Airbus A380 – $6.1B in additional costs due to project delays | Hacker News Reader

Airbus A380 – $6.1B in additional costs due to project delays

calleam.com

78 pointsjakub_g58 comments

There is a bigger problem. The growth of ETOPS planes (planes with two engines that can fly over the Atlantic or Pacific) with fewer seats that need to be filled for a route to be profitable have basically made this plane irrelevant. This includes the 787, the 777, and Airbus's own A350. Airbus greenlit the project based on original sales projections of 1,200 A380s being sold. So far around three hundred have been sold. In addition Airbus projected a brand new market called "VLA" (very large aircraft >500 seats) would come into existence and demand sixty to seventy airframes a year. They therefore compromised the original design of the A380 to target a re-winged and re-engined stretch version down the line. So far most carriers run under 500 seats, with no-one even coming close the theoretical 850 seats that the current Airbus could do, to say nothing about a next generation A380.

Airbus explicitly bet that point to point routes would go away in favor of fortress hubs and hub to hub traffic. The reverse has instead happened. United is making a small fortune now with hub to previously unserved cities in Asia. Norwegian is disrupting the entire Atlantic market by flying 787s into other carriers hubs, destroying any economic advantage that the hubs have.

Airbus wanted plane that was "the biggest and the best" for prestige purposes. That led them to green-light the A380. The A308s engineering problems are problems, but what ultimately dooms it is a basic conceptual problem with the plane itself. It's basically a prestige project, and is going to leave Airbus and European tax-payers on the hook.

All that said, the A380 is a great plane to fly on. I fly it regularly to Bangkok via Seoul. More often then not, the entire upper deck (which is business only on Korean) is 75% empty.

I call the A380 the Flytanic. It's not even a very atrractive plane. The 747 is retro now, but it is a beautiful plane. Whenever I can, I fly the 787 on long haul flights. Super comfortable, love it.

I recently flew economy in a 787 for the first time and it was the most uncomfortable flight I've ever had. Incredibly narrow seats, and way too much cabin noise. I have heard the same thing from other people.

I wish airlines would charge a bit more per seat instead of trying to keep shrinking the seats. As it stands you have to pay a lot extra in many cases to get a comfortable seat.

The dimension of the seats is dependent on the airline. I do not know about the cabin noise.

My 787 experience on ANA was amazing! Probably the most comfortable flight I've ever had.

You must have been on JAL 787. The economy seats there are incredibly tiny. I assume this is because Japanese people are not big.

I've never liked the 747, but i've flown internationally on the 777ER on Delta and Air France. Wonderful experience for the most part.

Also want to point out that the A380 is one of the least fuel efficient modern planes on the market per passenger-mile.

Obviously the 787 is famously fuel-efficient, but even other standard planes fare much better (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft).

Buying an A380 is super risky, since you'll be bitten either by an economic downturn (if you can't fill the whole A380, it's a massive money sink; smaller planes are far more flexible) or by rising jet fuel prices (which is highly likely, since these planes are expected to fly for 20+ years).

It's shocking that it's almost as inefficient as a 30 year old 747 on a per seat basis. If it's % load factor is lower than other airliners that's a double whammy.

The cost per seat-mile is being driven by the fact that Airbus sold the seat-mile efficiencies assuming a larger number of seats then the airlines have actually outfitted.

The 747 and the 707 are _the_ airframes that changed the world. Boeing is still releasing planes that are directly derived from the 707s (the 737-MAX) while the 747s where not only the first double deck jet, they were the first widebody.

Their times are coming to a end though..

The big advantage of the A380 is routes out of airports like Heathrow with few available landing slots.

Actually, statistically the A380 dominates ME traffic, primarily because of Emirates. The only thing that has let the A380 limp along this long as been EK's order book.

That said, it's pretty clear that the hypothesis that all airports would resemble heathrow - flag capitals with flag carriers and slot restrictions - is not the way the world has evolved.

Why did Emirates purchase so many compared to other airlines with many of the same routes (Qatar, Etihad etc) or similarly big hubs (Singapore).

My understanding is that the wake caused by the A380 requires that additional buffer space be allocated in the landing/takeoff sequence, so this advantage really doesn't exist.

According to Wikipedia, indeed, in last 3 years there were only 2 new orders as well as 2 cancellations, and some airlines are considering getting rid of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Timeline

I still recall way back when the A380 and 787 were announced, Airbus and Boeing were espousing and committing to very different ideas about how air travel would evolve. Airbus was betting the hub and spoke model would remain and become more dominant, and Boeing was betting on more point-to-point. Anecdotally, Boeing got a little press hate as observers thought the 787 was just a weak response to the A380 announcement, more of a face-saver than a strong vision. Decades later it's looking like Boeing made the right call.

> Decades later it's looking like Boeing made the right call.

I don't believe that it was not as much as Boeing making the right call as it was the A380 suffering from massive delays that lead to its introduction right on the onset of the global financial crisis.

Faced with a short-term scenario where demand for air travel would even drop, spending an extra 200 million on each plane to acquire 4 times the seating capacity and is more expensive to operate isn't exactly a sound business decision.

Moreover, not all airports could serve the A380.

The hub and spoke model is a fundamental part of today's air travel, but so is offering frequent flights between hubs. If an airline serves between 60 to 80 clients per flight, why would they spend more to get 10x the required capacity and costs more to operate?

You need to remember that Boeing actually went faster first, and when that failed, they went to the 7E7 - what eventually became the 787. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

Boeing ended up doing pretty well with that mistep. It kept them from launching the 747 expansion that they were talking about (which would have been a disaster) and eventually made them really listen to customers - something that Airbus wasn't doing in the heady days after the millennium in Europe.

"It's basically a prestige project, and is going to leave Airbus and European tax-payers on the hook."

I wasn't aware that Airbus was subsidized by EU taxpayers. How does that work? Is it done in an indirect way, like in the US, where companies like Boeing get tons of defense contracts, or something different?

Airbus (nee EADS) was formed by decree, several aerospace companies in the EU were forced to merge, forming EADS.

"Internal reviews identified that the heart of the problem was the fact that the different design groups working on the project had used different Computer Aided Design (CAD) software to create the engineering drawings. The development of the aircraft was a collaboration between 16 sites spread across 4 different countries. German and Spanish designers had used one version of the software (CATIA version 4), while British and French teams had upgraded to version 5."

Really interesting! While I've hardly worked on anything as complex as an A380, I take it as a high priority for all software packages, from dev to test to prod, all be on the exact same version. Python 3.4 on one box and 3.6 on another? Let's not.

I work for an aerospace-related org. You would be shocked at how even within a single org nobody enforces standards across different groups. Even within this one org they use a handful of different CAD systems whether by choice, or as a result of time passing and people and technology changing.

Nobody spends the money to bring old drawings forward into newer tech when it changes either, and the CAD files tend to often be proprietary binary formats that are difficult to work with.

Really quite annoying and wasteful, but it is the way it is because people don't think about these problems and plan/ spend in advance to avoid them.

The aerospace companies have spent a lot of money on open CAD formats [1], though it wouldn't have helped in this particular case.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_10303

Yep. At my employer, all programs that get deployed to production must be built with either the current version of the toolchain, or the previous version. All builds are hermetic, and it's a requirement that all programs get rebuilt and redeployed at least once every N months, so that the programs out in the wild aren't built with toolchains and libraries that are too wildly different from head.

But there's a whole team dedicated to the task of maintaining that state here. I can imagine that at a company where this is not the core competency, there would be some slippage.

In a way it is ironic because in aeronautical engineering everything is well tested with backup systems when it comes to making the airframes, engines, and the entire airplane.

Yet, they did not engineer their software system according to the same standards of residency which is a part of engineering often forgotten about by many.

One of the great value-added of firms using open source software is indeed the integration testing of various software packages.

Lightbend is one example, they do a full Scala stack https://www.lightbend.com/platform

Databricks for Spark, Cloudera and MapR for Spark/Hadoop, etc.

EDIT: Autocorrect correction: Yet, they did not engineer their software system according to the same standards of ++resiliency++ which is a part of engineering often forgotten about by many.

What's your opinion on docker in production where every component runs on its own container with its own version of dependencies?

Several years ago I worked with a large multinational company where every site had their own IT teams. A lot of mergers, etc. Probably much like BAE. A firm who's major product is info.

Some of those teams were extremely incompetent.

My client had made a video of the CEO speaking to the whole company which turned out wouldn't fit on their internal sharepoint site because there was a 50 meg limit for videos. The CEO was not at all impressed with the quality of a 20 min video at 50 meg so in desperation, they ended up asking us to host it for them.

But then vimeo didn't work for some sites, then wistia for others, in the end we ended up having to set it up on Amazon's cloudfront. So each site had their own firewall rules, own white-lists, bad IT connections, etc.

Throughout this debacle, we got claims of our incompetence by IT personnel at their various sites. Really opened my eyes at how disorganised a large organisation can become, as well as how people can hold positions in large orgs that they have no ability to perform by politicking.

And that's how you end up with loads of different versions of software at different sites in the same company.

EDIT: Actually, I recall incorrectly, we originally used cloudfront, which didn't work, then vimeo was blocked on some sites, but no-one had blocked wistia yet as they were still a fairly new entrant.

Random endorsement: Wistia are great, love their API, love their support, great video hosting company.

I see the same at my company. I think the reason is that the top guys in non-IT industries don't see IT as core competence but as a cost center that ideally gets outsourced to the lowest bidder. Unless there is a very strong CIO different divisions won't talk to each other and no standardization happens. Even if one division does a good job they usually can't sustain that for long because their budgets will get cut. It's a very unhappy situation for everybody and the best people leave after a while.

Not sure politicking is the root reason for Airbus: Catia is just hugely expensive, so upgrading is really a considerable cost. But probably not worth causing $6.1bn delay – Technical debt can bite you in weird ways.

That is true for almost all Telcos I worked for. As they are a result of multiple mergers, the internal environment is absolutely horrible and moved by chaos. I'm currently working, as a consultant, with a Telco that has the worst IT team I've ever worked for and whose only job seems to be to blame us (the integrator) for everything.

> Really interesting! ... I take it as a high priority for all software packages, from dev to test to prod, all be on the exact same version. Python 3.4 on one box and 3.6 on another? Let's not.

The canonical way to get around this is unit test and CI.

This article shows that airbus did that...and still got screwed.

Which shows that your approach is a good one!

The article states that calculation of bend radii (of wiring/cabling) was the problem. If that was the case, surely one of the two versions of their design software was calculating incorrectly? If so, one would think that the whole team being on the same version wouldn't have helped (if they were on a version that calculated lengths incorrectly).

But perhaps there's more subtlety to the calculation discrepancy than is evident in the article.

> ... when the A380 Program Manager attempted to move the German designers onto the same CAD system as the French, he met a wall of resistance. Personal rivalries and national pride are reported to have been issues ...

And yet there are other, more objective motives for resistance. As all big-org managers know:

1. Reputational: Belatedly switching to your peer organization's tools suggests you made a poor planning decision earlier.

2. Work shifting: The switch itself will inevitably consume many weeks of calender time, though non-technical upper management will insist on pretending otherwise. While you're struggling to switch, the rival peer org will press its advantage, collecting milestone checkoffs and praise from higher-ups. Alternative is to block the change, so as to bury some considerable share of the tool mismatch pain and delay in the rival org.

Talk about burying the lede:

> In today’s complex integrated supply chains, stories of failed configuration management during the design process are a sadly all too common.

This is a good way to kill a lean and virtual startup, and surely has.

Also fascinating: the manager who raised the problem in the first place was blocked by upper management and then fired because the problem occurred.

I admit I know virtually nothing about the aircraft industry, but I always wonder why Airbus doesn't do the initially planned cargo version of the A380. The only reason I can imagine is that there aren't enough customers for the cargo version, but why is this so? Isn't air cargo growing? Would an cargo A380 be too expensive? Some comments suggest the A380 has bad fuel efficiency per passenger mile, but some others suggest this is because airlines put less passenger seats in the plane than possible. Surely this can't be a problem for freight planes? What is it?

Apparently it's about the weight/space ratio which makes is not economical to fly cargo with A380:

"An A380-F would be too fat to fly at a profit: The plane would hit the maximum payload (a constraint of weight) before its maximum cubic space (a constraint of volume). Its design can’t support the maximum payload required to generate a profit.

(...)

The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight. It wouldn’t be fully loaded at typical levels of air cargo density, or at least nothing close to what can be supported by the thrust capacity of the 747."

https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...

The dedicated cargo freighter market has been in decline for quite a while, but the volume of cargo has been increasing. The reason is cargo goes in the holds of passenger aircraft. This is nice extra money for the airline: the plane was going to go anyway, the crew is paid for, the fuel difference is minimal etc.

Remember that planes are already double decker (triple for A380). They look like this: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c732e2865f73d86b72c5a...

The bottom deck has fuel tanks, passenger bags, and space for cargo. The A380 (passenger version) is problematic for cargo because there are two passenger decks which means up to twice the lower deck taken up with baggage leaving less for the cargo.

Most comfortable passenger aircraft I've ever flown on. I've only flown them with Emirates - and it may be a combination of their choices for how it is equipped inside along with their service, but either way if I ever have a chance to be on an A-380 I jump at it.

I was screwed out of my opportunity to fly in an A380 by JetStar, a horrible discount airline in Australia whose random flight delay made us miss our flight out of Sydney. Ended up on a 747.

How does it compare to the Dreamliner/Boeing 787?

I like the Dreamliner. The ride is noticeably smoother and the improvements to cabin air filtration, humidity management, cabin pressurization at lower altitudes, larger windows, and "mood lighting" make for a more enjoyable ride [0].

[0]https://backpackerlee.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-airbus-a3...

They're both magnificent planes, but given the option I will usually take the 380. At least on the upper deck, it's far quieter. Over a 10-15 hour flight, that goes a long way with me.

All nice bonuses when you've got your knees in your nostrils and elbow locked with the person next to you. Almost all 787s joining fleets have smaller width or legroom than their replacements (whatever they are a380, 777, a330 etc..). There are exceptions Air India is one and I forget the other..

A little late addition, also consider watching the documentary Broken Dreams 787 by Al Jazeera, it is available on YouTube, some very concerning allegations that go far beyond limited space.

What's often overlooked in articles such as that is that the 787 and the A380 have the same cabin environmental system hardware; developed by Hamilton-Sundstrand for the A380 and modified to work with the 787's mostly-bleedless engines.

In fact at 38,000ft the A380's cabin can be held at just under 5000ft-equivalent, and not more than 7,000ft at 41k, which is much better than previous types. The 787 can hold 6,000ft to 43k.

Boeing's genius with the 787 was in marketing an airliner directly to the traveller for the first time since the Convair 880 back in the 1950s. Airbus were caught completely off-guard by that and never quite recovered until the later A350.

The couple of times I flew the Dreamliner it really wasn't much of a difference to the 777 or A330. Noise level was very similar, same leg room, same seat space. Quite disappointing.

From what I hear and have read, the A380 is significantly quieter. To a degree that is eerie.

The 787 is fantastic. The composite body and bleed-less engines allow for the cabin air to be held at a higher humidity and a lower altitude level then other planes. I regularly fly transpacific, and my preferences (in order) are 787-9, 787-8, A380, B777-200LR, A330, B747-8i (Lufthansa runs these between Frankfurt and Chicago), B777-300ER, I will do almost anything to avoid the old 747s, the old A340s and first generation 777s that United is still dragging around.

I recently flew direct from Denver to Narita in Tokyo. I got off the flight felling like it was the equivalent of a Denver to San Francisco flight in terms of impact to my body.

The correct comparison for the Boeing 787 is not the A380 super-jumbo but the A350XWB. It's mostly a successor to the earlier A330, but with a more extensive use of composites, updated everything, and a slightly wider fuselage; it's about the same size as and designed for the same operational model as the 787, but because Airbus were wrong-footed by the market turn and over-focussed on the A380 it only flew relatively recently, giving the Boeing product time to build up a big market lead.

We love to focus on the minutiae of technical specification. The reality is that both the 787 and the A380 are modern passenger planes with similar cabin environmental systems. How much you enjoy flying each type is probably going to depend more on incidental factors such as what seat you're in and who is next to you, and what IFE the airline chose to install (if any) when it comes to medium and long haul flying.

Personally I am not particularly tall or wide (174 cm) so I can make myself comfortable even in the cramped conditions of discount airlines. However if you're taller or wider, you're going to be checking seatguru for which airlines give you the most legroom. In general, the Airbus product for each segment (A320 vs 737, A330/A350 vs 787) is slightly wider than the Boeing product so if you're a big bloke it might be important to you.

For me, I've flown the 787 and the A380 but I actually like the old (Qantas) A330 best, for the simple reason that I like the window seat, and the less dense 2-4-2 configuration means I only have to climb over one person when I want to stretch my legs!

Emirates A380 is pretty meh. Narrow seats and slow as hell boarding. But service is okay for size for flight, not a problem approaching crew and asking for whatever you desire during quiet periods, dont be the douche that presses the call button unless your sandwiched on a non-aisle seat with aisler asleep.

777s are better in my opinion generally not as cramped and much faster boarding and disembarking. The newer the plane the generally smaller the legroom or seat width. 777 are much older, but seem equally quiet - much quieter than a 747 or a340 etc..

787 seems a nightmare plane, with exception of one or two airlines such air india putting out 33" legroom in eco. 787 set a precedence to cram in as much as you can, look at Oman Air that outfitted their a330 with 34" in economy as the fleet standard several years ago, but on new dreamliners starting toc creep into its route map its 31", and they fly similar lengths, that's the future unfortunately - virgin and BA equally shit at 31" on 787

If you continue to desire A380, then Singapore is far superior, economy upper desk, service and seat walk all over Emirates A380, but if your in the states then any non-us airline will look like premium economy in comparison, even Easyjet ;)

You're mistaken. Emirates A380 have some of the widest economy seats in the air at 17.8". Many planes with 17". Very little >18"

Singapore is 19" ;) Although Im generally happy with 18", it felt much more cramped but I guess some of that could be attributed to being in largest eco section downstairs, Ill retract the narrow seat comment based on standards, it's a crowded plane and that is certainly felt when in the main section.

> Most comfortable passenger aircraft I've ever flown on

Maybe, but it's a commercial flop for Airbus. That's not the plane most airlines need in the current market.

Don't write it off.

1. They say the plane may have been "10 years too early"

2. It will get more fuel efficient engines.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev...

All planes will get more fuel efficient engines. Direct routes are likely to remain dominant.

Where? In the US?

I am not sure this is the case in markets with hight growth rates.

It also important to point out that a lot of airports (for example, Dublin) are not equipped to actually be able to manage the A380. Where as a lot are capable of the 747.

An addendum to your point: Aer Lingus (the Irish Flag Carrier) used to fly the 747 out of Dublin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com