A380?

It was controversial from the outset whether the A380 will be an economic success for Airbus. Of course, the more traditional heads were called for the number of passengers to increase and that the formula for long-haul aircraft was higher=better by about the 1990s. And indeed, if you go straight after fuel consumption per passenger, a full A380 is a very efficient aircraft.

However, in the 1990s it was actually clear that the future does not belong to the giant aircraft. With A310, A330 and B767 there were already smaller long-haul aircraft that could efficiently fly direct connections – which is not only more pleasant for the passenger, but also cheaper for the airline, because at smaller airports the fees are lower than at the large hubs.

Say: The flight from hub to hub can still be flown so efficiently when you calculate the delivery flights, the direct connection with a smaller plane is the more efficient solution.

In addition, the B777 came out in the 1990s, which was almost as large as the B747 with only two engines. Say, Boeing has shown the world that you can fly with two engines everything you wanted to do until then. Two large engines are in operation clearly more favourable than four, with the same total power. It is not only possible to think about fuel consumption, but also about the necessary working hours for maintenance.

In my eyes it was clear at the turn of the millennium that international aviation does not really need a four-engine giant passenger plane. And unfortunately, Airbus has built the device so that it doesn’t really turn into a cargo plane.

But if it was a failed project, I doubt it more. A great deal of development has been done for the A380, particularly in the field of fiber composites. This know-how benefited Airbus when it was noticed that you should also offer an alternative to 777 and 787. The A350 would have taken much longer without this preparatory work.