by sidewndr46 5 hours ago
I find the whole thing a little odd. The 747 seems to be a great aircraft. It's also a quad jet and the change in regulations for ETOPS makes twinjets a no brainer for reducing cost. There's no reason to hurry and up and get rid of them, many will continue in cargo service for many years. But there isn't any reason to build big quad jets any longer
We might still reach a point in a few decades where capacity constraints at major airports make larger quadjets economically viable again. That was the thesis behind the Airbus A380, and it didn't work. But is it possible that they weren't so much wrong as just too early?
"Didn't work" meaning did not result in 5,000 orders. The aircraft in use by the middle east and asian airlines (and Qantas) are doing fine. They are also less economic than the modern 2 engine widebodies, despite being more economic than a 747 on the same route, with higher comfort levels and less intrusive engine noise.
They just didn't turn out to fit the emerging economics of flight. They "work" fine.
I think what they mean is the A380 never made airbus any money. It makes plenty of money for many airlines
I think they mean work out for airbus. Financially was a huge program disaster. It sold half the number of airframes needed for cost break even in nominal value, before accounting for the cost of capital. This also doesnt account for billions in illegal EU government subsidies.