This week, The Air Show Podcast (which is worth listening to — Brett, Brian, and Jon, are definitely smart and sort of funny guys) had Emirates President Tim Clark as a guest. Clark is one of the brightest guys in the industry, and he also has an incredibly depth of knowledge, since he has been running Emirates longer than I’ve been alive.
The entire interview is interesting, but there’s one thing he said that stood out to me, which I’m a little skeptical of…
In this post:
Emirates’ Tim Clark claims other airlines sabotaged the A380
Emirates and the Airbus A380 basically go hand-in-hand. The airline found more success with the whale jet than any other airline, and it ordered nearly as many of these as all other airlines combined. One certainly wonders where Emirates would be without the A380 (and for that matter, the A380 probably wouldn’t exist without Emirates).
Unfortunately the final A380 was delivered in 2021, as Airbus just couldn’t justify keeping the program alive, as much as Emirates pushed for it. Other airlines just didn’t want such a big plane. Fortunately these planes will keep flying through 2040 or so, so we have another 15 or so years of showering and going to the bar on an airplane.
Anyway, Clark loves to talk about the A380, for obvious reasons (he’s always pushing aircraft manufacturers to develop bigger planes). So he was asked about why the A380 program went the way it did — why could Emirates make it work so well, while other airlines couldn’t (if you want to listen to it, this part of the conversation starts around 31 minutes into the podcast)?
Clark correctly points out that other airlines simply didn’t order enough of the planes in order to scale their networks, and that a super hub like Dubai really allowed the plane to reach its full potential. After all, you can have A380s arriving from Frankfurt, London, Milan, Paris, and Zurich, then connecting passengers to A380s flying to Bangkok, Hong Hong, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, and Sydney.
He also said that Emirates created a special product onboard, while the interiors of other carriers’ A380s looked like DC-10s. Ouch. But that’s all fair enough, right?
Here’s where it gets really interesting, though. Clark then went on to say the following:
“The American carriers weren’t having anything to do with it anyway, because in those days, this was the weapon in the armory of Emirates, so you need to stop using them, because that allows them to go to Airbus to build more and more and more, so none of them bought the airplane.”
He was then asked if he was serious about that comment, and responded with the following:
“In the time of the rift, there was a clear mandate in the Star group, do not buy the A380, because it gives immense power to them. If we don’t buy it, eventually its demise will come about. And in truth, that’s what happened.”
“Who could say to me you could fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo with the A380, whether United, American, or Delta, and not make money? I don’t think so. Or go from Los Angeles to Sydney.”
For those curious about “the rift,” this refers to roughly a decade ago, when there was a huge battle between the US carriers and Gulf carriers. Essentially the US carriers were trying to restrict US access for Gulf carriers, arguing the airlines were “illegally” subsidized. Go figure United now partners with Emirates, American partners with Etihad and Qatar, and Delta plans a close partnership with Riyadh Air. Lolz.
In a rare instance, I disagree with Tim Clark!
I think Clark’s biggest strength and biggest weakness is that he has been in Dubai for 40 years. So he has an incomparable depth of knowledge when it comes to building one of the world’s most revered airline brands from the ground up. But I also think he sometimes forgets what a special situation Emirates is in.
Were other airlines rooting for the Airbus A380 to fail? Probably. Was that at all a motivating factor in carriers like American, Delta, and United, not ordering the A380? No way. It’s funny, because Clark acknowledges the reasons the A380 doesn’t work for other airlines, which is that you need a super hub like Dubai, and it also helps to have traffic flows where a passenger can connect from one A380 to another A380.
None of that reflects the reality of the US airline industry. US airlines need to have multiple big hubs throughout the country, given that the United States is a little bigger than the United Arab Emirates. 😉 Furthermore, US airlines face a ton of competition from foreign carriers in their home market, while a lot of Emirates’ demand comes from poaching passengers from other airlines, by transiting people via Dubai.
The most obvious sign that the logic doesn’t add up, though, is to just look at the reality of the fleets at the “big three” US carriers. How many have ordered the Boeing 777X? Zero. That’s not to spite Emirates, but it’s because they just prefer to fly smaller long haul aircraft, with a disciplined approach to capacity, to keep yields high (the same is true domestically — just look at how overrun our most congested airports are with regional jets).
US airlines are so heavily focused on joint ventures and schedule, so they want to have more frequencies in markets. Demand from the US is also a lot more seasonal than it is in the UAE, given that UAE is geographically sort of “the center of the world,” in terms of connecting people.
It’s also interesting to hear Clark comment about how there’s no way that a US carrier wouldn’t make money flying an A380 between Los Angeles and Tokyo. I think most US airline executives would have a different take. And I also think Clark fails to consider that US airlines actually barely make money flying passengers, but instead, much of their profits come from their lucrative credit card deals.
So I agree with Clark that many airline executives were probably happy to see the A380 ultimately fail. However, I don’t think the desire for failure was a motivating factor in those airlines not ordering the plane.
Bottom line
Emirates President Tim Clark has a lot of interesting insights, and in a recent interview, he claimed that other airlines sabotaged the success of the Airbus A380 in order to weaken Emirates. He claims that US airlines would’ve succeeded with the A380, and that the Star Alliance had a mandate to not buy the A380.
Personally I think this logic is a bit of a stretch. I’m bummed that A380 production was ultimately discontinued, and I’m also a huge fan of the aircraft, and think it’s not surprising that Emirates found success with it. However, outside of something like the Gulf region, I’m not surprised the plane never caught on.
What do you make of Clark’s comments about the A380?
The CEO is right. American airlines did sabotage Emirates and boycotted the A380. It's an open secret in the airline industry. They tried everything possible to keep Middle Eastern airlines away from the USA.
If the American carriers had used 380s on their trunks, it would have made them a whole lot of $. See the way airlines are bringing back their old 380s now post COVID.
I need to get on one before it's too late.
I've flown Emirates but from MSP usually it's via ORD so I'll have to figure out a JFK itinerary
Someone else shat in my pants.
The A380 is a beautifully designed plane. But, why would I want to fly it? Too slow to board (at most airports). And, you have to find a carrier that gives a decent J seating. A 787 or 350 gives me the J I want.
Singapore Airlines used to run an A380 from Tokyo to Los Angeles but they downgraded that to a 777 years ago. Not sure if its because the plane was actively losing money on the route or because there were larger upsides to deploying the aircraft to other destinations. The latter seems more likely, there are 12 daily flights right now between LAX and NRT/HND so clearly the volume is there. I've thought for a while...
Singapore Airlines used to run an A380 from Tokyo to Los Angeles but they downgraded that to a 777 years ago. Not sure if its because the plane was actively losing money on the route or because there were larger upsides to deploying the aircraft to other destinations. The latter seems more likely, there are 12 daily flights right now between LAX and NRT/HND so clearly the volume is there. I've thought for a while actually that it might make sense for ANA to pick up a few additional secondhand A380's and deploy them to LAX and maybe some Southeast Asia destinations as well to serve both O/D and connecting traffic. Their Honolulu exclusive plan doesn't seem to be working very well.
“Brett, Brian, and Jon, are definitely smart and sort of funny guys“ has got to be the best way to describe them and their podcast
A380 … especially from EK:
NO MATTER what others think or say about this plane, if somebody ever flew on it and enjoyed a decent flight, will not likely set foot on any BOEING plane again and without a doubt, EK is hard to top in many ways!
Competitors globally tried many times to sabotage EK, … at the end it’s clear who’s the real winner, isn’t it?
Just my own experiences...
A380 … especially from EK:
NO MATTER what others think or say about this plane, if somebody ever flew on it and enjoyed a decent flight, will not likely set foot on any BOEING plane again and without a doubt, EK is hard to top in many ways!
Competitors globally tried many times to sabotage EK, … at the end it’s clear who’s the real winner, isn’t it?
Just my own experiences in last 20 years of extensive flying!
For sure NOT 1 airline in the US and maybe 2-3 in asia can keep up, but still not compete with EK as their A380 is simply unbeatable! ;-)
Emirates operates out of an airport which is quite capacity constrained with no room for expansion. In this situation using very large aircraft was the only way for Emirates to consistently grow, because further frequency increases are simply not possible then. Currently the smallest aircraft in EK's fleet is the A350-900 with ca. 300 seats. So the A380 is a great aircraft for Emirates' needs in Emirates' circumstances. For other airlines it's a different story.
Emirates operates out of an airport which is quite capacity constrained with no room for expansion. In this situation using very large aircraft was the only way for Emirates to consistently grow, because further frequency increases are simply not possible then. Currently the smallest aircraft in EK's fleet is the A350-900 with ca. 300 seats. So the A380 is a great aircraft for Emirates' needs in Emirates' circumstances. For other airlines it's a different story.
Therefore Clark is not entirely thruthful.
I'm calling self serving BS. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he's being truthful or even objective.
There is a very well informed analysis of why the A380 wasn't a very good design. I'll post the link but the core reason is it wasn't as efficient as twin engine aircraft with right sized wings.
"In the late 90's Boeing forecast a market with need for more point-to-point longhaul flying, whereas Airbus thought growth...
I'm calling self serving BS. Just because he's smart doesn't mean he's being truthful or even objective.
There is a very well informed analysis of why the A380 wasn't a very good design. I'll post the link but the core reason is it wasn't as efficient as twin engine aircraft with right sized wings.
"In the late 90's Boeing forecast a market with need for more point-to-point longhaul flying, whereas Airbus thought growth would require upscaling of aircraft due to congestion at hubs. Plus I'd guess there was some one-upmanship that Airbus wanted to make a bigger airliner than the 747 and take the crown for the largest airliner.
Turns out Boeing was more correct. Airbus even sized the A380 wing for a stretched version, which never was made - so the wing is oversized and overbuilt and overweight, hurting efficiency. Plus what really happened in the market is large twins - first the 777-300 and then the 787 - enabled probably not point-to-point, but instead point-to-hub and hub-to-point flying. Even with Boeing's screwups of the 787 introduction, it's still more the correct plane for this scenario. There are a lot of routes that now are flown international nonstop that were never economical in the past. Things like London to San Jose CA or Austin TX or Perth to London. Nobody wants to fly a connection if they can get a nonstop. So it turns out the 787 and then the A350 are doing the things that the A380 wasn't able to do."
While I think point-point is way overrated, especially when I'm not cut off from the world while in the air anymore. And most hubs outside USA still have acceptable lounges. I don't mind saving a bit of time whenever possible. But not really a deal breaker.
The worst part of hub and spoke isn't really the extra stop. It's connecting from a radically different product i.e. 380 to E45.
Hello Ben
What about Delta in ATL or DTW?
-given Delta’s concentration, maybe the A380 could have been a good option?
I think a lot of carriers would rather have restricted capacity at their hubs opposed to increased capacity. LHR is an airport where slots are very valuable, so one way to increase passenger capacity would be to fly the A380. BA could easily fill A380s to/from US and to/from India and other parts of Asia. But to fill that capacity would require lowering fares. They must have done the math that lower supply is more profitable for them than higher supply.
well said, Ben.
"were other airlines rooting for the Airbus A380 to fail? Probably. Was that at all a motivating factor in carriers like American, Delta, and United, not ordering the A380? No way. It’s funny, because Clark acknowledges the reasons the A380 doesn’t work for other airlines, which is that you need a super hub like Dubai, and it also helps to have traffic flows where a passenger can connect from one A380...
well said, Ben.
"were other airlines rooting for the Airbus A380 to fail? Probably. Was that at all a motivating factor in carriers like American, Delta, and United, not ordering the A380? No way. It’s funny, because Clark acknowledges the reasons the A380 doesn’t work for other airlines, which is that you need a super hub like Dubai, and it also helps to have traffic flows where a passenger can connect from one A380 to another A380."
No US airline even ordered passenger 747-8s. US airlines have multiple hubs and simply don't need massive aircraft.
and they don't need the floor space for stuff like showers and opulent first class cabins.
The A380 was Airbus' own fit of vanity and it cost them dearly by listening to EK and the ME airlines in building it.
Emirates will have to settle for "lesser" aircraft including the 777X if Boeing ever delivers it.
The Gulf Carriers are obviously subsidized, meant to be a loss leader to encourage the west to visit Dubai and the middle east ("look at this stunning and cheap way you can get there!") and beyond just tourism, whitewash the areas horrific human rights abuses. They don't need to make money like US carriers. It is much easier to show glitz and glam on a huge aircraft with no concern about economies.
Totally agree, in one way, American carriers can't be compared and operate on a whole different set of metrics, concern for economies, responsibility towards their shareholders, with a robust media and legal environment, etc.
Actually I wish all carriers in the world and especially US carriers would be regulated to consolidate schedules more, for example:
- To offer more than 1,000 passengers daily each way capacity on any city pair, >30% of that capacity must be on wide bodies and 40% of that capacity must be on wide bodies and <20% on regional jets
It would help slot congestion, gate congestion and the environment. Sure it could be...
Actually I wish all carriers in the world and especially US carriers would be regulated to consolidate schedules more, for example:
- To offer more than 1,000 passengers daily each way capacity on any city pair, >30% of that capacity must be on wide bodies and 40% of that capacity must be on wide bodies and <20% on regional jets
It would help slot congestion, gate congestion and the environment. Sure it could be slightly more inconvenient for government and business travel but the benefits are worth it.
It's strange to single out US airlines not having purchased the A380. Sure they didn't, but Chinese airlines took remarkably few too, and Indian airlines none. What the A380 really needed was performance from the new engine option.
The A380 is a dream aircraft to fly as a passenger. Solid, whisper quiet, spacious, safe. I know it sometimes has reliability issues (at least with BA's fleet) but compared to the noisy and cramped 777, it's night and day.
You could put showers on a 777, but why would you when you can use the space for paying passengers? The A380 was a badly designed aircraft that had unusable floor space because of stairs and ceiling height, so carriers found ways to try and use it. Back in the early days of the widebodies there were lounges on the upper deck of 747 and piano bars on the DC-10 because there was more space...
You could put showers on a 777, but why would you when you can use the space for paying passengers? The A380 was a badly designed aircraft that had unusable floor space because of stairs and ceiling height, so carriers found ways to try and use it. Back in the early days of the widebodies there were lounges on the upper deck of 747 and piano bars on the DC-10 because there was more space than passenger demand (and the engines were underpowered). The A380 was perfect for EK — but no one else.
He’s talking about interiors… where Emirates has one of the poorest business class products in the sky with 2-3-2 non-fully flat seats on the 777…?
Sir, this is a Wendy’s…
We’re discussing the a380-800, which EK has 1-2-1 in Business.
On their older 777-300, yes, absolutely, I agree J with 2-3-2 is dated. Turkish does the same with their 773, and it’s lame there, too.
Oh look. 'Mr. Pro-labor' flies on ME3 carriers. UFB.
FOMO wannabes overuse the "Wendy" phrase so much it's not funny or sarcastic anymore.
Catch up cheugy.
Eskimo, how 'mid' of you. So, 'Ohio.'
rebel, you must have me mistaken with Greta, who prefers crossing oceans via sailboat. Good for her, but I prefer J on whichever carrier has lie-flat and is the best value.
We each and all can and should still support workers and consumers, regardless. Absolutely pay them more, and also let them organize. Additionally, protect passengers from bad practices and provide them with compensation when appropriate. It's not hard.
Complete self-delusion. Priceless.
LH is one of the founding members of Star and has flown the A380.
Clark should be glad that India has had a lack of quality carriers. If it had, EK and the rest of the M3 carriers would never have been able to use that country as their catchment area and there would have been little need for such a plane.
Let's see what happens to the M3s if and when AI and Indigo offer comparable quality services... sans bed bugs of course.
Excellent, what you said about India, if only India had such quality carriers, what that would've meant for EK and the other M3 carriers. And, as you said, what that would've meant for the very success of the Airbus A380 itself @ DXB.
Every Middle Eastern airline benefits from loads of South Asians, principally Indians travelling to/from there to India as well as b/in India and the West, including Air Arabia, Jazeera, Gulf, etc.
I...
Excellent, what you said about India, if only India had such quality carriers, what that would've meant for EK and the other M3 carriers. And, as you said, what that would've meant for the very success of the Airbus A380 itself @ DXB.
Every Middle Eastern airline benefits from loads of South Asians, principally Indians travelling to/from there to India as well as b/in India and the West, including Air Arabia, Jazeera, Gulf, etc.
I wonder what the exact stats are, of Indians using these airlines and how much they contribute to their overall business and success.
My favorite was when 'Sir' Tim said keeping your employees engaged is so important. What a joke if you understand the means used to do that in UAE and the ME. I'm sure the service on plantations was excellent for the masters and their guests too. Hope you all understand the bargain you are making when you fly on those airlines. Branding and BS are mighty powerful.
Such BS, the 380 is a dog that was made with massive European subsides! Ek will do just fine with the 777x
rebel, did you seriously invoke 'slavery' here? Listen, I'm no fan of human rights abuses, historically or present day, but Gulf carriers are not engaged in that extreme. Yes, there can and should be reforms, in this and other industries, but c'mon, that's a wildly inappropriate analogy.
See the kafala system.
Is the 777x, when it ever comes to airline, predestined to fail due to too low quantity? Or is the partial similarity to 772/773 saving it from same fate? Is the quantity of widebody orders from the 3 US airlines noticable, in a global world without USoA as its perceived center?
Just my uninformed guess. The 777x will do great. No aircraft manufacturer will build anything bigger. We'll see AA and UA buy it, but later.
I think where else the argument kinda breaks down (same as airlines in say Canada or Australia) is that often DOMESTIC flying is the true money powerhouse $$ in an airlines bottom line.
Qantas for example - most people outside Australia see it as an international airline and don't consider the size of its domestic operation in Australia. However, the domestic side is massive compared to the international side both in number of flights, aircraft,...
I think where else the argument kinda breaks down (same as airlines in say Canada or Australia) is that often DOMESTIC flying is the true money powerhouse $$ in an airlines bottom line.
Qantas for example - most people outside Australia see it as an international airline and don't consider the size of its domestic operation in Australia. However, the domestic side is massive compared to the international side both in number of flights, aircraft, revenue and profit.
Obviously, airlines like EK and QR are purely international - even most of the european carriers such as BA/LH etc have very limited domestic networks.
Great point about Qantas! I am impressed with this airline, the more I read about it, the more I can't wait to fly on it!
Indeed, limited domestic networks of both BA/LH compared to Qantas, domestically.
It keeps on doing things in its "own way" and keeps innovating.
I know it probably won’t happen but I’d love to see airbus make the A380 again so we can continue having showers and going to the bar
Showers, and the fruit plates waiting for you when you return (on Emirates at least.)
Make A380 Great Again.
Two managerial decisions at Airbus sealed the fate of the A380. Over the ship's life cycle, the A380 program lost over $20 billion for Airbus. That's what doomed the A380.
In this regard, Boeing always "wins", as it somehow always makes each program work--no matter what and sells, sells, sells!
I don't think Boeing has ever gone through such losses on a specific plane like Airbus has.
They may not be a US carrier but Qantas makes a ton of money flying back and forth to Los Angeles from Sydney with an a380 without any a380 connections onward :).
Bit of an aside but I remember flying emirates from Sydney to Auckland in the early 2000s and thinking “is it safe to fly them”. And then being blown away with on demand entertainment. Such a game changing airline.
Mid-East carriers have come a long way towards rehabilitating that part of the world since the early 2000s. Thanks to Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad, specifically. Safe, luxurious, and reliable. It doesn’t absolve their countries of anything else (not all ‘good,’ that’s for sure), but, I can’t help but think of the nice experiences on those airlines when thinking of Qatar and UAE. It’s a soft power.
I remember being in Doha airport (DIA) around 2005. There was one lounge on first floor and few few vendors, small duty free in center on ground floor. Place looked terrible, remember the toilets vividly. Has come a long way in two decades. Until the gas and its relevancy runs out.
Hamad Intl is magnificent. One of the most impressive airports around. What a difference in 20 years.
Well, it appears fossil fuels still have a bright future, thanks to our Dear Leader and his allies in the wealthy Gulf States. Look no further than Idaho where our newest foreign military base will be. And, the USA and Qatar now have a NATO-like mutual defense pact. Wild stuff.
Total visionaries , all 3. Especially back then, who knew all this would happen?
It's amazing how the political and aviation leaders planned all this out, looking decades into the future, basically!
Despite not being "perfect", they serve as role models to countries in the East, who struggle with even basic things even today, although they may be democracies.
It is kind sad that both the a380 (since 2021) and 747 (since 2023) are no longer in production at either Airbus or Boeing, respectively. However, when they stopped making Concorde (1979), they kept flying them until 2003, so hopefully we get another 10-20 years of these impressive double-decker aircraft. I still get excited whenever an itinerary involves either. Recently booked QR for BKK-DOH on 773, then saw they upgraded it to 388, and was very pleased.
My son and I flew back from London to Chicago through Frankfurt purely to fly on the 747. So cool seeing so many of them lined up in different LH liveries.
I also used to choose the BA option for work from London to the USA just to get the aisle access back row on the 747. Was such a good seat! (Although it meant no visit to the Cathay lounge at Heathrow).
Top deck on the BA 747 that is. Loved that seat!!!
Worth it! Korean Air operates both their 748 and 388 on the JFK-ICN route; I prefer the 748 if I can find reasonably priced Business class because it’s upstairs. If I can ever afford First, it’s in the nose, which is an experience I hope to have before they retire those aircraft!