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 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.
I wasn't trying to get into a comparison with US, but do think they they are relevant to the financial accounting of the 380 programing. Airbus got some 15 odd billion in launch aid that was to be paid back through sales that never occurred.
I love the plane itself. It is my top choice for transatlantic flight. Businesses class is fantastic. If you get a window, they have stow cabinets big enough for my backpack, laptop, and street shoes.
So the point was that they had massive sunk costs which couldn't be recovered. The legality or otherwise of the EU subsidies is a bit beside the point.
It's absolutely one of my favourites to fly on. I'll miss it when they replace it with the 2 engine widebodies. Economics just didn't work out for a good idea.
(A re-engined 747 with something quieter, and with better cabin pressure and humidity could also have worked but Boeing were never going there)
