERFUL for USA
@orangepeeI100
4 жыл бұрын
Oh yeah yeah
@kaosinc
4 жыл бұрын
No doubt that there is something bigger in Texas anyway since they claim "Everything is bigger in Texas!"
@rayquirk4947
4 жыл бұрын
KAOS especially the asylums.
@literalyou104
4 жыл бұрын
Emirates: *ILL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK.*
@ChrisGugliuzza
4 жыл бұрын
your*
@literalyou104
4 жыл бұрын
I Said it right
@ChrisGugliuzza
4 жыл бұрын
@@literalyou104 not before you edited your comment lmaoo
@literalyou104
4 жыл бұрын
@@ChrisGugliuzza ik lmao
@thatflywelshguy9662
4 жыл бұрын
Emirates can’t even operate them for profit. They’re constantly getting money funneled into them by the government. Just like Qatar
@CPA003
Жыл бұрын
The Final A-380 and 747 are going away around a similar time, except 747 has been around since 1969 and A380 since early 2007. Really shows how airlines needs have changed and how the end of super jumbos is over. The 747 and A-380 will live in our hearts forever.
@Supernaut2000
3 жыл бұрын
Why I really like this channel: short and tightly edited content delivered in less than 5 minutes. No ads interrupting and NO begging for money! Subscribed and always pleased to watch a new released video.
@davidmuls2743
2 жыл бұрын
Totally agree. Every word adds value, contrary to many other sites where people just spend too much time talking without adding any real information.
@Winter-ux9vk
2 жыл бұрын
Yes I totally agree
@urthere0
4 жыл бұрын
most people that watched this video already knew the answer
@aero-geek803
4 жыл бұрын
Yep
@dholispikesingh01
4 жыл бұрын
"NOT BOOOORRRNNNN IN THE USAAAAAA"
@longshot7601
4 жыл бұрын
When Qantas say that they can operate TWO 787s going to the same place at the same time cheaper than one A-380 kind of says something about the economics of the plane.
@qaisrashid6496
4 жыл бұрын
thebigcnel shawty got a fatty
@hmoobnplog5890
4 жыл бұрын
Because too expensive American can’t afford it.
@chrisbragdon5901
4 жыл бұрын
Ever since the FAA certified twin engine aircraft on long oversea routes, this spelled the demise of 4 engine airplanes.
@toemblem
4 жыл бұрын
What did it do to the tri-jet?
@Lazy_Tim
4 жыл бұрын
@@toemblem Killed it.
@bftjoe
4 жыл бұрын
@@toemblem It's also difficult to access the 3rd engine for maintenance.
@toemblem
4 жыл бұрын
I was joking
@dshogan6174
4 жыл бұрын
777 is noting but a 737 scaled up. A cattle car. I’d take A380 business class all day over any Boeing product 1st class.
@steveclarke2125
4 жыл бұрын
The A380 uses a higher proportion of its fuel on take off than any other make of airline. So, because the three major American Airlines do such a higher percentage of short - haul routes between American cities than the Asian carriers, it is not viable for them to fly A380's. Delta, for example, fly about 85% of their routes between San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. These routes are their bread and butter. However, an airline such as Qantas fly a much lower percentage of these kinds of flights as there are only two cities in Australia with anywhere near this kind of domestic traffic, Sydney and Melbourne. And any long haul flight to large centres from Sydney, for example, is seven hours or more (Dubai and Los Angeles are 14 hours, even Hong Kong is 10) because Australia is such a long way from anywhere else! So it makes much more sense for Qantas to fly A380's. And also, once an A380 takes off or lands other aircraft, even B777, cannot land or take off for another three minutes due to the air displacement by the huge A380. It is not possible to have this kind of delay at Atlanta, Dallas or Chicago where craft take off and land every 45 seconds.
@HeyCentauri
4 жыл бұрын
I rather read comment than watch the video. 👏
@cristiandiaz6333
4 жыл бұрын
The A380 is an aircraft or airplane not an airline.
@SimpleFlyingNews
4 жыл бұрын
Adieu Nightmare, If you'd rather read it, you can find all of our videos published as articles at simpleflying.com - TB
@comercole1940
3 жыл бұрын
@riff maka or unless people are fine with the restrictions or are scared from this pandemic.
@comercole1940
3 жыл бұрын
@riff maka like north korea yeah i agree.
@F8Tributo
2 жыл бұрын
I flew on the A380 once! Smooth as silk! Very gentle take-off, spacious business class seats, lots of bathroom space, space to get up and stretch your legs, visit the snack bar, and the landing was barely perceptible! Quite the experience! Cheers from California!
@genkibob
2 жыл бұрын
Oh yes, it's a great plane. I love that A380 Emirates from LAX to Dubai. But as a machine it's a beast, hard on runways, costly to fly, and requires special airport modifications. So it has limited applicability compared to the 7-series wide bodies.
@F8Tributo
2 жыл бұрын
@@genkibob A tough business model!
@dianeandjeffreyknorr2804
2 жыл бұрын
The A380 is by far the quietest bird up there, and I’ve flown in them all in over the past 50 years. Since Air France got rid of theirs, I’ve missed them sorely.
@mikiplum
4 жыл бұрын
I have flown on an A380 from Melbourne to Dubai. What a beautiful smooth flight it was. It will probably be the last time i get a chance to fly in one.After covid there probably wont be many flying again.
@drakbar5957
4 жыл бұрын
In the US, it’s not the number of passengers on a flight, but the number of flights a passenger can choose. Multiple frequencies to a destination drives traffic.
@malvoliosf
2 жыл бұрын
The number of flights and the number of airports. Americans in many US cities can choose from THREE airports (the Bay Area has SFO, OAK, and SJO; LA has LAX, Long Beach, and SNA; New York has JFK, La Guardia, and Newark). I can think of no other country where more than one city offers such a choice.
@genkibob
2 жыл бұрын
@@malvoliosf , in fact, LA has LAX, Long Beach, SNA, Ontario, and Burbank. Everyone I know who's gone through Burbank loves it compared to LAX. That's 5 airports not even counting if you expand all the way down to San Diego and Palm Springs.
@malvoliosf
2 жыл бұрын
@@genkibob Yup, and NYC has Teterboro and Republic Airport in addition to the Big 3. Only London has anything comparable (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Louton, City, and Southend). Paris has three (Orly, CDG, and Disneyland); Bangkok and Tokyo have 2 each; Rome only has 1, I think...
@SuperJ213
2 жыл бұрын
@@genkibob Absolutely. I avoid LAX any time I can when Burbank is an option.
@Sacto1654
4 жыл бұрын
Remember, most US airports are not slot-restricted like other airports around the world. As such, the need for a plane as big as the A380 by US based airlines is essentially zero. That's why US based airlines fly large fleets of widebody two-engined jets instead.
@Sacto1654
4 жыл бұрын
@RandomDefaultGamer United needed them because they had a lot of busy intercontinental routes, especially after they bought Pan American's Pacific operations in 1985. That's why United was one of the first airlines to buy the 747-400 and ended up with a fleet for 44 planes at its peak.
@Sacto1654
4 жыл бұрын
@RandomDefaultGamer Delta inherited the 747-400 fleet from Northwest Airlines when they merged with that airline in 2005.
@Flies2FLL
4 жыл бұрын
.....That and the fact that it is quite difficult, even internationally, to find 500-700 people who want to travel from one airport to another airport at one particular time. This drastically cuts down on the ability for this airplane to stay in the air the requisite number of hours per day to have its inherently high fixed costs make any fiscal sense.
@bftjoe
4 жыл бұрын
@RandomDefaultGamer So getting rid of 4 engined planes means they should buy more? Is it opposite day? You might have an actual argument if they kept their 747s and were buying more.
@hp2084
4 жыл бұрын
@@Flies2FLL There was an era when there was a hub system, you fly international and there were select few airports in every country to which international flights would go and their their codeshare with domestic or other airlines would drop passengers to their desired airports and this was the era when A-380 was envisioned. Now as air travel has become more common and more people are flying internationally, its easy for airlines to fill up small planes to different airports in the country. So now filling up A-380 gets difficult, but as the pandemic starts to subside in a year or 2, passengers will still be less and flying them to smaller airports will become costly and there might be a chance that A-380s might still have a use for some time to come. BA does so well with large planes is because its in the center of two huge landmasses. It can collect passengers from one side gather them all at one spot(Heathrow) and then have them take their destination flights(collect passengers from different flight to one). This makes their operations cost effective for them and then there is always British hospitality.
@edboysega321
4 жыл бұрын
In America i heard that frequency is more ideal so that passengers have more flexibility on when they want to travel. That's why smaller jets are operated in those popular domestic routes
@redpilledbachelor7776
4 жыл бұрын
That is how it is in every airline though.
@FS2K4Pilot
4 жыл бұрын
Frequency, and, as the video said, less hub and spoke and more point-to-point non-stop operations. The French were betting on having the bragging rights of building the biggest airliner ever, and thus they bet against the market. They lost.
@FRITZI999
4 жыл бұрын
yeah sure - and THEN wasting hours for check in and TSA check.... wow - simple math would help ;-)
@DriveCarToBar
2 жыл бұрын
The US doesn't have a highly developed high speed passenger rail service. The US elected to build highways in the 1950s and focus on automobile travel and later on, air travel. The US had a couple key factors which made this the reality we see today. One is fuel cost. Gasoline and Diesel are cheap in the US compared to Europe. The other is public transit. European cities, even those rebuilt after WW2) were not designed with cars in mind. Sure they can accommodate them to some extent but you'd be nuts to fly to London or Berlin and rent a car to drive around town. American cities, even those predating WW2, found themselves surrounded by car-centric suburbs. Couple that with lower taxes on things like cars and you quickly get a recipe for not needing trains. Cheap fuel, cheap cars and nice highways between cities. Today, you can fly between most American cities fairly cheaply and rent a car (or if you're in the few US cities with good public transit, use that) to get around. Or, load everyone in the car for the great American road trip. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, a fuel tank of fuel was $25 and that would get you 300ish miles. You're not going to fly 4 people from Phoenix to Los Angeles for that. There is no train between the two that comes close to the travel time you get by flying or driving (PHX to LAX is less than 2 hours and driving from Phoenix to Los Angeles is ~5hrs) between the two. It's just a different market.
@nutsackmania
2 жыл бұрын
thats why america shouldve purchased like 3500 concordes and used federal subsidies to operate them on short-haul routes like billings to topkea
@ivormctin6367
2 жыл бұрын
The best flight I have ever been on was a Qantas A380 Melbourne to Singapore. So comfortable and new with a great entertainment system. 8 hours flew by
@rainerbuesching1
2 жыл бұрын
totally right, I enjoyed my flights Frankfurt - NY and SanFr - Frankfurt, also.
@leopold7562
2 жыл бұрын
Love the pun, Ivor!
@stanstanly3812
2 жыл бұрын
Really it wasn't the size of the plane...it was the huge amount of upgrading the jet required. Everything in the airport needed upgrading to fit the new plane including larger taxiways. The cost was too high.
@ameerali.ouarda
2 жыл бұрын
I disagree. The upgrading has already been done. For example British Airways flies its Airbus A380 Jet to San Francisco, Miami and Los Angeles.
@bftjoe
2 жыл бұрын
@@ameerali.ouarda No one is gonna upgrade their airports for A380 when it isn't even being made anymore. And no, many airports still don't support it. And many of the airports that "support" the A380 only do so at 1, maybe 2 gates. Hence the multi hour delays for HiFly when they tried to fly into an airport that "supports" the A380, JFK.
@keiming2277
4 жыл бұрын
Boeing to US Airlines : I dare you, I double dare you !!
@jacksons1010
4 жыл бұрын
US airlines didn’t buy the B747-8 either.
@coronwhite3095
4 жыл бұрын
Jon Jackson they just aren’t needed anymore. The 777 and 787 changed the game for them.
@mr.mcbeavy1443
4 жыл бұрын
"I triple dog dare you."
@jacksons1010
4 жыл бұрын
@@mr.mcbeavy1443 Slight breach of etiquette, that...skipping the double-dog and triple dare before going right for the throat.
@kaziu312
4 жыл бұрын
"I triple Mad Dog dare you"....lol.
@fauzirahman3285
4 жыл бұрын
It's still cheaper to fly 2 787 Dreamliners with the same amount of passengers as one A380.
@jimjacobs1789
4 жыл бұрын
And you could schedule the Dreamliners several hours apart to make it convenient for people who want to leave or arrive at different times. For example, and early morning departure for one of the planes and an afternoon departure for the other.
@garrett69
4 жыл бұрын
How do you work that out? Where is your information from?
@fauzirahman3285
4 жыл бұрын
@@garrett69 I believe Simple Flying or one of the airline channels mentioned it as a one liner but they have this on their site: simpleflying.com/airlines-are-grounding-their-a380s/ However this site did a really detailed cost analysis of a number of aircrafts: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936119301244
@hddhdhxhxb1793
4 жыл бұрын
@Steve Wood I think it was Qantas’ CEO Alan Joyce who made that statement
@tinaandgregw
4 жыл бұрын
A380 is from approx $22000 an hour to run, 787 is approx $9000.. this is coming from Qantas.. so flying 2 nose to tail would be cheaper and for Aussies.. 1/2 can go to lax and 1/2 to sfo 😄
@Crazyuncle1
4 жыл бұрын
The reason for building it in the first place was tainted by Airbus’ ego. Mine is bigger than yours. That sort of thing. It was not a good business decision. Without Emirates it would have been an utter failure. Not to take away from the excellent moves Airbus has made of late. Namely the acquisition of the C series and the A321-Neo advancements.
@satanaswild
4 жыл бұрын
Added to the A350 working superbly without an itch...
@Crazyuncle1
4 жыл бұрын
satanaswild I agree. It truly is a marvelous engineering accomplishment.
@markrenton1093
4 жыл бұрын
I heard tell that Boeing pawned Airbus into believing that Boeing was going to build an A380 type of aircraft , only to get Airbus to commit their resources than having Boeing back out.
@n35ql
4 жыл бұрын
There's another reason I missed in your video: Airbus is European Boeing is American. Thus leads to PR, Patriotic and even political reasons why us airlines will choose Boeing over Airbus. I know there are a few Airlines that have Airbus but mostly A320/321 and not that much in their fleet.
@mbspoobah
4 жыл бұрын
airbus is well represented in the AA fleet.
@n35ql
4 жыл бұрын
@@mbspoobah Well I'm not familiar in depth about US airlines. On a side note both Airbus and Boeing have their own great features. Unfortunately the A380 has the same fate as the Concord. By the time it got released the aviation changed so much it was unnecessary. Still the queen of the sky is B747, the King is the A380 and the princess is the Concord if you ask me.
@user-pi8xj2qj3q
4 жыл бұрын
There is some truth in that, however US airlines didn't purchase too many 747 either. Airbus aircraft are well represented in a number of US airlines, just as Boeing has a large market share in Europe.
@rayhuntley8966
2 жыл бұрын
The A380 was designed for classic wheel-and-spoke style operations; carrying passengers from hub to hub: passngers would then fly from hub to final destination on smaller planes. The A380 was introduced, just as airlines began operating point to point, using smaller; more economical aircraft (767 and 777) flying direct from one airport to another.
@kristopherloviska9042
2 жыл бұрын
I think you mean hub and spoke. Unless you are departing from a major airport, nearly every option you will have is hub and spoke. How many people on any given day are flying from Kalamazoo to Topeka? Unless it is a large group traveling, not enough to justify even one point to point flight between the two. Or imagine if people from 100 different cities need to fly to Little Rock on the same day. No way LIT could handle that amount of point to point traffic. People want to fly from the nearest airport. And most of the time, those are smaller airports which necessitates the need for connections at hubs like ATL and ORD
@mannfan12
2 жыл бұрын
@@kristopherloviska9042 Oh there are plenty of point-to-point flights to/from secondary airports in cities like San Antonio. Hub and Spoke still exists - don't get me wrong. But we are in an era where there is a blend of hub and spoke and point to point. Southwest Airlines has mastered and spearheaded the shift toward point to point operations even as they do hub and spoke. They are so successful that other airlines are forced to do the same in order to compete.
@EKC2024
4 жыл бұрын
Asian airlines be like: I will buy all of your A380’s
@Waddle_Dee_With_Internet
4 жыл бұрын
**Emirates has joined the chat**
@Waddle_Dee_With_Internet
4 жыл бұрын
@Cream Michael Asiana Airlines is a Korean airline.
@Waddle_Dee_With_Internet
4 жыл бұрын
@Cream Michael I'm not rude :D
@VijaygKamat
4 жыл бұрын
If Trudeau and Trump allow more Visa, Green Card and Citizenship to Indian, then Indian carriers may buy all the A380s in the world in the first phase. In the second phase, we will convert all of them into cargo carriers so that mommy can send all the pickles and raw jackfruits. (Surely for fun only) But we have one fundamental question. Kitna deti hai ? (Means "how much does it give?" direct reference to mileage.)
@twisted9285
4 жыл бұрын
Vijay Kamat no❤️
@wasifanowar_testrider
4 жыл бұрын
For many 777-300 ER is a far better option over A380-800
@wasifanowar_testrider
4 жыл бұрын
@asdf is it as fuel efficient as 777 or 350 or even 787
@tafan321
4 жыл бұрын
@asdf Moot point, go back to your cave you troll.
@theshadowman1398
4 жыл бұрын
After flying with an A380 I despise all 2 engine long haul planes.
@cessealbeach
4 жыл бұрын
One simple reason, cant fill the seats , so there is no money and cannot land in most airports, expensive to operate
@WasReloading
4 жыл бұрын
Cesar Abraham thanks for explaining what the video already explained
@jesse00pno
4 жыл бұрын
That’s like 4 reasons.
@ADB-_
4 жыл бұрын
the shiehks got this dont worry
@ADB-_
4 жыл бұрын
@bojo perez IKR Lmao,I was mentioning the rich emirates and other arab people tho, they got no problemo lol
@khalifa3063
4 жыл бұрын
WasReloading called a summary
@twotone3471
2 жыл бұрын
The real reason? The A380 does not have a cargo modification. Its always going to haul people, where as the 747 can be refitted for cargo once it stops being useful for passengers, or divided to haul both.
@wolfegangmsg452
4 жыл бұрын
If the Airbus did come into either American or Delta I’m sure they will find a way to overbook it.
@DorianTMChannel
4 жыл бұрын
American is the biggest operator of the A321, the A350 is Delta's flagship and they also have 100 A321neos on order. They definitely do not overlook Airbus.
@oveidasinclair982
4 жыл бұрын
The A380 would have been a financial disaster for US based airlines, it would have been a 4 engine white elephant. The US has 7 major hub airports, but the vast majority of airports, in which there are many operate with Boeing 737 size jets, the 767's & 777's serviced the the 7 hub's vary efficiently and a lot less expensive then a A380. Also note that the vast majority of US airports are set up to use boarding and unboarding gateways, the A380 is just too large, even at most of the major hub airports, those airports would have had to make major expensive modifications just to accommodate that aircraft. A lot of airlines around the world have taken a big financial loss operating the A380 and then to retire the jet after only 10 years, that jet is like new because it never accumulated many take off's and landings like smaller jets do, that is where all your wear and tear is done to modern jet aircraft, a 737 might have 6-8 take off and landing cycles a day, a A380 only one. There are a lot of airlines around the world who's balance sheets are bleeding red because of the A380, the US airline can all sit back knowing they safely dodged that bullet.
@brilliantlysplendid
2 жыл бұрын
The plane still operates in American airports… just on foreign airlines is all…
@DriveCarToBar
2 жыл бұрын
Expensive enough that McCarran Intl. (LAS) here in Las Vegas added one gate that could service an A380. The 747s on the other hand, can go to other terminals. Looks like they made a good choice in not spending all that much to handle the big fat airbus.
@richmountain1128
2 жыл бұрын
Right. Wouldn’t be practical… at all.
@Gromit801
2 жыл бұрын
@@brilliantlysplendid A very, very limited number of US airports.
@tawsifamin5773
4 жыл бұрын
At end of the day B777, B787, A330 & A350 are the best in all accounts for any airlines around the world. Yes.. Both B747 & A380 are incredible aircrafts but not suitable for 21st century market.
@rajnirvan3336
4 жыл бұрын
In some way
@hasempire0722
4 жыл бұрын
After around 7 long haul flights in the Emirates A380 I cannot imagine flying without it.
@hasempire0722
3 жыл бұрын
@IbrPlayz same, my flights were 14 hours each and felt no more than 5-6 hours
@Perejil1319
2 жыл бұрын
That’s obviously because you can’t fly on an Emirates 787. It’s the airline not the plan. Try an A380 on a European carrier and you’ll know how awful it can be.
@hasempire0722
2 жыл бұрын
@@Perejil1319 yeah but I’ve also flown same route but on the 77w and A380 is better.
@kristopherloviska9042
2 жыл бұрын
@@Perejil1319 I flew on a Lufthansa A380 from Frankfurt to Delhi and it was the best flight ever. I was fortunate to have my employer pay for business class though. I can't speak for the experience of those who flew coach.
@blue387
4 жыл бұрын
Imagine Southwest trying to fly the A380
@seanthe100
4 жыл бұрын
Lmao
@jdspreest
3 жыл бұрын
They’d probably fill it but it still wouldn’t be profitable given the massive costs to operate the damn thing
@s.kirtivasen5752
3 жыл бұрын
Would be a disaster🙄😭
@wickedmuffin76
2 жыл бұрын
I worked at the Denver airport for a short time, I asked one of the operations people if an A380 could land there/ He said yes, but it couldn't use any of the gates, because they didn't have anything powerful enough to push an A380 away from a gate.
@nutsackmania
2 жыл бұрын
it does have thrust reversers
@wickedmuffin76
2 жыл бұрын
@@nutsackmania Can an A380 do a powerback? That would be something to see :)
@wickedmuffin76
2 жыл бұрын
@@TurboSpeedWiFi I know powerbacks are not allowed, I meant is it physically capable of a powerback? (Also I know they were never really done with underwing engines, because of debris).
@richmountain1128
2 жыл бұрын
@@TurboSpeedWiFi But in KSP, it reverses ALL of it. Too bad that isn’t true in Real Life, though…
@nate7906
2 жыл бұрын
@@wickedmuffin76 plus the a380 only uses 2 engines for reverse thrust I believe
@Zickcermacity
2 жыл бұрын
My theory: Back in 1970, when the 747 and Lockheed and Douglas' trijet wide bodies started servicing the U.S., they founf that they could not fill these larger planes. Besides, U.S.. passengers want infinite choices of departure points, and departure and arrival times. This model was served more flexibly by smaller planes of that time(737, 727, DC-9), and of current times(A319, 320, 737, etc).
@markweldon3459
2 жыл бұрын
US airlines would only buy the A380 if they could find a way to double the seating capacity. American Airlines is trying to find a way to reduce the legroom to 4.2” and convert the cargo hold to accommodate another 400 passengers.
@stewiegriffin12341
2 жыл бұрын
😂 I just flew on American and this is too true.
@Platyfurmany
4 жыл бұрын
Even the 747 wound up being used in the US only on international flights. When the 747 was at its height, there were much fewer international hubs for American domestic airlines to fly into. When the 767, 777, and the 787 came online, there were many more international airports for the Americans to fly into, thus the need even for the 747 started to dry up.
@donaldthomas7070
4 жыл бұрын
The logical American purchaser would have been Pan Am, but that airline has been gone for many years.
@deadfreightwest5956
3 жыл бұрын
And Juan Trippe backed the 747 not as a luxurious method of transport (that went the way of the flying boats) but as a way of cramming as many livestock, er, passengers into each flight, thus lowering the ticket price.
@steventaylor8785
2 жыл бұрын
Another would have been Braniff. The even flew a concord at one point.
@tonythreepies9272
2 жыл бұрын
It's amazing to me how many people that are apparently fans of aviation seem to think that US based airlines only buy American built airplanes. Have any of those people ever been to an airport?
@jeffmiesen
2 жыл бұрын
People that only have flown on Southwest apparently. I’ve been on many smaller Airbus planes flown by Delta and American.
@kravinoff_
4 жыл бұрын
Am i the only people here that likes the A380?
@Dylan_Sterling
4 жыл бұрын
I mean, it’s a cool aircraft, but it’s the wrong aircraft for the time.
@garrett69
4 жыл бұрын
I love it. What a lot of people don't realise is that the A380 is far superior in many ways. For a start, it's not built on a 50 year old airframe that has been self certified since inception. Secondly it is more fuel efficient than the 747. Thirdly, it has much better build quality and much more up to date tech. And it looks so much better than the 747, more streamlined. Also worth noting, the decision to pull the plug on the A380 may be a little premature since fuel costs are currently much lower now than 5 years ago.
@Dylan_Sterling
4 жыл бұрын
Steve Wood Don’t you think that’s a moot point? Both the A380 and the 747 are being discontinued, and like it was stated in the video, the reason behind the A380’s failure isn’t just because of fuel costs, but also they’re much harder to fill than smaller aircraft.
@AA-tz2bm
4 жыл бұрын
Doge Bomber Steve literally copypasted the description of the 737 max from some Boeing hater but replaced it with 747. Notice how he said ‘50 year old air frame’ as if the 747 airframe is outdated or problematic or unnecessary to improve just cause it has been around for 50 years. Also notice the use of ‘self certified’.
@user-wv1yt
4 жыл бұрын
Nope, I love them as well.
@davidclark3304
4 жыл бұрын
The A380 always looked to me like a European ego trip. If it had been more successful I would have had to take that back, but events seem to confirm that view.
@jrtstrategicapital560
2 жыл бұрын
I still miss the good ole 747s ….I recall being on one of its first maiden voyage from SF to HK on a Pan Am 747..when air travel was more comfortable than now.
@joshuaspop8865
2 жыл бұрын
It’s just a different time in the US. When I was a kid in the 80s, every flight between big hubs were DC10s, 767s, L1011s, etc. Eventually the airlines realized those big airplanes were almost never full so they weren’t making money.
@opusmax1
2 жыл бұрын
One need only look at the horrible day of 9/11 to see how underused large airliners were on an average weekday morning. Of the four planes that were destroyed, only 232 passenger seats were occupied out of a combined total of approximately 900 seats.
@yousoundupset
4 жыл бұрын
I work at the DFW airport and like mentioned in the video it is to large, there is one gate we have for holding such a large aircraft such as the 747 series at gate D16x (we have terminal F being built that will hold more international flights). One day i hope to see the 380 pull in.
@Peter-vn8ue
3 жыл бұрын
Qantas flew one of their A380's from Sydney to DFW before the pandemic.
@mannfan12
2 жыл бұрын
@@Peter-vn8ue Yep. And I saw it parked at D terminal a few times while transiting thru to wherever I was going. They ran the 747-400 on that route as well. BTW, that DFW-SYD route was the longest in the world at the time - and I think holds the record. 18+ hours
@panda5122
2 жыл бұрын
At some airports I've been at, the plane can't fit at any gate, so they've shuttled passengers from the terminal to the tarmac.
@DriveCarToBar
2 жыл бұрын
McCarran Intl. here in Las Vegas added one larger gate to Terminal 3 (D gates) in order to accommodate the A380 and didn't do so until 2017. The demand just wasn't there considering most international flights prior were all 747s, planes which can use other terminals. And it looks like it may never be there. Interestingly enough, LAS did play host to an Antonov AN-225 once, but just for cargo when it delivered a huge transformer for a solar power plant.
@jfan4reva
2 жыл бұрын
@@DriveCarToBar It's not just the gates, there are some airports where there are taxiway restrictions on A380s (and some other jumbos), because there just isn't enough room for them to taxi safely.
@aregularperson7573
4 жыл бұрын
As an American who has traveled a lot I personally don’t think the a380 could have worked in America because it’s JUST TOO BIG and expensive to operate
@hddhdhxhxb1793
4 жыл бұрын
It would fit the culture though
@bftjoe
4 жыл бұрын
@Francis With 6 engines? how in the world would you get this plane off the ground with worse than 2005 engines? You A380 fanbois are so funny.
@kewalapatsathyam8983
4 жыл бұрын
So that means american airlines is not the biggest airline
@chadportenga7858
2 жыл бұрын
You hit the nail on the head. The huge capacity of the A380 (and even the 747) makes no sense between US routes. In fact, more airlines are going to smaller jets (CRJs, EMBs, etc.) because, even though it is more expensive, it is more convenient for the traveler. There's a fine balance between convenience and cost, but the A380 tipped the scales way out of balance.
@aidanhurtado4014
4 жыл бұрын
I flew on it once between Paris and Atlanta and the flight was so empty honestly I don’t know why AirFrance used it for that flight but at least I can say I have flown on one
@johnemerson1363
4 жыл бұрын
In April 1967 I was active duty Navy and took a TWA Boeing 707 from JFK to Rome, Italy in an all nighter. That airplane only had about 40 passengers. After an hour or two I just about had the Stewardesses all to my self. I got the phone number of two of them (all Americans) based in Rome and in September 1968 called the number and got one of the girls on the phone. I was going to be in Rome that week and asked if I could get together with her. She could and I saw Rome unlike most tourists don't. Bottom line of my little story--- that airplane was less than 20% full. At the time, the 707 was as big as they get.
@iceman1125
4 жыл бұрын
flight was empty and you're complaining.?? do you like crouched with other people in tight spaces?
@johnemerson1363
4 жыл бұрын
@@iceman1125 Not a bit. I'm just saying that if a US airline couldn't at least half fill an international flight with around 80 people, why would they want a much bigger plane with over twice the capacity of a 707 and still only have 40 people
@FRITZI999
4 жыл бұрын
@@johnemerson1363 every Flight I usually catch to from Europe to the US is overbooked, regardless which Airline.... terrible. You are talking about long times ago....
@johnemerson1363
4 жыл бұрын
@@FRITZI999 Yes, 50 plus years ago. A long time ago.
@davidgreen5934
4 жыл бұрын
Flown three times on a long haul A380 from Heathrow to Kuala lumpar twice with Malaysian Airlines and both times the aircraft was full. Next time was with Quantas Heathrow to Singapore to Melbourne and plane was half empty. Had the row of seats to myself. Got plenty of sleep on that trip lol
@allmotorkp61
4 жыл бұрын
Save yourself the time of watching this vid. It comes down to 1 thing: COST. No need to explain everything and cry about it.
@sanandaallsgood673
2 жыл бұрын
The A-380 was designed for long-haul, mass transport and with no exceptions, the US airlines didn't have that model, so this aircraft didn't fit. As the video said, the 777-200ER/300ER provided all the seating required for US airlines, even flying overseas. I flew the 777-300ER from SFO-ACK and it was very comfortable and efficient for passengers. Since the unveiling of the 787 however, some of those airlines are dropping the 777 and picking up the 787 instead. Now that Airbus has released the A-350-900/1000, I foresee some competition with the 787.
@richardcline1337
2 жыл бұрын
WHY buy something where the profits all go to an overseas country, or two, when by staying with Boeing, you are keeping more American dollars IN America? I understand that we do have an Airbus factory or two in the US but the profits, like those of the damnable Toyota, all go back to a foreign country.
@sanandaallsgood673
2 жыл бұрын
@@richardcline1337 This has nothing to do with WHY THE A-380 was not used by American carriers. This sounds more like a personal rant about foreign companies taking money from American businesses. Not relevant.
@daithilacha1
2 жыл бұрын
A350 competes directly with the 777 variants. A330 series , epsc the new Neo model competes with the 787.
@moow950
2 жыл бұрын
@@richardcline1337 Hey, so we Europeans should only buy Airbus planes then huh? To prevent our hard earned euros going to a foreign country like the US? Come on that’s international business. Americans buy Airbus planes and Europeans buy Boeing planes and vice versa.
@coldpizzasoda8641
4 жыл бұрын
I remember when the A380 was being developed, Boeing was placing it's bet on airlines needing a smaller more fuel efficient plane instead which was the goal of the 787 program. This was before the A350 was being developed.
@qeuickshots
4 жыл бұрын
The first and last time I sat on a 747 was before 2000. My first & last flight on A380 was in 2017. Flying abroad on a 737 or A320 doesn't feel like a vacation.
@arob79
4 жыл бұрын
I took a 747 and an A380 on the same trip in 2009: LAX to AKL for the 747 and SYD to LAX for the A380.
@qeuickshots
4 жыл бұрын
@dangerous at any speed not yet
@qeuickshots
4 жыл бұрын
@@arob79 I'd be looking forward to the flying experience more than the destination 😁
@nb2008nc
4 жыл бұрын
@dangerous at any speed I was on a350. Hated it. Very bad ac
@nb2008nc
4 жыл бұрын
@dangerous at any speed LH
@savagecub
3 жыл бұрын
Unless there’s a catastrophic pandemic US Airlines don’t usually get subsidies - thus in normal times we have to actually show a profit. Hard to do in a four engine aircraft.
@Bender13
2 жыл бұрын
We also forget about the time it takes to load and unload these huge aircrafts. Imagine over 600 passengers running down the halls all trying to get to customs first….and the line ups when they got there.
@awonoto
2 жыл бұрын
I used A380 to arrive in Paris, Sydney, and Singapore. I had no problems with customsc queue as they have well designed customs. I used B787 to arrive in LAX one time. I waited close to two hours just to pass customs, manned by only two elderly gents as two other airlines arrived at the same time. So it’s a matter of whether airports are willing to service passengers or not.
@sav7568
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly like what happens when three international flights land within 10 minutes which happens almost every day at the big airports. Having 600 people in the LAX customs hall is situation normal. I have done it around 15 times.
@awonoto
2 жыл бұрын
@@sav7568 are you an American citizen? I came as a foreigner.
@sav7568
2 жыл бұрын
@@awonoto Us Customs give foreign travellers a raw deal every single day. The foreign people might outnumber the Americans three to one especially on flights from Korea, Japan or China. Despite those numbers more than half of the customs agents will be assigned to clearing the US citizens. Once all US citizens are gone the supervisor will leave one on duty and tell all the others from the US section to take a break. There might be 500 foreigners still waiting but that's just too bad. I have seen this happen many times.
@StevieinSF
4 жыл бұрын
I love big jets like the A380 & 747, but they're more of halo projects now. I think the A380 could've proved to be a formidable freighter, but that was never factored into its original development like it was for the 747.
@khsimagesdotcom856
2 жыл бұрын
It could make sense to have a few Airbus A380s for a smaller number of routes (especially international), but aside from the lower fuel costs to operate other jets, carriers try to stick with a smaller variety of planes. Fewer certifications for pilots and for those who service the fleet. Also a smaller range of tools needed as well.
@nickh5081
2 жыл бұрын
The problem is that a new 747 is more economical than an A380, so the the 380 is actually a failed design from the very start. Of course, even the latest 747 can't compete with the newest twin engine long haul aircraft so even it is reaching the end of it's lifespan as a people transport.
@forrestpierson3770
2 жыл бұрын
What really doomed the A380, compared to the 747, is that the A380 could not easily be converted into a cargo aircraft. Cargo 747s are still flying around the world.
@aandwdabest
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, the lack of Cargo adaptiveness for the A380 contributes to its underutilization and ultimate demise. Sad but true.
@Doodad2
4 жыл бұрын
I flew the A380 from Houston to Dubai on Emerates. It was great!
@karazor-el9596
3 жыл бұрын
It's the most comfortable pleasant quiet plane ever
@stevensaviationspotting
4 жыл бұрын
I wish they did lol, I would love Delta to have the A380 since they had their Boeing 747s
@trijetz3562
4 жыл бұрын
No
@stevensaviationspotting
4 жыл бұрын
Trijetz Everyone has different opinions, and I edited the comment
@trijetz3562
4 жыл бұрын
@@stevensaviationspotting I was sharing mine, I just believe that the 747-8I would be a better pick.
@danieldiazruiz4521
4 жыл бұрын
Nope I wish AA had the 747-8
@stevensaviationspotting
4 жыл бұрын
Trijetz Yeah, British Airways did have their cargo Boeing 747-800 but not anymore but since their Boeing 747-400s retired they shouldn’t have been using Boeing 747-800s to replace it but they don’t have their passenger Boeing 747-800
@vistalite-ph4zw
4 жыл бұрын
I think the US carriers got it right and passed on the A380. 2007 was hell for the airlines and by 2008 many airlines ceased operations, the A380 was just not feasible.
@Sarge084
4 жыл бұрын
The best explanation of the A380 usage and the way US airlines operate that make it a non viable aircraft. Europe and Asia operate very differently, and Middle Eastern countries different again. Most of it is down to geography, but the US has been operating frequent low volume routes for decades, and there never was any plan to change that.
@xavierjoly8268
2 жыл бұрын
It would have been a very different story had Boeing been able to come up with an equivalent.
@Walkercolt1
2 жыл бұрын
Ummm... only THREE US airports can handle the A380's weight on their taxiways, which mean those are the only airports the A380 can fly into, and nobody is willing to spend megabucks for an orphan dinosaur airliner to land at their airport (remember the Concorde!). Even if other US airports upgraded their taxiways, their terminals don't have the SPACE between jetways for the monster-33% more space than a 747 takes, or lose FOUR or FIVE 787/777 landing spots to 1/3 the passengers on ONE A380-doesn't make money sense does it as A 380's NEVER fly to US destinations half-full. Only Air India and Cathay Air ever fill an A 380, and they guzzle fuel (why are there NO cargo A 380C's but hundreds of 747C's???), so US airlines have no use for the things.
@qlemens6273
4 жыл бұрын
Because building a passenger plane this big in the 21st century was a stupid idea in the first place.
@label1877
4 жыл бұрын
dangerous at any speed In light of the A380’s early retirement, it appears not buying the aircraft was a brilliant decision.
@tafan321
4 жыл бұрын
@dangerous at any speed Cost to rebuild infrastructure at airports i.e. jetways, reinforce runways etc etc etc = Not worth it. So yes, cost does play a role into the airlines decision you daft troll.
@label1877
4 жыл бұрын
dangerous at any speed Are you oblivious to the fact that the US has major airports all over. Passengers are spread through out the nation. The A380 only makes money when it’s full. It would rarely be full in the US.
@trishayamada807
4 жыл бұрын
dangerous at any speed omg you are an ignoramus. Stay where you are, no one wants you.
@label1877
4 жыл бұрын
dangerous at any speed America is huge, together with Canada make up 12% of the Earth’s land. All united by a common language. Without sounding boisterous...we have it all... we have no incentive to leave unlike citizens in your country. Apparently economics are not taught in your schools. The purchase of a major aircraft must make economic sense. Our airlines are privately owned, if they make poor decisions, they go out of business.
@Hahlen
4 жыл бұрын
Ryan air a380 isn’t real, it can’t hurt you Ryan Air A380:
@stefosantoniou
4 жыл бұрын
it could only in routes like lax to jfk or heathrow to jfk
@kazbaby212
4 жыл бұрын
What about something like SIN-LAX? Or is that too populated with options as well and not long haul enough?
@daveroche6522
2 жыл бұрын
In some ways this proves the old adage - "Just because you CAN do something it doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD". Just sayin'.
@doug9066
4 жыл бұрын
Because they were smart plus at the time the 747 was sufficient enough plus carriers which still had the 747 would retire them.
@itzjadencr3202
4 жыл бұрын
It would be full going from LAX to JFK or SFO to JFK
@JuanWayTrips
4 жыл бұрын
Not really. LAX to JFK/Newark already sees United, American, Delta, Alaska, and JetBlue service, with 4 of the 5 offering lie-flat seats, with the largest regular plane in service being a 767, so it's already a saturated market. By shifting to smaller jets (like AA's 100ish seat A321T), they can instead offer more daily flights between the two cities rather than forcing it all onto 1 or 2 flights. Business travelers prefer having flexibility and more options on routes like LA/NYC, and airlines are shifting to meet that demand. Plus, the smaller (and newer) airplanes can cost less per seat than operating a jumbo jet while offering similar perks (maybe no shower lol), so there's really no point to have 747s/A380s on these routes other than repositioning them for international flights.
@itzjadencr3202
4 жыл бұрын
Boilermaker It would be cheaper for the airline to have 1 plane flying in the morning than 4 smaller ones. LAX to NYC Is Quite A Busy Route. The plane can be filled just needs to be placed on the right route at the right time of day and it would work.
@JuanWayTrips
4 жыл бұрын
@@itzjadencr3202 Maybe if they switched to a 787/A350, but definitely not a 747 or A380. There's a reason why these planes were already heading to the desert well before COVID.
@entropy22
4 жыл бұрын
Agree
@itzjadencr3202
4 жыл бұрын
Boilermaker There is a way to get it to work as it is cheaper to operate than 5 787 or 767. There plane is large and is designed for dense routes
@andreasjacovides4800
4 жыл бұрын
Such a pleasure to fly on this it’s truly beautiful.
@raynnajeeb9731
4 жыл бұрын
Andreas Jacovides I love this gorgeous plane
@alexandrebenoin40
4 жыл бұрын
Il est fabriqué chez moi à Toulouse 🇫🇷
@tristan.h5099
4 жыл бұрын
@@alexandrebenoin40 un collègue !!!!!🇨🇵🇨🇵🇨🇵
@alexandrebenoin40
4 жыл бұрын
Tristan Helfenbein ouais 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷
@mikecole819
4 жыл бұрын
The 380 is not a big money maker...period!
@FlavRavr
4 жыл бұрын
American aircraft manufacturers have by far, the most history and experience in building jumbos, so they weren't foolish in approaching a market they were already equipped to compete in. They evaluated the market carefully at the end of the last millennium, and correctly determined there was insufficient market for a plane beyond the 747 derivatives they were already profitable at, so they wisely ceded the entire market for the segment "beyond the 747" to "anyone else". Even with the entire Super Jumbo market to itself, the A380; sadly failed. Second verse proved same as the 1st when you look back to 1969 and the entire market segment (TU-144 not withstanding) for SST was left to Concorde. American aircraft manufacturers more clearly read the market future than the Europeans and the total market demand resulted in just 2- state sponsors of the end product. The American SST would have outperformed Concorde*, but what was the point if there was no path to profitable success in achieving consumer demand to justify abandoning/ reinventing established money makers? * Passenger capacity, top speed, cruising speed and versatility for military applications.
@theferrones
4 жыл бұрын
How much does it cost to configure a terminal to fit an A380? A lot of humans really don’t enjoy the “living on an anthill” experience. Overcrowding is overrated
@Camden_Loves_Aviation
4 жыл бұрын
It’s so sad that none of the U.S. airlines ordered the a380
@shahimagesyt
4 жыл бұрын
Except Fedex and UPS but those are cargo
@sho1715
4 жыл бұрын
But it turned out that they are correct
@shahimagesyt
4 жыл бұрын
@@77l96 we have UPS
@bftjoe
4 жыл бұрын
Why would they when so few US airports support this way oversized plane?
@riliryrimaddyvia9630
4 жыл бұрын
We salute you A380 for serving us for that very short time
@N0616JCProductions
4 жыл бұрын
Too late in the game...
@ashishpatel350
4 жыл бұрын
It would have made a great cargo plane. If they could figure out how to remove the second floor.
@adrianzurek636
4 жыл бұрын
It would be cool to see the top of the plane opening to allow cargo to be lifted via crane inside!
@derikistheman8698
4 жыл бұрын
@@adrianzurek636 They cook turn it into a combi aircraft for freight and passenger needs
@N0616JCProductions
4 жыл бұрын
That would reduce the cargo volume...
@H.R.King.
4 жыл бұрын
@@adrianzurek636 That should have been created
@fusion4373
4 жыл бұрын
when i think of a cargo A380 i just think of the top opening like the beluga
@mkaestn
2 жыл бұрын
It is still a gas hog! When the ETOPS began in the 90's, four engine planes where doomed. Fly two Dreamliner's for less, per hour, and they are faster.
@gkiltz0
4 жыл бұрын
When the air traffic control system is fully updated, there will be more "free flight' off the major air routes and that will make the smaller and mid size airports more profitable and with it smaller jets more profitable as well. keep one more thing in mind: The Boeing 747 was originally conceived as a pure freighter. The passenger version was dreamed up only once the American SST was cancelled. The thinking was, long haul passengers on the SST. long haul freight on the cargo-only 747 One reason the American SST WAS cancelled was that it was going to be the biggest as well as the fastest plane ever built, and that was just such an unreachable goal, at least for the first SST. While Concorde had trans-Atlantic range that Washington Dulles to Paris run was about it's limit, especially since it had to slow down to subsonic speed once over land. And outgoing from Dulles, it could not go supersonic until it got offshore
@alphabravoindia5267
4 жыл бұрын
3:05 YES ECAir!
@aaravsgaming337
3 жыл бұрын
Rare
@puggetnuggets4415
4 жыл бұрын
I've flown on quite a few A380's and it feels so cool to get on and off it
@knoodelhed
4 жыл бұрын
Hawaiian and probably UAL could have used the A380 on their longest hauls. But engines have become so efficient and reliable nowadays that it's routine for a stock B737 or A320 to fly between LAX-HNL or slightly further. Not having A380s on hand actually allows a carrier to match equipment with demand more nimbly.
@KilldozerNY
2 жыл бұрын
I've flown JFK-HNL a few times on Hawaiian and they use the A330. Works well.
@mw9984
2 жыл бұрын
You got it all wrong! Like anything else it’s of course racially motivated.
@Turboy65
2 жыл бұрын
If there was any real need for a superjumbo in American fleets, the 747-8 is more economical to operate per passenger mile than the A380. (Assuming both aircraft are flying at full capacity.) American fleets would have taken the 747-8 which would have required no infrastructure upgrades in order to accomodate it. Being able to handle the A380 requires substantial infrastructure upgrades at airports and maintenance facilities, all of which cost money.
@Andrew279144
2 жыл бұрын
A380 wing was designed too big - it was meant to accommodate a future stretch variant of the A380 without having to re-design the wing, hence all A380's are lugging around tons of extra metal they don't really need.
@yechielroth3183
2 жыл бұрын
I find that when I board larger flights like 747’s then there is more bottlenecks and waiting at check in, security, boarding and baggage pick up. Although the Airlines and Airport can technically control this and increase the capacity, in reality most don’t. So when you fly small all the lines just move faster and when you fly big everyone ends up waiting longer multiple times which just increases the stress of flying..
@3mr1n
4 жыл бұрын
Spirit Airlines could make it work for them💩
@westonbadke5434
4 жыл бұрын
Possibly should Miami to Bogotá have big capacity.
@Cline3911
4 жыл бұрын
There are about 20,000 airports in the US. The video has left out out the most important fact to the lack of their use in the US. That is the simple fact that there are only about 9 airports even capable of servicing said aircraft. Here is your list. JFK, LAX, SFO, ATL, DFW, IAD, MIA, BOS and the latest ORD. That's it. Then ask the question, Why would a carrier operate an aircraft that can only land at 9 places? That is financially counter-productive. Currently, as I understand it BNA is undergoing *massive* infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A-380, as well as the increase of travelers, and international flights.
@ecclestonsangel
4 жыл бұрын
I knew we'd never buy them. They're an absolute waste of money, not to mention, it costs a bomb to convert the gates to Hadley these ugly monsters. The 747 is called the Queen of the Skies for good reason. She's a streamlined, beautiful bird. The 380 is an ungainly, dumpy bus. You had to convert 2-3 regular gates to fit a 380. With the the 777X, you don't have to convert any gates at all. You don't have to convert gates with the regular Airbuses, either. Once the 380s are done away with, the airports will be gaing a lot of real estate back, and won't have to clean up so much FOD on the runways, or have to worry about so much wake turbulence. Win-win all round!
@jeremiahsalyer7784
4 жыл бұрын
Most comfortable plane I ever flew on.
@muzzledwon1845
4 жыл бұрын
That’s a lot of money to handover to another country, just saying
@albertfitisemanu776
2 жыл бұрын
Have flown in the A380 a few times and loved it. Lots of room . . . nice aircraft.
@trevorgwelch7412
2 жыл бұрын
US Airlines should buy some good used ones !!!! Maybe use the old 380's as a fire fighter water bomber ✈️✨✨✨
@trevorgwelch7412
2 жыл бұрын
...... Because Emirates is the number 1 airline in the world and they use the A-380 Exclusively .
@ChrisZoomER
4 жыл бұрын
The A380 looks so beautiful with the AA Livery!😍
@abeninan4017
3 жыл бұрын
Singapore airlines is the first one to retire the very first A380.
@alangarland8571
4 жыл бұрын
It's a lovely plane in many respects, it's just that the 4 engine model of planes got outdated.
@donjohnston4215
4 жыл бұрын
When you can schedule a direct flight on a 737 from a small or medium market to almost any market in the US why would you want expensive to operate 4 eng units?
@konaniah
4 жыл бұрын
A380 came to late when flying regime is different than 20 or 30 years ago. A380 would suit well back in 70 or 80s.
@xtremegamer3d480
4 жыл бұрын
True. Boeing would have been so fucked
@UriahHeep100
2 жыл бұрын
There is a factor not discussed here.... Jealousy! Look at Concorde - Boeing failed abysmally. Same is true of the VC-10, Comet 4, Hawker Harrier... In Australia it's called a dummy-spit..... America however will (I hope and pray) will be Great Again, but only with President Trump at the Helm! Let's Go Brandon!!
@carloscardoso6107
4 жыл бұрын
Because Boeing did not allowed it! :)
@jskim8418
4 жыл бұрын
Cause if the american airlines ever get to put a hand on one of the A380..they’ll squash in 8-900 seats miserable seats and then imagine trying to take off with 900 giant Americans inside..like 900 extra tons to lift...need a 10,000km runway and 2 additional jet engine with twice the fuel..
@_SP64_
3 жыл бұрын
You must be fun at parties
@Kakkoii_ne
4 жыл бұрын
I live in Japan and have flown the A380 to Hawaii several times. It is a very smooth aircraft and has a lot of room.
@michaelmartinez1345
2 жыл бұрын
If more U.S. based airlines flew a greater number of long distance non-stop flights overseas, then the A-380 would make a lot of sense... But if those flights are filled to less than 70% capacity, the airlines would end-up Loosing money... And with the way things are now, with the supposed pandemic and canceled/expired passports, those overseas flights have been drastically reduced... Things have changed a lot since several of the major U.S. airlines have acquired several of the planes, routes and gates at overseas airports from the other failed U.S. airline competitors (Pan Am, TWA, Northwest, Eastern, Braniff, etc.). It was just Bad timing for this plane to be introduced... In fact, some of the largest gatherings of these types of low-time/low-cycle planes, are at the various desert aircraft salvage yards... Places like Mojave, Victorville, Ca. Kingman, AZ. , Roswell, NM, Where the humidity is low & they will be parked, so the useful parts will be harvested from them for the remaining existing planes...What a shame... Great planes, but too big for the current populace flying the types of routes that these planes can actually make money on...
@kentonkirkpatrick5225
2 жыл бұрын
Pre Pandemic, Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS) handled 40 million passengers a year but wasn't represented on your little U.S.A. map. I'd wager McCarran is in the top five U.S. airports for departing passengers. Other airports may handle more passengers overall but a lot are transfers which are easier to process. Former TSA TSO.
@EnergeticWaves
4 жыл бұрын
I was in the a380 factory last year. You should see one of those wings resting on the floor!
Пікірлер: 2,2 М.