The Airbus A380 is one of the world’s most recognizable airliners. With two full-length passenger decks, a nearly 80-meter (262 ft) wingspan, and four large high-bypass turbofans, this enormous « superjumbo » turns heads wherever it goes. Unfortunately, it turned the heads of airline executives for another reason; it was simply too big to operate profitably on most days, and it was too thirsty.

Part of the problem was its engines. While relatively modern, the fact that there were four of them meant that the A380 was inherently less efficient than a twinjet like the Boeing 777, a large airliner that only needed two engines. Adding two more engines versus a 777 also adds complexity, leading to higher maintenance costs. Therefore, it’s hardly a surprise that Airbus sold just 251 copies of the A380, whereas the largest version of the 777, the 777-300ER, sold over 800 examples.

Why Have The Extra Engines?

Twinjets are the future, as has been evidenced most recently by the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787. Even in the 1990s and 2000s, when the A380 was being developed, the twinjet Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 were by far the most successful of the 1990s clean-sheet widebodies (A330, A340, 777, MD-11). Airbus had already experienced that its large, long-range A340 was coming up short against the competing Boeing 777.

However, while two-engined airliners are ubiquitous today, they do still have limitations. The 777-300ER is equipped with two General Electric GE90-115Bs, which are capable of producing over 115,000 lbs of thrust. Two of these mean that a 777-300ER at full takeoff power can produce over 230,000 lbs of thrust. While this is more than plenty for a 777, the Airbus A380 has a rated Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 575T, as opposed to the 777-300ER’s 351T MTOW.

The A380 is simply too large and too heavy to be powered by two examples of even the world’s most powerful turbofan engine. Its four motors are either the Engine Alliance GP7200 or the Rolls-Royce Trent 900, and the GP7200 is rated for up to 74,735 lbs of thrust while the Trent 900 is rated for 76,752 lbs of thrust. At takeoff power, an A380 can generate over 307,000 lbs of thrust, which are figures that aren’t currently achievable with a twinjet configuration.

How The Engines Contributed To The Fall Of The Superjumbo

Going with a quadjet layout was ultimately unavoidable, given the size of the Airbus A380. In reality, the issue wasn’t necessarily the number of engines under the King Of The Sky’s wings, but rather, the engine models themselves. The 1990s saw several new widebodies using the latest tech at the time, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 or General Electric GE90, while the engines used by current in-production widebodies were developed in the late 2000s.

Chronologically, the A380 falls in a weird spot. It came out after the 1990s widebodies but before the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350. As such, its engines are a blend of 1990s and late 2000s technology, which meant that the A380 was already handicapped against newer rivals. Furthermore, while the GP7200 and Trent 900 are meant to be more efficient than a PW4000, Trent 700, or GE90, the design choices made have contributed to these planes’ overall costs.

The GP7200, a product of a collaboration between General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, has a scaled-down GE90 core fitted to a PW4000 fan and low-pressure system. The Trent 900 also has scaled-down components from previous Trent models. Essentially, though, these two engine models are orphan derivatives that are less efficient and advanced than the Trent 1000, Trent XWB, or GEnx. This makes the plane thirstier, and more expensive in maintenance costs.

The Size That Became A Hindrance

The Airbus A380 is an unusual-looking airliner. Beyond the two decks and the large forehead, the A380 has disproportionally massive stabilizers, a wing that’s nearly 80 meters (262 ft) wide while the fuselage is shorter than that of the Boeing 777-300ER. Additionally, it has a range of around 8,000 NM (15,000 KM) which is exceptionally long for an aircraft of its size. The reason behind these characteristics is that the A380-800 was designed as a shrink.

In most aircraft families, the manufacturer will design the base variant, like the Airbus A320. It’ll then stretch the product by adding length to the fuselage, such as with the A321, and it’ll remove length to create a shrink, like with the Airbus A319. With the A380-800, the aircraft was designed with larger variants in mind, and Airbus created an aircraft that was optimized for an A380-900. The A380-800, then, was to be the smaller, less efficient, but more capable variant.

What Airbus essentially did, however, is the equivalent of only selling the Airbus A319 or the A330-200. The A380-800 ended up being heavy, costly to operate per seat, and more capable than most airlines needed. Of course, many carriers found that their A380s were difficult to fill, so an even larger variant may not have saved the program. Had the A380 been optimized around the A380-800 variant with a lighter structure and lower per-seat costs, it likely would have found more traction.

Misreading History With The A380

The story of why the A380 failed is complex and changes depending on who you ask. Boeing believes the concept was fundamentally flawed, while former Airbus COO John Leahy blames the outdated engines, and Airbus’ current CEO Guillaume Faury believes the program was a success. Undoubtedly, one of the issues with the program was that it targeted the Boeing 747, but didn’t necessarily focus on what made the 747 so successful.

The Boeing 747 was, for decades, the world’s largest passenger airliner. However, it also had the longest range of any airliner, which was the primary appeal of the 747. When newer, smaller, more efficient planes with similar range were introduced, this eroded the market for the 747. Very few 747-400s were sold in the 2000s once the Boeing 777 was on the market because the 777-300ER nearly matched in capacity and range while being far more efficient.

Airlines focus heavily on per-seat costs, and between two planes with the same per-seat costs, they will always choose the smaller plane. A larger plane has to be significantly cheaper to operate per seat in order to have a market, and the A380 simply isn’t. Even against the 777-300ER, its sheer size made it a difficult sell even if it was cheaper per seat. Against a 787, the A380 stood little chance, with QantasCEO Alan Joyce commenting that two 787s were cheaper to fly than one A380.

The Future Of The Airbus A380

Out of the 251 A380s that were delivered, over 180 remain in commercial service. Five airlines (Air France, China Southern, Hi Fly Malta, Malaysia Airlines, and Thai Airways) have fully retired their superjumbos, while seven carriers have retired part of their A380 fleets. Some carriers, such as Qatar Airways, initially retired their entire A380 fleets during the COVID-19 pandemic and then returned the planes to service when travel began to recover.

The Boeing 777-9 is pitched as being a replacement for the A380. Although most A380s are still young and the 777-9 is significantly smaller, it is so much more efficient that several carriers, such as Qatar Airways, intend to retire their A380s as the 777-9s come in. Of course, the 777X has also received orders from non-A380 operators like Cathay Pacific or Air India.

For airlines such as Emiratesthat intend to keep the A380s until at least the 2030s, they have to refurbish the aircraft. Given the sheer size of the plane, these retrofits cost millions of dollars, and these expenses were a contributing factor to Air France’s retirement of the type in 2020. Extreme refurbishment costs also turned British Airways away from acquiring used examples.

Rundown Of The Airbus A380

The Airbus A380 is not a bad aircraft. It’s the largest passenger airliner ever, and it’s undoubtedly an engineering marvel. Its huge size also allows for some creative and innovative premium products. But whether a plane is successful or not depends largely on the overall design, of which the number of engines is a contributing factor.

All planes come with compromises. However, two aspects of the A380’s design appear to have seriously brought the plane down. The first is the structure that was optimized for larger variants, resulting in a plane that’s too heavy. The second were the engines that were half a generation behind the General Electric GEnx, Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, or Rolls-Royce Trent XWB. The result was an oversized, heavy, extremely fuel-thirsty plane that couldn’t carry cargo.

The A380 continues to amaze passengers and will likely stand as the largest passenger airliner for decades. It was ultimately dragged down by its design, market conditions, and a general aversion to very large aircraft. The A380’s design was flawed, just like all other planes, but market conditions meant that the superjumbo would not go down with as much success as was hoped.