Is Bigger Really Better? A History of the A380

DALLAS — Since the dawn of man-powered flight, aircraft size has increased to capacities early designers and engineers never dreamed of. The Airbus A380-800 is currently the world’s largest passenger aircraft. Artemis Aerospace explores this behemoth of the skies and why production ended.

The Airbus A380, designed and produced by Airbus, the European multinational aerospace corporation, is the current largest passenger airplane in the world and the only jet airliner with full-length double decks. It has an impressive maximum capacity of 853 passengers if configured entirely for economy seats and originally hit the drawing board as a rival to the immensely popular Boeing 747, the original ‘jumbo jet,’ which can ‘only’ carry a maximum of 660 in the same configuration.

It first took to the skies in 2007 under the aegis of Singapore Airlines (SQ) and was widely seen as the future of the aviation industry. However, after 254 aircraft were built in 2019, Airbus announced that production of its Superjumbo would cease in 2021, a surprisingly short time considering the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and ceased production in 2022. What happened in these 14 years? And does it demonstrate that bigger is better?

Airbus Development

The Airbus A380 project was launched in 2000 when hub-to-hub flights became popular and major hub airports experienced significant congestion issues. In addition, extra slots at popular airport hubs such as London Heathrow were astronomically expensive and rarely became available. As a result, airlines could not boost the number of flights into an airport to increase market share. The only way to augment the number of passengers would be to concentrate on the capacity of the aircraft, and there was nothing larger at the time than the Boeing 747 and 777.

The Airbus A380 has an overall length of 72.7 meters, a height of 24.1 meters, and a wingspan of 79.8 meters. Although, as mentioned above, it can carry a maximum of 853 passengers (in which configuration it has the lowest fuel burn per seat of any aircraft), it primarily carries 545 passengers who are spread between first, business, premium economy, and economy class.

In 2000, the projected development cost was €9.5 billion. Still, complications during development, such as issues with the 330 miles of electric cabling, continually pushed the total up, and by 2014, it was estimated to have cost €18.9 billion. In addition, parts for the Airbus came from all over Europe; the nose and center sections were built in Northwest France, the wings in Wales, the horizontal tailplane in Cadiz, Spain, and the rear fuselage and vertical tail fin in Hamburg.

The size of these finished parts requires complicated and expensive logistics to transport them to the Airbus factory in Toulouse, and there were also considerable schedule delays. The first Airbus was eventually delivered to Singapore Airlines (with the registration of F-WWOW!). Emirates (EK), Air France (AF), Qantas, Korean Air (KE), and Malaysia Airlines (MH) also introduced the Airbus to their service.

Market Challenges

However, although passengers loved the comfort and space of the A380, several issues gradually became apparent. With fuel prices rising, Airbus could only achieve its fuel efficiency with all seats filled—expecting that number of passengers wanting to use the routes daily was unrealistic. As a result, airlines were not recouping their costs.

During its production lifetime, 251 Airbuses were ordered, 123 of which went to EK. From a marketing point of view, there was a perception that the Airbus was the ‘Emirates’ airplane, which inevitably meant that selling it to other airlines was more challenging.

In addition, by the time the Superjumbo took to the skies, the aviation industry was moving away from the hub-to-hub flying model. Long-haul flights were rising in popularity, but people increasingly preferred to fly directly rather than waste time changing over at a hub. Newer aircraft were designed with this in mind, incorporating fewer seats and more efficiency.

Due to the size of the A380, there were also issues with routes. It was only worth scheduling an Airbus if there was a significant demand for the route and an airline could be expected to fill the aircraft.

Another significant difficulty was the number of airports that would have the capacity to accommodate the Airbus. It’s around 30% larger than the Boeing 747, heavier than other aircraft, and has a wingspan approaching the length of a football pitch. The EK hub in Dubai was able to receive the Airbus. Still, many other airports, notably smaller or older ones, needed extensive and costly remedial works to land and maneuver the Airbus safely.

This included strengthening taxiways and runways, widening them to fit the wingspan, and possibly moving signage and lighting. More allocated space at gateways would be required, as would the purchase of double-decker air bridges. The larger number of passengers would require extra ground support, such as more customs provisions, security and check-in areas, and larger baggage carousels.

A further complication is the jet blast contour—the effect created by the thrust force from the back of the engine. Due to its size, the contour of the Airbus is larger than that of other aircraft, so more space behind is needed for a safe take-off.

Finally, since the inception of the Airbus A380, fuel prices have risen considerably, and the more fuel-efficient and sustainable twin-engine aircraft are increasingly popular over the traditional four-engine versions. Due to their increase in reliability, they can now travel for longer distances, and the reduction in fuel use per flight is an added bonus for airlines keen to show their green credentials. Maintenance costs are also lower, as many routine and unexpected maintenance centers around the engines.

Despite production ending, we will continue to see the impressive bulk of the Airbus A380 crossing the skies for many years. Although its size is undoubtedly its unique selling point, the difficulties the A380 has encountered in its lifetime demonstrate that bigger is not necessarily better.