I love your videos

Better help is a scam btw

@@Aviation_clips. Its not a scam in the traditional sense. The controversy with better help is about them selling user data

@@LaidBackDeveloper ok

Betterhelp is a scam. No.

How so?

I feel like many (if not most) of the major KZfaq sponsors are borderline scams. At this point if I see a lot of KZfaq advertising, I almost take that as a negative signal

@@aerosw1ft They sold customer data, especially sensitive health information, to advertisers after promising not to.

Theres plenty of suckers out there.

New design with the same capacity could be 40% more efficient. But theres no creativity in the airline business.

Couldn't have said it better myself. As amazing as the giant plane is, it's ultimately a money pit

@@mr.boomguy just increase the amount of seats- just slam them in. there are plenty of short distances that have enough traffic for a 2000 seat aircraft

@@nox5555 the thing is not about the seats, which by the way are more than enough for the passenger to be comfortable, it is more about the plane fitting in non-hub airports which may already have problems to fit the 350s to arrive there. The 380 needs a space equivalent to 3 or 4 320 or 2 330, 340 or 350s

It's because of the numerous flight hours the fuselage and the wings have already experienced. You would be putting nex engines on an old frame with a limited life expectency. Retrofit isn't a bad idea, but if you want to have subtantial sales and make real money, you need to sell new planes, not just improve the old ones. And there is still the facilities problem. Airbus doesn't have any industrial equipement to do this. Of course you have some maintenance facilities, but it's not the same to repair a plane and to deeply modify it.

Age didn't stop the DC-8 & 707 refit with cfm56 engines which was wildly successful

@@WarriusZ3r0 Surely it would be a cheaper and less risky option in the long run than retooling factories to build entirely new aircraft? Plus, there's still only a limited number of customers who already have A380s that really want this, so the modifications to existing aircraft would better serve that market than trying to drum up new customers. And how long is an airframe supposed to last, anyway? There are planes out there that are 50-60 years old that are still carrying passengers safely!

@@jonpritchard7439those planes were overbuilt compared to the 380

@@LordSandwichIIthe answer to life lasting is different for every a/c, airbus goal seems to be keeping the current 380s running, not having their remaining lives for 10% better efficiency

I think a pure freighter is the wrong move. A hybrid design with 2/3 to a whole floor converted to freight would make far more sense.

it was quite difficult for Airbus to figure out to make it work stucturally. A freighter uses a big single loading door and has an uniform/diaphanous space where the pallets can be rolled over so you'd need very strong deck floors for integrity. Probably it would be very slow to load/unload (it's a tall plane) and too heayy because of the strenghtening needed .

A380 would have been a terrible freighter. Too heavy and not enough power.

It might be still being produced, but only in a freight version

DELAYING the freighters because they didn't want them sold before passenger models (the first four passenger planes were 2+ years late and 4-6 tons overweight) was what killed them. This is definitely a case of "prestige" killing economics

that would extend their life perhaps, but the A380 still uses a lot of metals rather than composites and is too heavy, so it really needs a ground up new model to take advantage of weight saving and fuel efficiencies to compete properly.

@@jimdotcom1972 But that would lengthen the engineering process and drive up costs a lot and Emirates would likely think it’s not worth pursuing. They just need their A380s to be fit and reasonably efficient for the next 30 years.

i know, that's why its not happening, and why an engine refit would only buy time before the inevitable.@@magnustan841

Tim Clark is too cheap to do that he wants something for nothing or next to nothing.

That would cost more than starting a new Airbus because how hard certification of new planes is

I agree, but it's going to take a lot of effort to turn production back on. I've been round the A380 FAL - enormous - but now it's been turned over to A320neos. To make another A380, they're going to have to build another A320 megaFAL somewhere else. I think that that's what they're going to have to do, but I've no idea whereabouts in Europe that could be. China? Possible, but not necessarily a good strategic fit, probably best to leave that one as is. Mobile, Alabama? That could be a good fit. There's a bunch of disgruntled Boeing workers who'd probably accept a good relocation package. Expanding in Mobile would probably be welcomed by the city itself. Plus, that'd probably go down well with Uncle Sam. Another one could be Mirabel in Canada. That'd get a lot of support in Canada. The other option of course is that they build a new A380 FAL. Doing so in Alabama could be a good idea, essentially giving Airbus the ability to offer Uncle Sam sovereign build capability for any Airbus design. A380neo based Air Force One?

Airports are more likely to invest in refurbishment and growing terminal capacity, and Airbus is more likely to stretch the 350 further. I doubt the 380 will eturn. It had its time in the sun like the 747, and both are destined for the boneyard in 15 years.

@@fighter5583 Oh they might, but a bigger terminal won't bring in more revenue when you're slot constrained and any stretched A350 represents a reduction in passenger numbers (if they're used to replace A380s) and therefore a reduction in revenue. If all the slot constrained airport operators around the world got together and totted up what it'd take for them all to get more runway capacity, and then worked out what it'd cost Airbus to renew the A380, I bet newer A380s turn out cheaper. For example, the entire A380 program has reputed to have cost Airbus $28 billion. Adding a *single runway to Heathrow* is estimated to cost $23billion. Just two such airports would be better off paying Airbus to build A380s and give them away to the airlines flying between them.

@@abarratt8869 How is a stretched 350 a reduction in revenue when they're cheaper to get and you can run them to more airport than with a 380? And a bigger terminal often means more gates; ergo more slots. And the comparison between the entire 380 program and trying to put a new runway at LHR isn't a good one. The 380 program never broke even, and LHR has struggled to get a new runway for a while but keeps being denied because people are concerned about the noise. But even if LHR were to get a new runway, it'd pay for itself in a couple years as it gets enough passenger revenue to make the cost worth it. Many airports had to spend money just to accommodate the 380, some of which rarely see the aircraft.

​@@abarratt8869I don't think Mirabel or Alabama would make any sense. As well as glossing over a host of other issues. The entire production line is gone. Not Just Airbus' but all the suppliers that contribute too. Also mentioning that at least parts of the production was heavily automated, meaning re-creating it would be unusually expensive to achieve. So Airbus would need to re-create production. The second largest cost after development and certification. Find alternative suppliers for the parts they simply can't get any more. Develop and certify the new variant with new parts and and changes those parts necessitate, and then it can finally start production again. For a niche market. Airbus' talent and primary functions are European based, so supporting all this across continents would be unusually difficult. Mirabel is tiny. Requiring an absurd expansion for the FAL and then a runway expansion to actually deliver the plane. Also the Mirabel site is actually Airbus Canada, a subsidiary of the main company. So I bet that adds complications. Mobile, I don't know anything about really. All I really have to say if that getting the parts to Mobile would be difficult due to the distance from all other large sites. I'm thinking about things like Wings. Not something you could just huck on even a BelugaXL. And all this at a time when they literally can't build out capacity for the A320 family fast enough to match the orders coming in? Let alone shrink the enormous back orders. I just don't ever see an extra large body like the A380 or 747 making sense again. I predict by the time the A320 back orders are fulfilled. The demand for airtravel will have equalised to the point that people aren't looking for a A380 to move more butts in seats and the already niche opportunity for the A380 will be gone again.

🫡🫡🫡

You just woke up like Rip Van Winkle 😅😅😅

Hopefully it is an Etihad A380!

Best economy experience I've ever had.

@@StimParavane did you go on Etihads A380? They have the Residence Product!

USAF was able to do this because it didn't require any certification, meaning the fuel and maintence savings could be completely leveraged. There would likely be no profit for Airbus to do this, and no airline is going to take frames out of service to be the test article for a certification process that would then also benefit their competition. The engine manufacturers could perhaps foot the bill, but they're nearly all at capacity on new-build production as is.

Also.. military airplanes (particularly intelligence & logistics) have typically significant longer lifespan..diluting costs of upgrades and retrofits over a longer period of time...

You're both true, but when a company has half the total production planes, and the manufacturer doesn't have any plan to help them... They could take the matter into their hand and certify the rengine themself, they have their a380 maintenance facility and can use one of their old a380 to do the testing (one of the ones that is "stored" in Tarbes)

@@jonathanmayor3942 probably not gonna happen though

​@@redryder1146l agree. They were stung first-time round. Why risk it again? With return on investment coming from 320s and 350s largely, they aren't going to devote their precious production capacity on such a project, surely?

yeah. the hangars that were used to assemble the A380 have been repurposed to build A321 which is the long hanging fruit. They barely can cope with the demand for the A321 while the A380 had virtually no new orders at the time the decision to end the production was made. As much as we like the A380 they have to build what airlines want.

I can guarantee you that the jigs are still in a warehouse. You don't trash equipment like that

@@ryanrhoden1842 For sure you're correct. You don't want somebody else gaining that trade secret.

@@ryanrhoden1842 Again. When you stop a FAL it's more than moving the machinery aside. Personell is retrained and reassigned into other tasks and the entire supply chain has already moved into other things. Starting up the A380FAL again woud take YEARS for an uncertain revenue not counting than any significant improvement would involve a complete recertification. Look at how much time it's taken Boeing to deliver the 777X. The focus in Airbus now is increasing the output of A220, A320neo and A350 families (mainly a supply chain issue), plus making the A330neo more appealing.

Fal is been repurposed. All transportation infrastructure like special roads, barges, boats cancellef. No more wing factory. Then think about all parts no more avail. Certification is also a huge cost needing 4 specially purposed prototypes...not in our lifetime, but that would be nice though...

That's what I've always thought! Is it theoretically possible to make the A380 a twin jet?

It can become twin jet easily with the Gen 90-115X or Trent XWB These power the future 777X But may not be able to carry Cargo Only passengers

Twin engine would needed a gigantic rudder in this setup, i bet that would be an issue with current hangar spaces....

Even a pair of RR Ultrafans pushing 110,000lbs of thrust each couldn't replace four Trent 900s with 78K lbs each. A tri-jet 380 with Ultrafans is theoretically possible but we're talking a new aircraft design here.

There's also the issue of reconfiguring the hydraulics and electrics setups. Much much more difficult than just adding 4 new engines and winglets, like an order of magnitude more difficult.

As far as I know the airframe wouldn't be able to handle cargo if you were to remove the floor in the middle.

@@sidbrun_ Only reason you would is for oversize cargo like the Dreamlifter. Don't see a hatch or tail hinge design being practical for the A380 without major overhauls, so it would pretty much bulkhead loading only like a 767F.

One of the problems with the A380 its that Airbus put an oversized wing this was the wing they were going to use on the A380-900 they could had used a slender higher aspect ratio wing in the A380-800. A380 wing aspect ratio its 7.5 not very good by todays standards for a wing of this size the ideal wingspan would need to be about 290 ft and for that it would need folding wingtips to fit at the gates.

The A380 is out of production… because they didn’t sell enough copies to break even on development costs.

​@@DS-wo8wrPeople get attached to stuff when it happens they ignore flaws and limitations. It's easier to live in a fantasy world than come to terms with reality

@@Legion849 Think old men having a mid-life crisis and their sports/muscle cars...yes...

Those jets were overbuilt and didn’t have the teething problems the 380 had

Totally agree with this, they had the chance to keep the production line going by ordering another 25 and they refused! They should have taken those and who knows other airlines may have ordered more as the demand increased!

@@wesellanybizEmirates already had 30 laying in the desert. They didn’t need more. Lufthansa is the only airline that would’ve bought more a380s for their fleeet.

A 2-engine version would need each engine to produce 160,000 lbs of thrust

Same, generally we try get Emirates and A380s Perth to UK.

XWBs would be susceptible to FOD ingestion on the outer pylons, given their position over the edge of the runway/taxiways

What about Global Airlines? Are you forgetting about the new A380 carrier?

Dont forget it was already half composites, the entire wingbox, full half section& ths, rudder, use of sandwich panels for fuselage.

GE could actually put the 787-10 GEnX on the A380 (adaptated for it) as a lower-thrust option cuz it's weaker than the average A380 engine The XWB also fits the airplane however it may be too strong for shorter A380 routes (a special variant of both with in-between thrust may be designed)

It is interesting but lets wait 3 to 5 years in order to see if the market World is ready to continue using the most incredible Airplane built by humans the A380 is an absolute incredible Aircraft Achievement😊

Do they still make combi versions of aircraft these days? Some dangerous goods can only shipped by cargo only aircraft, as far as I understand it. They are prohibited from being carried in passenger aircraft, so this is why the combi variant went out of vogue.

@@phillipmaguire4671 Lithium batteries are a major concern. Solid state batteries are the future. I have the chemistry and engineering background, it’s coming.

You also have a new plane. With all its development costs, for a four engined aircraft that is guaranteed to be used by only a tiny fraction of the aircraft world.

4 Ultrafans for 20Milions each , making 120 Milions$ just for engines. A321NEO, entire plane with crew costs even cheaper 😂

Hi Phoenix!

Singapore Airshow dummy

A350-1000 already has basically the same capacity as A340-600. I think they meant 400-500 seat range.

Delta has planes with between 200 and 300 seats not over 500, maybe it knows better than to buy something that large.