This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 13

Air France Retires First Airbus A380

Submitted
 
Earlier today, an Air France Airbus A380, registered as F-HPJB, flew from Paris to Malta International Airport (MLA) after arriving from Johannesburg. The flight number was AF370V. (samchui.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


sgbelverta
sharon bias 2
If the 747 and 380 can be retrofitted for cargo, they still may have life. The 747 that dumped water and retardant on the California fires this summer was appreciated. An now it can move to Australia to help with their fires.
jbermo
jbermo 2
Technologically unfeasible for cargo conversion due to poor floor load limits. Modification of floor not economically possible due to mating issues with composite fuselage structure.
jbsimms
James Simms 1
Apparently there are wildfires still going on in Kalifornia
Jackx9
Don Quixote 1
380 will never be a cargo aircraft.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
An awful short life span.... I did not figure this plane would last.
VivPike
Viv Pike 0
Strange you refer to it as a "gas guzzler" when it's fuel burn per seat is better than the B747. Just saying.
Jackx9
Don Quixote 1
A380 introduction: 2007(already retiring aircraft)

747 introduction: 1970

Just saying.
Jackx9
Don Quixote 1
Go find me a 747 that was retired at 10.5 years old. Lol.
djames225
djames225 4
"Lufthansa intends to dispose of its brand new fleet of B747-8s in the 2020s, well before they were originally scheduled for retirement." That means a good deal of their 747-8i's will have been retired before 10.5 yrs
Jackx9
Don Quixote 0
Again,

747 introduction: 1970

A380 introduction: 2007(already retiring aircraft)


I can't wait to LOL on you when there aren't any A380's flying anywhere in the world and there will still be the Queen of the Skies, going strong.

but muh lower fuel burn
djames225
djames225 -1
And again you jump around "Go find me a 747 that was retired at 10.5 years old. Lol."...which I did..the only Queens that will be going will be freighters and we aren't comparing apples to oranges. You won't be loling at me because frankly, no skin off my back. She was a greeat bird but brought in late to the show!
I swear, by what others have said about the MH370 person, and his distaste for Boeing, you are his twin brother with hate and despise for Airbus!!
bentwing60
bentwing60 -3
Doesn't say much for Lufthansa fleet planning "to dispose of its brand new fleet of B747-8s in the 2020s", and they will undoubtedly be worth more than sir tims 'niche market' 380s at disposal time. By whatever metric anyone chooses to compare the 380 to the 74, they will never win on market share, service life or practicality in a dynamic industry that is busy shedding an albatross that hasn't even recovered it's development costs. And now out of production, so it never will!


D-ABYU
Boeing 747-8
F8C80W32Y244
Apr 2015
Köln
4.7 Years

youngest 8 in the fleet, ergo, Lufthansas unspecified retirement date of the 2020's does not make Quixote unequivocally wrong or you unflappably right.

source: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Lufthansa
djames225
djames225 3
Doesnt say much for Air France, and a host of other carriers, either. No one is saying anything about worth, market share or anything else. I pointed to a post he made on the thread. We are in 2019, and I am betting by 2024, Lufthansa will have said goodbye to it's 748's and A380's, and replaced them with the 777-9, A350-1000 and 787-9.
Like I also said, the A380 was brought late to the show, and if the 777 and A350 came about just after the 747 was introduced, and got the better mileage than the 747, it would have met an early demise as well.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
LOL ... Very True.
bentwing60
bentwing60 0
Only 'if' all those seats were always full of paying fares, and clearly they were not or they wouldn't be going into early and costly retirement! As for the future of both types, the 380 has no shot at PF or any other freight role where at least some of the 748's will add to or replace older 200's or even 400's in a lucrative freight market.
xtoler
Larry Toler 1
Great point. Aren't most 8i's now are freighters? The A380 wasn't designed as dual role freighter and pax plane. The 747 was originally designed for both roles. The Lockheed C5 won out between the 747 as a strategic airlifter. There is a lot more history to the 747 than some know.
Jackx9
Don Quixote -6
Bye bye, gas guzzler!
djames225
djames225 4
Exact same reason the B747-8i is being phased out and B744's are heading to the scrap heap..fuel guzzler's.
If a B777 or an A350 was around at the time the B744 was introduced, doubtful the 744 would have lasted 10 yrs either.
Jackx9
Don Quixote 1
So what you're saying is contradicting exactly what I'm saying.

The A380 is a failure and Airbus knows it. So do you.

The 747 is the Queen of the Skies and WILL be around for many many years longer than the A380.

You know I'm right, get lost.

djames225
djames225 1
Knock it off with your idiotic attitude and grow up...no contradiction at all...747 Intercontinental's and A380's are both heading to scrap because they suck fuel too badly. If the triple 7 or A350 came about just after the first 47, the 47 would have been scrapped early on.
Joe knew what he was doing when he designed the 47 to be a freighter first, and those are what will be seen in the skies.
bentwing60
bentwing60 -1
Were it not for Juan Trippe, the first 747 might not have come about and you and the other preeminent industry historian below might recall that the P&W JT9D, the first commercial high by-pass turbofan engine was a direct development for the 747. Every major airframe advancement has been accompanied by the advancement of 'available thrust'. If the GE90, P&W4000 and RR Trent had been available back then we might have had trip 7's 40 years ago. But they weren't, so we got a big airplane with a bunch of engines. And if Airbus had been as prescient as old Joe, the 380 would still not be a commercial freighter success because of its operating costs and wingspan that is a limitation in many operational theaters.
VivPike
Viv Pike 3
This entire "discussion thread" has swung a full 180 degrees, and appears now to be a "us versus them" argument.
I'd like to point out the following. The very first comment for this squawk was "Bye bye, gas guzzler!", to which I replied "Strange you refer to it as a "gas guzzler" when it's fuel burn per seat is better than the B747. Just saying."
At no point did I mention anything about the pros or cons of either aircraft, be it the B747 or the A380.
My comment (or reply to the gas guzzler theory) was simple and straight forward - seat for seat, the A380 has a fuel burn similar to, or less than, the B747.
I also do not know who the "other preeminent industry historian" is to whom you refer, but what I have said now, is just about all I have said. Nothing more.
I have read and re-read every comment on this thread, and not once, anywhere or by any person, can I find a single negative comment about the B747 - nobody has said it is or was a bad aircraft. I cannot say the same about comments on the A380.
And if anybody actually gives one iota, I will just say that I love the B74's and have flown many a time in those wonderful aircraft. I have never yet set foot on an A380.
I have said my say, and will say no more, as I cannot understand how or why this discussion has degenerated to this point.
VivPike
Viv Pike 0
Well said !!

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!