back to article First A380 flown in anger to be broken up for parts

On October 25th, 2007 Singapore Airlines flight SQ380 departed Changi Airport bound for Sydney, Australia, marking the first commercial flight of the Airbus A380. But the plane that made that flight won’t ever take to the air again and will instead be broken up for parts. The A380, airframe number MSN003, wasn’t Singapore …


  1. LucasNorth

    "Boeing will soon just-about-match its capacity with the 777x"

    This is nonsense, according to the Boeing website the 777x has a two seat configuration capacity of 375 whereas Emirates run the A380 with a two class capacity of 615. Nowhere near comparable.

    1. A. Coatsworth
      Thumb Up

      That phrase left me scratching my head. How can a single-decker plane match the capacity of a double decker?

      The only options would be doubling its length, which would be extremely funny to see; or doubling the passenger density, which is extremely worrying because it sounds like something the airlines would actually consider!

      Thanks for the clarification

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        BA have recently increased the capacity of loads of their 777s. In the back it used to be 3-3-3 across and now it's 3-4-3. Narrower seats, narrower aisles.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          RE: BA Seating

          They are not alone in that.

          That's why now that I'm retired, I will fly at the front of the plane on long-haul (4 hours plus). Had far too many 10hour sectors in Cattle class when working to make it attractive now.

    2. Number6

      This is nonsense, according to the Boeing website the 777x has a two seat configuration capacity of 375 whereas Emirates run the A380 with a two class capacity of 615. Nowhere near comparable.

      They are comparable if you figure it as passengers per engine. In fact, the 777x comes out better.

      1. ChrisC

        Number6, remember that in the article, the capacity comment was made in the specific context of landing slot availability:

        "Boeing will soon just-about-match its capacity with the 777x, challenging the A380’s selling point as the ideal plane for super-busy airports where landing slots are scarce."

        i.e. passengers per *airframe*, not per *engine*...

    3. christooo

      you must have missed the Boeing offer of 2 for the price of one. or BOGOF. Buy one get one free.

  2. cs9

    Plenty of parts to go around

    Thanks to the 4 full engines, twice as many as a modern airliner needs.

  3. Number6

    The big reason no one wants it is because the first few A380s built are less fuel-efficient than later ones, as various tweaks and improvements have occurred.

    Think how many soft drink cans it'll make.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Think how many soft drink cans it'll make."

      They should scrap in the USA. Fly it in as an aircraft, effectively bypassing the idiotic import tariffs on aluminium.

      Canada will be mass producing extremely heavy trailers for transport trucks, made from 50t of the finest Canadian steel. One way trips into the USA, each carrying a sack.of potatoes.

  4. scheissefuergehirn

    The A380 is my favourite aircraft and also of the fellow passengers that I have spoken to. It has more room (in cattle class) than any other aircraft that I've flown in and is quieter too. I've flown in quite a few 777s in 3-3-3 configured seating and it isn't that generous so I really wouldn't want to fly in a 3-4-3 version.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Model is broken

    Hub and spoke is broken, because it's designed incorrectly. Think of how a typical computer network functions with edge and core routers. Now compare that to the airport model: all the "core" components are also your biggest "edge" components.

    In an ideal world we'd have a few massive "core" airports that have no* security gates, no* baggage carousels, no taxi stands, etc. They would be located remotely from large cities in order to have plenty of runways and plenty of clear land around them (no noise abatement restrictions). These would have plenty of short hop flights (or possibly regional rail) to smaller airports located in population centers.

    It's an idealized scenario that probably cannot be realized (especially in a competitive airline market)

    * (or extremely minimal)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Model is broken

      That's what they tried to do with Mirabel. To be fair, there were other factors which led to its demise, but the biggest was Dorval's convenience.

    2. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

      Re: Model is broken

      Hub and spoke is broken because of monopolistic practices more than anything else. The computing analogy fails because my packets don't make a sweet deal with the local router to bump yours off the system (With the end of net neutrality, this may change.)

  6. A Known Coward

    With a lot of flying to/from India, US and Australia in the past few years, as well as shorter haul flights within Europe, India and the US. I have to say that hands down, the A380 is the most comfortable commercial aircraft.

    Emirates A380s top the list, with Etihad and Quantas vying for second place, but I've not flown the A380 with Singapore, British Airways or Air France yet.

    As usual, the aircraft which puts passenger comfort at the forefront is the one that airlines don't want to use ...

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge


      As usual, the aircraft which puts passenger comfort at the forefront is the one that airlines don't want to use ...

      The aircraft the airlines want to use are governed by the equation of passenger miles per gallon of jetfuel + landing charges/number of passengers.

      So if its 10 quid cheaper to stuff 300 people into a pair of 777s rather than 600 in a 380 , they will.

      After all.. airlines are run by accountants and they NEVER fly cattle class....

  7. Kev99 Bronze badge

    And no matter what planes Boeing & Airbus bring out, the seating and aisles will be designed for Billy Barty.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Flown in anger?

    Pardon my denseness, but what on earth does the phrase "flown in anger" mean in the headline? Is it some sort of British idiom?

    1. Horridbloke

      Re: Flown in anger?

      Yes, "used in anger" means used for its intended real-world purpose (as opposed to being tested, trialled or involved in other sissiness).

  9. alexmcm

    That has put me right off flying

    Having just read all the comments on this thread, and then reading up about ETOPS and NEO, sweet jesus, I never realised the risk I was taking flying long haul.

    So if I fly a ETOPS-180 certified plane from Sydney to LA, and it's engine bursts into flame over the pacific, then that's ok, it's only 3 hours to go to LA. So I get to sit and watch a a flaming engine for 3 hours until it lands. Can you imagine those 3 hours? Will the fuel explode? Will the engine rip into the it? It's all ok, it is ETOPS-180 certified. Oh look! Here comes the drinks trolley.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We secretly replaced your old worn parts with even older worn parts...

    “The main reason … is that many airlines currently using the A380-800 will have a high demand for individual replacement components due to upcoming maintenance intervals,”

    :/ it's typically good form to replace those old worn parts with non-worn NEW parts during maintenance, not even older worn parts.

    "Hi, we had to replace your tires on your 2010 Ford. However, instead of replacing them with new tires, we opted to replace them with some tires we found on a 1995 model in a scrap yard."

  11. Pomgolian


    Having just made two trips from NZ to the UK in the last month, flying Emirates via Dubai on an A380-800 I found it a really comfortable trip. I'm 6'6" with long legs, and there was plenty of leg room in cattle class. In flight entertainment is great, too. I'd be sad to see the A380 go. I've flown other airlines including Air NZ and nothing came close to the A380. Virgin Atlantic had perhaps the most pathetic amount of leg room ever -I guess Virgin is simply a tighter fit...

  12. grant_cok

    Flown in Anger?

    What does the term "flown in anger" mean here? I thought that applied to planes on military sortie..


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019