Why are the Jumbo-jets disappearing?

$$$

the 380 was never iconic sir

The airbus A380 was only built because the french government wanted to rub i it in the nose of USA, that they can do anything better than them :oD

I read years ago that the 747 was built as a contender for a big US air force requirement for a transport aircraft which was won by
the maker of the C5 and was partly funded by the US military.I remember when i worked at Canad-air in the late 60s seeing some of the fuselage manufacturing which at the time seemed so huge.Time seems to blur facts/chris

So if Airbus spent 25 billion euro on Airbus 380 program and sold 350 of Airbus 380 each roughly cost 262 million euro it should bring to Airbus around 92 billion euro? I think they are feeling quite OK with that?

Thanks for the information. I live in the southwestern part of the United States (Arizona) and up until the early to mid 1990s, if somebody wanted to fly to London Heathrow, they had to fly from Phoenix (KPHX) to New York JFK (KJFK), which is a major hub, then to London on the larger Boeing 747. I believe in 1997, British Airways started service to and from London Heathrow, initially with the Boeing 777-200, then they started using the 747-400 in the early or mid 2000s as a point-to-point equipment. But, like you said, the original jumbo's days as a passenger airliner will be numbered.

How will Airbus not recoup the 25 billion euros/dollars the A380 program cost? They sold over 200 aircraft, Wikipedia says the list price per aircraft is $445 million. Even if the airlines paid only half that on average, that's still $220million*200=$44bn. That's about $20bn net income from the A380 program for Airbus in my book?

I was wondering when your co-pilots were going to get a day off.

A380 is the quietest plane I've ever flown on

Also the coastal hub system really only works in small regions - like the UAE. I live in Minnesota USA so we are a 4 hour flight from the east coast airports and 6 hours from the west coast airports. Doing that and then dealing with a connection is super inconvenient.
I also think part of what did the big planes in is airlines steadily raising the cost of tickets while steadily decreasing the size of seats and restrooms. People can tell they are getting squeezed. That plus the extra groping from security makes flying not that much fun.

they just want more money and less comfort for the people I'm not flying anymore

Rip earphone users😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Another reason you didn't mention is that a lot of airports had to spend billions to upgrade their terminals to accommodate the A380. Others airports, especially major US ones didn't want to make those upgrades which prevented the A380 from even being able to serve them. The fact still remains that many airports like SeaTac, London and JFK air horribly congested and have no room to put more runways. For them the solution is larger planes, so I predict in 20-30 years we're going to see the jumbos make a comeback, unless of course smaller airports further away from population centers are built to relieve them. Only time will tell what happens.

THERE'S 747,000 VIEWS
AHHHHH

Regarding Emirates and the A380, I thought perhaps fuel would play a role. With UAE being able to access cheaper fuel for their fleets. What are your thoughts on that.

Better economy, larger range,

The new 777 is almost the same as the first 747 in terms of capacity.

I think they both won't disappear in the near future, there always be some routes where they still fit, as long as the oil price won't skyrocket.

Still prefer flying airbus rather than Boeing for some reason and always have even though the planes are pretty similar and the Boeing max has made me feel that my preference is not based on sentiment but that Boeing put their planes into service too quickly with not enough flight hours with the software,the planes are ok but their software has given problems on nearly every new plane,only a personal thing folks I still love flying and it's still the safest way to travel

I'm so saddened by the loss of the B747; the B777 is a clunker by comparison.

You have THE BEST speaking voice ever ❤❤❤....hahaha..Keeps the attention for sure! Very informative too. Love watching your videos ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

they said Airbus will end A380 production in 2021 as Emirates made orders for the A350. as most airlines had ordered the boeing 777, the 787 dreamliner, and the A350 for longhaul flights. the 3 engined jets of the McDonnell-Douglas the DC-10, MD-10 and MD-11 are retired from passenger service but now in cargo service. i think the 747 soon be but when A380 production ends if airlines choose a big plane it most likely be the Boeing 747-8. as airliners most likely are phasing the 4 engine jets out they burn more fuel and respectively went to the twin engine widebody jets. when the boeing 777 was introduced in the mid 1990s. by far its Boeing's best selling twin jet. despite the troubles of its smaller 737 MAX 8.

simple, they have 4 engines.
4 engines are too expensive, 2 engine planes are the future, but those super jumbos are too big for the current 2 engine technology.
If they can come up with 2 engines big enough to power those super jumbos, things may change.
but it also cost a lot of money to redesign those wings to accept 2 engines.

The reason Dubai is a hub is simpe: they're open 24/7. Unlike even the most busy airports elsewhere as they have noise curfews thus shut down 6-8 hrs. Thus the majority of Dubai's traffic is during hrs between 2-4am and it's SO busy they're building another runway. Which means airlines don't run the risk of being too late to land which means the flight will be cancelled OR they may end up circling the airport WAITING for the airport to open thus wasting money at a epic scale. Plus they're fined for being late, and rebooking the flight costs the airlines 100,00's.

The A380 needs no competition, its the best in everyway. RR trents are incredible, luxurious aircraft, technologically amazing. It's a prevelage to pilot this queen! 👍

Great video...I live in China and have to travel every 60 days in and out. What I see as of 2018/2019, is that Beijing and Nanjing airports are indeed Expanding! Beijing is a more International city whereas Nanjing is less in airport capacity needs until recently. It's interesting because of the forecasting that needs to be done for aircraft/airport business, there must be seen some increase in at least China's domestic flights and some increase in smaller regional airports to handle the load. In addition, the local business with hotels and tourism will be terrific for China's economy.

Very Intersting

British airways are still flying the 747 until 2022. I love the a380

Airlines should be made to fill planes to a certain percentage or risk losing that route. There are too many aircraft, large and small flying half empty.

Its incorrect to say the 747 was developed in response to demands from airlines. It was developed as a result of direct funding by the US Govt. for a large transporter plane. At the time Boeing was pouring development into a supersonic airliner and when it failed for technical reasons, the Boeing 747 was pressed into service as a passenger plane. It wasn't planned initially as a passenger plane at all. Please do your research before posting misinformation on youtube.

Very nicely explained. Thanks

How about something on the Boeing problem with the 737 max and the problems with engine size destabalisation and the antistall system.

That's nice , I was thinking one day we Will have cruise liner with wing's, swimming pool a golf course and a roller coaster . What's going on .I'm still waiting for a hover board.

Petter, Love the paint scheme on the Mentour 777 plane in the opening. Where can i download the plane and the paint scheme? Is it available on both X-Plane and FSX?

ok ok ok ok ok

Man, I love your content .👍

Flying B-747 and A 380 its a pleasure ,more space ,comfort, quieter, more safe (4 engines ),now the new trend with smaller airplanes , less comfort ,cramped seats , crowded airports, ore flights means more late departure (30 min -1 hour ),less space at the gates at landing.

At 14:20 how do jumbo jets relieve airport congestion?
It would seem you'd have the service the same number of passengers, so congestion inside the terminal would be about the same.
On the ground, you'd still have a lot of smaller planes bringing passengers from smaller airports to the hubs, and back again, plus the long haul jumbo plane flights.
What's the advantage to congestion that's helped by the jumbo jets?

You're correct captain. I work at hartsfield in Atlanta and that beautiful bird is sitting outside at a makeshift museum.....😥😥😭

Good info. I do think that hub system would be no longer feasible in the near future. The transition is horrible even in Dubai.

Definitely cost issue with four engines. But was it true that one of the design requirements was redundancy? So if 1 engine failed, then there's at least three still going (hopefully). And on a worse day, if 2 engines fail, then at least there might still be 2 running? This was based on the assumption of flying over long stretches of ocean. These 2-engined planes we see these days is a bigger gamble on people needing to swim (or worse) on a bad day. These days, they say that engines are more reliable. And that's good. So 4 reliable engines should be better than 2 reliable engines for long distance safety. But cost factors do come into play here. So it's a tough one.

Not to disparage jets in any way, but for me, the best flight experiences were always on piston-engine aircraft.
The DC-3, the DC-6B, and the Super Constellation, were wonderful aircraft.

What decided Emirates to purchase the A380, instead of the 747, which is a proven platform?

A380 NICE

Where is the Poodle?? ;O)

Why do planes only have passive safety and no active one? Did the industry ever had plans to invest on that?

so..... we will be seeing fewer and fewer of the majestic 747 and more of the smallere planes like the md11 and super 80?

I'm intrigued by the comment "You're sitting there with an aircraft that is hard to fill, especially in the winter".
Are there really fewer passengers travelling in the winter? Also I thought the A380 flew between N and S hemispheres (where it's summer or winter at one end of the flight) as well as near the equator where the seasons are less noticeable.
I'm not disagreeing with the statement, but rather baffled by it.
Thanks.

I fly emirates A380 4 times a month in business and I love it and it very feels safe.

travelling over pacific or atlantic i would only choose an Aircraft with Minimum 3 engines...better 4 engines….much safer

Please talk the 787 Dreamliner

This is my favourite intro clip by far.

If these big jets had a hovercraft type of skirt, then they could hover close to city centers on broad autobahns designed for dual use for cars and hover planes. Or on waterways such as seaports or rivers close to big cities. A suggested method would be to use one or two jet engines for the hovering and two jet engines for forwards propulsion.

No dog today....? :)

Stop smacking please!!!

UPS/Fedex are going to love the surplus of A380's

Very nice economic analysis. Thank you very much. But I think Adolf Hitler's Luftwaffe policy was based on the same economic argument, which explains why the entire Luftwaffe lacked any 4 engine aircraft. When he needed something to reach beyond the Urals, he had nothing, and did not have the time to design and build one, so he lost the war!
Similarly, the Chinese Ming Dynasty had the largest and most advanced navy in the world 600 years ago, but scraped the technology because they thought it was too expensive, and China was subsequently conquered 200 years later. Best not to give up the technology for short term economic worries.

Nice video..

Maths? I cant stand it

Since this video Lufylthansa sold a380s back to airbus

Where the doggie?

Very professional and informative presentation--thanks!

Take the bastard pollution planes away,so our kids can breathe in 20 years.!!!

Only good for cargo my opinion for jumbo jets not passenger jets.

The a380 is just amazing.

I want an airplane that carries airplanes so I can fly while I fly

The A380 was an ego project, typical European white elephant, irrespective of market forces. You could say there was a lack of vision on the part of Airbus. But only 2 airlines had initially expressed interest in 1995! The 747 dominating what was already a small market, there was simply no need of another aircraft of that size! Just criminal. Who will eventually foot the R&D loss? The European taxpayer. It reminds me of Concorde.

The 747 has never failed commercially. It's nearly 50 years old and served it's purpose.

Flew 747 for the first time, a korean air out of JFK, last month and boy was that take off a lot faster then i've ever felt. didn't expect that from such a huge plane.

What a great channel. Information not readily available to the general public.

I suspect airlines, and aircraft manufacturers, run some very heavy numbers when evaluating, and ultimately determining which aircraft to purchase and/or build. Hub and spoke, point to point, the number of seats empty on an average leg (in each class) and the cost/benefit of all of the above. Ultimately, all the king's horses and all the king's men...have to make a very educated judgment call and the attrition of the 747's and A380's is the result.
One can hypothesize back and forth across the Atlantic...or the Pacific...and I doubt that the process will yield answers to many of the questions posted here.
Creating an optimal product demands a lot out of those participating in the industry. Airlines not only have to select a target market and remain competitive in a highly regulated (but problematically unregulated) market--where customer sentiment in the aftermath of tragedies, volatile fuel costs, and changing demands are certain to frustrate each of their very best laid plans. The result, if an airline wants to survive, is optimization. And optimization often leads to many of the issues that are raised: (1) crowded economy, (2) costly upper-class', (3) overbooked flights, (4) underbooked flights, (5) incidental fees, (6) better service or less staff...moreover, there are the expenses inherent to air travel that airlines can do nothing (or at least never should do anything about i.e. training, maintenance, equipment upgrades, etc.). Aircraft manufacturers, of whom two, Boeing and Airbus dominate a market cluttered with several other smaller producers--are beholden to the same trends that their decisions of decades ago, somehow set in motion. The bottom line, this is complicated.
I'm reminded of an explanation used to make sense of the United States healthcare debate. Three distinctive characteristics are 'desired' in healthcare: (1) Quality, (2) Affordability, and (3) Universality. Ultimately, two of these goals can be had at a given time--but not all three. Affordable, Quality care...won't be universal. Universal quality care, won't be affordable. You get where I'm going. For airlines, I suspect (1) Quality, (2) Affordability, and (3) Availability could fill out the triad. Combine two of these, and you are unable to incorporate the third. So what is a manufacturer or airline to do? This probably varies dramatically, based on any number and combination of the considerations I listed above--at least with respect to predictions and planning.
Ultimately, the final arbitrator of whether an industry player chose wisely, or not, falls on the customer. What we want. And while one can argue the profitability of airlines over the past 18-years has fluctuated, but the 'quality' and "offerings' have continued to decline; I would argue that the profits and losses balance each other out--and that we, the customer, reap what we sow.
Fortunately, at least this is how I feel, we have options as customers...but again, we are bound by the "Quality" Affordability" and "Availability" triad. I would love to say this is simple "math" or "economics"...but in my life neither has ever been simple. I do much better with pictures or in lieu of pictures...examples.
First class is not affordable...but it is high quality, and likely available to those who are wanting/willing/able to pay. I suspect the complaints issued from economy passengers aren't too applicable--and wouldn't exist, were those passengers somehow given complimentary upgrades.
If you doubt this, check out any of the awesome videos by Sam Chui...whose hobby it is to apply a portion of his salary as in investment banker (which I'm sure exceeds $300,000-year) on airplane trips. He flies all classes, all airlines, all routes, all aircraft--not only does he have a smile that will make your worst day good...but he provides a positive, albeit unbiased, overview of what you can expect, flying in each of the aforementioned scenarios. To those who comment, "airlines are falling apart, aircraft are cheap, and passengers are treated like cattle...I'd recommend watching Sam's video on the "Emirates (I think) Residence" class. Admittedly this is an extreme example--as few, if any of us will ever purchase a $20,000 one-way ticket...but there hundreds of other videos that feature the entire spectrum of available upgrades and options.
When it comes to air travel...you get what you pay for...I would argue there are diminishing returns. This means that for $100 dollars you get a seat that's 18" wide, with 22" of legroom, a free soda or two, and bag of whatever that airline has decided to shove into a 3 oz. serving size and hand out with your napkin. and you sit three to a row...for another $400, you'll get an extra 4" on either side, 12" in front and back, free alcohol with your soda...and probably a decent meal if there is time on the flight for meal service. It's better...but not four times as good. If you pay $800...you probably don't get any more space...but your seat will recline all of the ways to flat, and you get a blanket, pajamas, and some commemorative ticket.
How does this relate to the disappearance of the 747-A380's--well, the bigger the plane, the more upgraded seats. Where upgraded seats yield diminishing returns for the customer--they yield appreciating returns for the air carrier. An airline that realizes a $40 profit margin on an economy seat, might realize 10x this or more for an upgraded one. Thus, it makes such berthings more available...ahhh but there is the triad you say--and you are correct. There simply isn't the demand.
So...while hub and spoke vs. point to point reduces this question to a simple answer...it is the customer alas, who dictates the trend. If we want big jumbos...well, now we know what we have to do.

Really good work but please try keeping the videos short to about 5-10 mins

All of your talks take too long. I don't watch them for that one reason only

Nice .

LOL...Boeing mouth piece. Boeing is turning into a contractor that outsource plane construction to other companies. You can guess how that is going to go!

Apropå 747; tror du att Northwest Airlines Flight 85 med rudder hard over hade haft någon chans att landa med en kvinnlig flight crew? Om jag förstår det rätt så är Boeings system mekaniskt med rätt tung fysisk belastning i en nödsituation såsom Flight 85? Min uppfattning av scenariot är att de inte hade haft någon chans om inte alla kvinnliga piloter var i klass med Marit Björgen. Kan man ens ifrågasätta sådant utan att bli anklagad för att vara en misogynist?

Thanks !

Good video but too long. Wish it was the same info in 5-7 min. Thanks

The Boeing 747 was created and designed in a fly off between Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy and loss do to the fact that the C-5 had the capability to lift her nose and allow vehicles to drive in the back then straight out the front. In the long term, Boeing won with the civilian aviation market because the B747 was by far a greater aircraft. Here comes the 777X

Billions of Euro's wasted to complete the Airbus 380 with few customers or airports that can handle her. As the, "Queen of the Skies", BOEING 747 still Rules. Even as work is being slowed, on the 747, there is still a demand for a cargo variant. Till B777X takes her place ..

It's always summer somewhere.
Is the problem not on the ground where airports are build close to cities and then were converted to "hubs"

If you want to fly from City A to City B, 99% chance the airline hub is not one of those cities. Go on the internet and look at all the choices you have. The "DIRECT" flight is always the quickest and the one you want. People will pay more to save time, avoiding airport delays, lost luggage, etc. The 777 is a big twin 360 passengers and still selling well. Airbus has figured it out too. You are spot on with the new 747-8. New passenger configuration jets are few but the freighter version should keep that line open for years to come. Problem: Where will the 797 be built?

Is the following not something commentators have overlooked? 1. All aircraft must have specified diversion airports. I would guess the 747 will have no problem in finding such an airport, because 747 can land on virtually any long enough airstrips, while the A380 can not. 2. Twin engine aircraft can complete polar long distance flights easily, but many routes do not offer close enough diversion airports. Four engine aircraft are therefore the only type that can do polar flights safely.

Crisp. Very well presented without the jargon. Nice job Mentour Pilot

It astonishes me that no one have realised that these giants will be removed regardless what happens in the future. I do agree that they’re much more comfortable, I have flown with them many times, but they will all disappear regardless how the market will look like and what the demand will be within 40 years for one reason. They won’t be able to even take of the ground! The amount of fuel these extremely comfortable giants consume is beyond any other aircraft, and with the amount of oil on our planet slowly comes to 0, there won’t be enough fuel for these planes to fly, how can no one see this? XDDDDDD

10:39 "...the premise for which the giants were built did not really happen." This is only true for the A380.
The 747 operated in the hub and spoke system for many decades allowing Boeing to recover its development investment many time over.
The 380 was conceived when the hub and spoke system was already obsolete due to the 777 and the associated ETOPS regulations developed for its implementation. And as you stated, they will NEVER recover the development costs for the 380.

imo emirates buy the a380 because they want to show that they have the money for that
if you look at anything in dubai it has to be the best and biggest (prolly compensating for something)

I added brazilian portuguese subtitles to this video in august 2018 but up to now it´s not available in this video.
My efforts to add subtitles here seems to have been in vain. Does anybody know how to make it appear in this video?

Hey, I'm a master student in Math, and in fond of aviation :D

Good information MATE!

Emirates and most middle eastern carriers , the fuel is subsidized by its Government so it also makes it harder to compete with them

ANSWER: 5:45

The 747 is by far my favorite plane. Just incredibly solid, dependable and a comfortable flight. The plane could also really handle turbulence.

And as yet as I went thru some of the comments I just realized that how comfortable my flights in 747 or even more so in A-380s were from NY/NJ to Dubai or India... and how I hated it to be in a smaller aircraft as connection to my native town....wherein you get to prepare your ear to accustom to that rumbling noise from the engine as well as the dropping pressure...

Brilliant

"That the airline industry turns into this supersonic 'boom' "

There are more and more major hubs, Atlanta 100M passengers per year, Beijing 95M passengers per year, Dubai 88M passengers per year, Tokyo 85M passengers per year, LA 85M passengers per year, Chicago 79M passengers per year, London 78M passengers per year. And low cost airlines like Ryanair bring tens of millions of passengers per year to their low cost hubs like London Luton, Brussels Charleroi, Milan Malpensa and etc. There is plenty of financial sense in expanding production of the A380 and improving it by yet another 20% fuel efficiency per passenger mile with A380neo. What held the A380 back is politics as the USA basically blocked/boycotted A380 sales to any US airline and they made it hard for the A380 to land in the USA, China also did not want to promote European technology too much, India can't be relied on, Iran's money is confiscated, Qatar Airways had too close relationship with Boeing. And financially the European low cost airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet were just too scared to take the jump and expand their low cost network outside of Europe, the A380 would have been perfect for Ryanair to connect their Hubs to the USA, Asia, South America, Middle East and Africa, it would have been perfect and Ryanair could have sold every single seat in a 900 seater Economy-only configuration of the A380neo. They could have sold the tickets at less than 200eur each and made Billions of Euros of profit per plane per decade.

A380 has nothing to do with B747 though. B747 is 1960ies technology. A380 is something totally different. The A380 is 20% more fuel efficient than the B747 per passenger mile, and the A380neo could have been 40% more fuel efficient than B747 in terms of fuel per passenger mile.

Damn this guy knows his thing.....
Now that a380 is going for the shutdown ...

Once again good video. Where are the dogs???????