Airbus A380 - the European flagship 

Delta Beta hmm. Me too.

its wont go for a very long time

@@Marco-wz3ff repeat that i fucking dare you

i agree, comfort wise it was so smooth

nope and nope, the A350 is much better, quieter and smoother, at the moment it is the best airliner ever created. But the A380 is special, like the B747 was. I am sad, that A380 came at the wrong time, when the economy is everything. I find the A380 very beautifull from behind, the wings are gorgeous.

not at all lmao

747 is still more popular... and less chubby

It’s called putting pride before economics. Airbus had the right idea when they made a twin engine wide body airliner. Boeing followed suit with the 767 and never designed a new airliner with more than two engines again. Airbus was on the right track with the long range A310, the 727 replacing A320.. and the A300 replacing and 767/777 competitor the A330. But had to satisfy its pride with the A340 just as four engine airliners we’re on the way out. It was small and underpowered and not competitive. The A380 was an expensive halo product that was launched as almost all world airlines were dumping their 747s for smaller twinjets. The first A350 was laughed out of production by GECAS and ILFC as a cheap bandaid reaction to the Boeing 787 (since they were up to their eyeballs in A380 development that’s all they could do). Now it’s a white elephant. Boeing very wisely offered the minimally redesigned 747-8 to split the very tiny jumbo market to ensure Airbus would lost money on every A380 made.

And smallest passenger jet the A318

This guy talking shit about airbus - hows boeing doing this year after a failing 737 MAX and its Starliner program in tatters about to be beaten by SpaceX?

@@Stealth360stealth really got him there bud wow

It's a shame but it does seem the future is wide-body, incredibly efficient twinjet planes instead of quadjet double-deck planes. It does make sense but man the A380 and Boeing 747 are a sight to behold and I'm going to miss either of them if they ever stop being in service (mainly the 747).

@@TheIshikawaRin Yes It's sad, the 4-engine giats as the A380 and the 747 will retire. Boeing 777X and A350 will be flagships

I wonder who’s going to keep the A380 the longest. Probably Emirates and ANA...

Well, would you rather fly in an even smaller sardine can to a airport hub where you can then transfer through security to a gate at the other side of the airport. To catch the big plane which carries you to another hub. Where you then have to catch another small Sardine plane that carries you to the place you wanted to go. Or do you rather just take the crowded oversized sardine can straight to your destination? It's the more direct routes that killed the big 4 engine planes.

Personally I’d rather fly anything that gets me to my destination safely.

Sadly, I think it's never going to make it. The airlines are freaking out so much over fuel costs that they will never give it a chance. Another problem is the US government funds Boeing so it can afford to give away free planes to entice airlines into buying their planes.

Unfortunately, Airbus’ market research and forward projections were incorrect. However a magnificent airplane the 380 may be, passengers preferred direct point to point travel over the hub to hub model, hence A350, B787. Even Boing, worried that it’s heavy lifter 747-400 would be challenged, blew a ton of cash on regenerating the 747-8 uneccesarily, never to be recouped. What both manufacturers gained however, was flow on knowledge enabling them to advance in new tech. Personally I believe that Airbus is superior to Boing both in modernity and airplanes that airlines and passengers prefer to fly. Boing always compromises its product by swapping parts around, and has lost the ability to launch new product sans engineering problems. Compare the initial records of launching the 787 to those of the 350 and one will note Big differences. All the hou hah about so called Dreamliner going on for years, and the Airbus mob listened to their customers and quietly got on with their XWB350...... the moniker is apt as we live in a world of acronyms and XWB says exactly what this amazing machine is. As for giving a name like Dreamliner to product that turned into Boing’s Nightmare, who cares? Airbus grew from Concorde, Boing grew from bombers and that’s a fact. Mix n match from Boing came in the form of B17 to B307; B29 to B377; KC 135 to B707; HLX reconfigured B747; 707/727/737/757 all sharing essential similar fuselage design etc. Boing could not even decide in the 80s which model to bring next, hence the mildly successful 757 and 767 models, each of them “half resolved” and half sold. Both could have been iterated into far more relevant machines..... look how well the 757 has been used by carriers in the 21st century, yet by now their lives are limited by airframe cycles and technology. And Boing’s offering in 2020? A stewed 1950s design upgraded with modern bells and whistles that the airframe cannot handle called 737MAX. Yes, I believe reinventing bomb trucks like their B52 is great idea ( for once, the taxpayer got his money’s worth ) for 70 years, but come on Boing, would anyone purchase a 50s motor car with iPhone connectivity? Safety has come magically a long way, even tho’ people do their best to kill themselves on the road, a 2020s passenger airplane such as 737MAX does NOT have any place in the sky.

Anthony Tolhurst very busy "hub to hub" sectors, are still a good market for this aircraft. That's why the A380plus project was on the drawing board. Airlines still wanted to be able to use this aircraft to fly on long-haul busy routes where direct point-to-point wasn't so important. They could still achieve at 12% drop in costs, and an increase in efficiency of 17% overall, depending on seat configuration. so there is still a few years to go yet before this aircraft disappears from our skies. Those figures allow an aircraft to pay for its purchase cost in just three and a half years of operation on some extremely busy sectors, after that an airline can make profit without having to pay for the aircraft. And the new concept of the extreme density low-cost market look very promising indeed from a large aircraft standpoint. That's why the new 777X-9 and 747 800 are beginning to get a new lease of life on the order books. The new 777 can house up to 414 passengers in three classes, and over 500 in two class high-density layout, rivaling the 747-8 and the A380 in terms of margin overhead per capita. This new high density low cost model, will dominate the long-haul market for the next 4 or 5 years. with many airlines already reconfiguring their seat layout to suit this market. This doesn't mean that the executive sectors, offering three class layout, will disappear from busy routes, it just means that the high-density low-cost market will take a slightly larger share than it does currently. There will always be a business/first market no matter what, because that's what really pays the bills, it's just that it will take a step back and take up a slightly smaller share of the overall sector market. With improvements in engine efficiency, new manufacturing techniques, and the use of more composite materials in construction, over 100 A380plus, another 120 777X-9, and options for another 40 747-8 aircraft are on order, so the VLA market is now looking healthier again - for very busy long haul hub routes at least, anyway. The new high density low cost seat marketing models will keep these giants flying for years to come. Perhaps, not decades, but for many years anyway. Proof of this, can be found in last month's contract by a small low-cost airline, to purchase 30 boneyard A380s to operate using a 'super high density, super low cost, on super busy routes' model. Other low-cost airlines are following suit. Over the next five years many nearly new 747s and 777s will be purchased or leased from boneyards, or carriers wishing to offload their fleet stock, to use as a one class extreme high density very low cost hub to hub model. They will squeeze out the last few percent of value of these wonderful older VLAs that thought their flying days were over.

@Andrew Liang YOU SOUND VERY ANGRY!!!

I agree, turboprop regional airplanes and many bush planes are very underapreciated. In my country countles isolated communities are being served by these type of planes. They bring connection, investment, vaccine, and many more to these communities. 👍

Yes

+1 for the Caravelle

Phil But it’s also already big enough. Lengthening it would probably make it too big for Code F airports. This is not mentioning how could any airline fill an even bigger A380.

@@sashingopaul3111 That exactly is what the market is about. If enough money was to be made with this plane, all the rpoblems you talk about would be tackled

...and landed safe with overweight.

Roger Redding R.R Should have offered a freighter at the same time? May have sold well? Lots of freight always need to be moved worldwide?and it's a new modern wide bodied aircraft? ideal for replacing the ageing workhorse 747 freighter ?

Playing flight sim dosent count. And FYI you do very little flying in anything Airbus.

@@garethcurtis7545 take a 737 MAX then if you want more excitment

My thought about it is that they might try it once they have all the customers happy. My thought always been that once it lost it's glamour they might try to build it and assemble it all in one place, cutting costs and improving times of delivery. I want to know if they'll try to do it in France, or if they want to cut a lot of costs and they'll try to create a huge assembly plant in Spain, for example The reason why it was assembled all over the place is because it was a great pride for Europe, but now, it would be better if it was built faster and cheaper. And for cargo I'm sure it will always be cost effective, because there is always need to transport a lot of stuff everywhere, specially with the rise of Aamazon and Alibaba and their big pockets

Actually market changed. Not many orders for 747's either. (except cargo) Cariers went from hub and spoke organisation to more direct flights. Usually with smaller long range planes like the 787 and A350. As a cargo plane the A380 isn't that efficient. It's made for internal volume not lifting capacity. Then it can't be loaded through the nose like a 747 cargo plane. (which offers far more efficient loading). TLDR. The jobs it was designed for are going out. And it is a lousy transport plane.

@@1barnet1 Correct. 747's are vanishing from the common carrier market....now, only cargo orders. Market wants fuel efficient, twin engine planes.

@@bril5057 Makes me think if boeing or Airbus would design a proper modern cargo plane. with front and rear doors with the largest twin engine set-up and best fuel economy. How well would they sell?

1barnet1 The 777 freighter is selling very well. The nose door on the 747F advantage is to be able to load long oversized cargo for the heavy lift market that won’t fit through a side door. In that segment, it competes with the Antonov. Many 747 cargo planes are converted passenger planes and don’t have the nose door. Loading ULD containers is easily done through side doors. If you look at FEDEX, they don’t use the 747F, they have been buying up the 777F and 767F as they replaced older aircraft. Cargo market is very different than passenger market. For example, most transpacific cargo planes stop in Anchorage Alaska for crew change and to be able to carry more cargo weight than fuel. There is talk that Boeing had discussions with FedEx and I am sure UPS on the proposed 797 as a freighter.

Wait for a few minutes)

Skyships Eng that wouldn't make me FIRST ;)

@@ilotitto I can wait)

1080p here dog.

Razster i know, I was just to eager to watch it so I didn't wait.

He did DC-10 and MD 11

Found all songs: Ersatz Bossa - John Deley and the 41 Players The Bluest Star - The 126ers Tonto - Silent Partner Wedding Invitation - Jason Farnham Whirlwind Love - Unicorn Heads Wigs - Riot

Gareth Curtis Sky Surv but...ANZ uses 787s and 77Ws

Fred Schriks better than flying guppy

Good joke XD

Atri Hegde what are you trying to say?

I've never had been on a plane

FinalLugiaGuardian Wow, the 747 is dying next to the 380 so what rock do you live under if you didnt know that...

@@stacked-racing That may be true for the passenger 747, even though Boeing has not announced any such intentions. However, even if the 747 passenger jet ceases production, the 747 freighter will continue to be in production for the foreseeable future. Joe Sutter predicted the 747 would one day be just a freeighter. And a design feature of the 747, the nose that can open up to facilitate loading cargo from the front of the airplane, that allows much longer cargo that cannot be loaded any other way in any other aircraft, is the reason that it cannot be fully replaced for that purpose. That is why the 747 will continue to survive for much longer than the A380 production will.

@@stacked-racing The A380 is done. Production will end in a year or two. All airlines using it are retiring it early, within 10 years. It is too expensive to buy or operate. Not efficient. It has to be basically filled to be viable. The 747 is still being produced mostly for cargo versions and VIP planes. No end of production in sight. Lufthansa is using 747-8s to replace their A380s. The 747 cargo freighter is king of that niche. So no, the 747 is not dying like the A380 is. Somebody is confused as to who is living under the rock.

dave miller when did I ask anything about the a380, oh yeah, I didn’t, you don’t have to tell me the facts of it everyone already knows

dave miller also I literally only said its dying, not dead, like the a380