Sounds like Airbus is seriously reconsidering it's white elephant.

And for those not aware, when they talk about "profitability" they mean profitable production, ie not losing money on labor & materials to produce each airframe.

Program profitability is already a long-lost cause...over ten billion in R&D costs will never be recouped.

Did Airbus just signal the end of the Super Jumbo? - Dec. 11, 2014

 

Like I said in the thread on 2 vs 4 engines, it comes down to this here:

"...With ETOPS time increasing, and efficiency of engines increasing, it makes more sense to have a larger fleet of slightly smaller twinjets than fleets of airplanes with 6-7-800 pax capacity.

It's also easier to fill planes, and supplement routes on the fly."

I just don't see how they could re engine the A380 to match the efficiency of the new engines on the A350 or 777X.

The A380 is just inherently harder to expand on the same way the 777, A330, 737, A320, or even the 747 were.

Boeing would have NEVER made the 747-8 had the basic airplane not been designed in the 60's. And the lack of sales to pax airlines shows that it isn't what they desire.

And Airbus has demonstrated they're not opposed to killing off a product quickly; see the A340 program. At least with that program, they found great success with the 330 which shared a large portion of components and design.

The A380 couldn't have come at a worse time either, just a year after they first flew the industry changed with rising fuel prices and more competitive seat pricing etc.

 

The engines on the 380 aren't inefficient, but going with 2 would likely raise serious clearance issues moving something that big. It's probably why they went with 4 in the first place, it's not like they were making the 2 vs 4 arguments they did in the early 90's when they launched the 380.

 

4 engines 4 long-haul

 

An engine large enough to fly an A380 with the other one flamed out might be technically impractical. It would certainly be impractical to fit under the wings.

 

I'd suggest that they try mounting the engine over the wing (since they have to redesign the wing anyway) like the Honda Jet, but that may end up with some passenger fatalities when the Rolly Royce decides to explode again and shoot shrapnel in all directions.

Plus, going from 4 engines to 2 engines would require complete recertification application and testing of the aircraft which would not help the project's bottom line.

 

I think uncontained turbine failures that cause casualties are quite rare. The last one I can remember was an MD where a blade came through the cabin wall and killed a couple people in Row 33.

 

I totally agree, however the point I was making is that the Qantas failure may have been lethal if there wasn't a wing in between the engine and the cabin.

 

That was a manufacturing fluke, which there was no way to discover until the oil pipe failed.

 

It was almost lethal to everyone onboard...The shrapnel damaged a lot of systems.