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…
Continue reading: Did Some Airlines Sabotage The Airbus A380 To Weaken Emirates?
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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 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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Such BS, the 380 is a dog that was made with massive European subsides! Ek will do just fine with the 777x
FOMO wannabes overuse the "Wendy" phrase so much it's not funny or sarcastic anymore.
Catch up cheugy.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Hello Ben
What about Delta in ATL or DTW?
-given Delta’s concentration, maybe the A380 could have been a good option?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! 😉
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
You are not comparing like for like. Australia is a large, sparsely populated continent of a country like the US. Unless you want to take days on the land then Perth Sydney etc you really need to fly them. Britain and Germany are relatively compact and densely populated countries with far more rail infrastructure.
Still find it difficult to accept that there was no market for the A380. I thought a company like BA would have a lot of advantages for using it, similar to other large airlines with one real hub (Air France, Qatar, Etihad, the new Riyadh Air, Cathay, Singapore etc).
I agree that it probably doesn't suit the typical model of the US airlines, but there is still enough demand out there....
Realistically it was the only aircraft that gave airlines a real way to differentiate themselves (be it bars, showers or anything else) and with it gone, I doubt there will be that many such opportunities before very late this century.
It is sad to see that despite the dramatic technological advances in recent decades (I am in my fifties) - air travel has changed so little. I would have thought that with demand for premium cabins higher than ever, airlines will look for ways to compete.
Even putting aside the value of point to point the A380 isn't as efficient as other aircraft that have become available. Even when the A380 is fully loaded its cost per seat mile is higher. Partly that's the result of having four engines but also because the wings aren't optimal for the weight of the plane (too short).
The engineers at Airbus aren't stupid. It's hard to believe that they didn't see what Boeing did that an A380 sized airplane wasn't going to result in better economics. As others have speculated there is a strong sense that a large part of the decision was to reposition Airbus as the leader by grabbing the halo effect Boeing had as a result of the 747 and making it their own.
It might that this a good decision, at least to Airbus, since a substantial portion of the development cost was borne by European taxpayers. Airbus had never been seen as Boeing's equal. The A380, even if it was the wrong aircraft for the market, changed people's perceptions.
I'm sure it was fun designing and showing off the plane. Kudos to management for pulling it off using someone else's money.
One big problem with deploying A380s to Tokyo is that they effectively can't operate at HND due to airspace and airfield limitations, and most Japan O&D travelers prefer HND over NRT because it's easier to get to central Tokyo and to other Japanese cities.
Flying on Emirates' A380 is so wonderful. The comment about how other airlines use it was a absolutely right. BA's A380 1st class is an absolute joke.
Qantas isn’t that great of an airline. They mainly fly majority 737s and they hold so much market share they couldn’t give a hoot about you. There’s better airlines out there.
Well, if US airlines compete to make a better products vs making the flying experiences worse and worse or competing who is the worst airline, I am sure they can make more money from the flying itself rather than the credit cards=)
Dubai as a hub and the UAE as country has grown thanks to the sanctions on Iran and the change in HK political status, not to mention troubled PIA, Afghanistan, south of India and non existing Iraq airlines, lately Russians are breathing via Dubai . Emirates did poach many pilots and airline staff from the above named counties. West of the UAE, Egypt is sleeping and the same with libya. Just look at the Map and you will see how the UAE has profited from the troubles of those countries. Glitz and luxury ? Many other airlines are providing the same but their location are not as perfect as the UAE. It is not all Tim’s success…i see no magic.