Emirates President: Other Airlines Use A380 Wrong

I have a ton of respect for Emirates President Tim Clark. He’s one of the most level-headed and intelligent guys in the airline industry, and he is the driving force behind so many of Emirates’ decisions. Dubai wouldn’t be what it is today (for better or worse) without him.

So when Clark says something it’s worth listening.

Emirates Has Been A Huge A380 Supporter

Emirates has been a massive supporter of the A380. When all is said and done they’ll have taken delivery of about 120 Airbus A380s, which is about half of the A380s ever produced.

In many ways Emirates almost singlehandedly kept the A380 program alive, and they tried to continue to do so.

Unfortunately they recently realized that simply isn’t possible. Emirates will take delivery of their last A380 in 2021, and plans on retiring them in the mid-2030s. 2021 is also when A380 production ends, as Emirates has instead ordered A330s and A350s to replace those planes.

Obviously Emirates would love if A380 production continued, but realistically they knew that they couldn’t singlehandedly keep the plane alive forever, so they had to come up with a new strategy. After all, you don’t want to keep investing in a product that won’t be improved upon over time.

Emirates A380

Anyway, in an interview with AirlineRatings, Clark has made some interesting comments about the A380.

Clark Says Other Airlines Used The A380 Wrong

In my opinion the most interesting question and answer in the story is this:

The CEO of Air France has recently disqualified the A380 as having always been difficult and now obsolete. What is your take on this?

Clark: The A380 was a misfit for Air France. They never scaled, they only have ten aircraft. Yes, we faced the same teething problems, but we dealt with them because we were scaled enough to deal with it. If you’ve got a sub fleet of 10 it’s a bloody nightmare and the costs go through the roof, she is absolutely right. But if you got a hundred of them it’s a bit different. Your unit costs in operating with that number are a lot lower than having just ten. Secondly, look at their interior. What did they actually do to shock and awe their market community with that A380 when it came to market? Why was it that it was Emirates, who took it after Singapore Airlines, that it lit up the planet in terms of showers and bars and big TV screens? We did it for a very well calculated reason. Not to blow our trumpet. But simply we had taken a huge risk and huge investment. To belittle that investment by putting in a Business Class seat of 1990s-think and a First Class of 1980s-think and Economy Class seating and IFE of 1990s-think was not something we would have done, like Air France. The whole approach to the A380 at Air France and Lufthansa was ‘just more of the same.’ They lost the opportunity to really define it. They never ordered any more. British Airways didn’t order any more. BA should have had the same number of A380s as we have, hundred of those. They got 62 million people in the UK and a congested Heathrow hub, that should have worked easily.

Those are some fascinating comments. There’s no doubt that an A380 fleet needs to be scaled for it to make sense, and that’s something other airlines didn’t do. I think Clark is absolutely right about the lack of “wow” factor other airlines put into the A380 as well.

In so many ways Emirates’ whole brand has been based around the wow factor of the A380, and that’s something other airlines left on the table.

But I do find the comments about British Airways especially interesting. In fairness to British Airways:

  • Not every airline has access to the financing that Emirates has access to, given that they’re owned by the government
  • While there’s no doubt that slot controlled Heathrow could use bigger planes, British Airways’ strategy has been all about limiting capacity so they can keep fares up, since they control so many slots at the airport; I’m not saying that’s right, but it is the reality at the moment

As far as reliability goes, Clark points out that the A380 has 99.5% dispatch reliability for Emirates in the last five months. Conversely in the early days they had only 90% dispatch reliability. Obviously they’ve learned a lot in the past decade plus…

Clark On Why The A380 Failed

Clark points out that the A380 never had a chance. It was introduced in 2008, which is when fuel prices skyrocketed, and between 2008 and 2010 the airline industry went into meltdown.

Therefore the plane never had a chance. Had it been introduced in 2004, Clark thinks there would have been a lot more orders for the plane. Clark also points out that he was really the only one who wanted to buy 100+ of them, and the plane simply doesn’t work if you’re only going to buy under a dozen of them.

Clark Still Thinks A380 Economics Make Sense

Clark points out that they can fly an A380 between Dubai and Los Angeles with 515 passengers, and it will burn about 200 tons of fuel. Meanwhile a 787-9 in Emirates’ configuration would carry 230-240 passengers, and two flights would burn about the same amount of fuel.

So the A380 has cheaper fuel costs on a per seat basis, but not by a huge margin. Clark thinks other airlines have instead gone for smaller planes because the A380 is expensive. Buying a plane less than half the cost that’s lower capacity and fuel efficient ticks all of the boxes, but doesn’t show much innovation, he thinks.

In fairness to other airlines, I do believe for most airlines the smaller planes do make sense:

  • Schedule and frequency is important, so in most markets two flights with different schedules are better than one flight (of course some airports are slot controlled)
  • For most airlines there are diminishing per seat yields the bigger the plane

So I think Clark is right, but I also think other airlines are right. The A380 works great if you can scale it to the point Emirates does. If you can fly 10 times daily to London (mostly on A380s) and can offer connectivity with A380s from every corner of the globe, then it can make sense. But without that level of scaling, it’s hard to justify the A380 over smaller, more fuel efficient aircraft.

Bottom Line

It’s always interesting to hear what Clark has to say. I think he’s spot on with his comments, though I think other airlines are in many ways equally right. It’s just a function of the perspective you take on things.

What do you make of Clark’s A380 comments?

Conversations (54)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Claes Guest

The A380 is handicapped by too small cargo hold, too heavy, too old engine technology. Had they made a version with just 2 main landing gears to increase cargo space, made the wing light and rightly designed, fuselage in all carbon instead of a mix of alu and GLARE and put 787 engines onto it, its history would have been different. In theory EK could reengine it with RR Ultrafans and get the fuel burn benefit on 119ea of their own and buy another 100ea used on the market and have Airbus/RR or someone like Marshall or ST Aerospace/EFW re-engine it for them. The 747 was reengined many times from JT9D-3's to RB211-524G/H(T) (the GTI...)

0
‼ 0
Jaria Guest

There is soo much negative press about the a380, I appreciate this article, it really clears up the BS floating around out there. I was privileged to fly on 3 of the a380 with Emirates....excellent service !

0
‼ 0
UpperDeckJohnny Guest

BA config is as follows: A380 469 total of which 166 are premium seats - first, club & PE 787-8 214 total of which only 60 are premium seats - club & PE Crew A380 22 correct 787-8 8 is incorrect. 10 is correct Crew per pax: A380 21.3 787-8 21.4 Revenue is much higher on A380, due to premium cabins, therefore supports extra crewing Flight crew In cases where it is called for, there is a duplicate flight crew, solely dependant upon flight time, in the case of both, indeed, all aircraft So with the A380's high payload on a long flight 469 revenue earners would support 4 flgiht crew; 1 f/c per 117.25 pax On a 787-8 214 revenue earners would need to support 4 flight crew; 1 f/c per 53.5 pax As many have said the A380 was supposed to solve the problem of slots at busy airports. Can anyone comment on why the A380 has never been used for high density config to a max of around 880? This was supposed to be another economical use for the plane, to holiday destinations, possible charters, which automatically solves the problem of load issues.

0
‼ 0
vladimir supica Guest

_Duck Ling ______________________________________________________________________________________________ The A380 would never work on the bulk of BA’s most important routes, LHR-USA. Firstly, because it’s largest markets (ie JFK) are all about frequency. A BA A380 has 22 Cabin Crew, a 787-8 has 8. So an A380 is almost three times a 787-8 in terms of crewing costs, hotel rooms downroute etc. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Long haul routes are very time zone limited and mostly in the middle of the day. There is no flights between NYC-LON from 10am to 5pm. If the bulk of the flights are from 5pm to 10pm then size matters. That's how it goes with all long haul routes especially across oceans. Frequency on long haul is a dead end especially for curfew airports. Dubai has no curfew and yet they fly A380 everywhere even taking off at 3am and 4am. A380 has two less active pilots than 787 and 6 less pilots than A321 on equal number of passengers and pilots are the most paid by far.

0
‼ 0
UpperDeckJohnny Guest

#Marco Boeing's marketing charge against the A380 started after the 747 came into service with a wing width restriction "envelope" which (I'm guessing) was set to prevent anyone building a bigger aircraft with longer wings. Until stir welding successfully eliminated the amount1s of rivets needed to attach the skin to the wing frame and produced a powerful wing, within the envelope. The second charge from Boeing was that a large aircraft servicing hub and spoke system was not needed; the industry is moving point to point. At the time this merely meant smaller towns, connecting but still only about the same flight time. Tim would have seen that coming. What he may not have seen is the distance that is now interpreted as point to point which of course it is, but not envisaged at the design stage of 380, nor 787. So, yes, there appears to be a problem looming for all the connecting stations if ultra long haul takes off (pun intended). All Europe and America, N & S routes to Australasia would be non-stop. How does that make HKG, SIN, BKK, ME3 feel, I wonder?

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published