Tag: A380

OM in the News: The Short Life Cycle of a Superjumbo Jet

An A380 landing in Heathrow. Production never met its grand ambitions and output quickly fizzled.

Airbus just announced that it is halting production of the A380 superjumbo plane, abandoning the $16 billion project after airlines around the world flocked to smaller, nimbler jets for long-range travel, reports The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 15, 2019). The A380 was the European company’s answer to Boeing’s 747, which brought long-haul travel to the masses 50 years ago and was the undisputed queen of the skies for decades. The A380, which first went into service in 2007, represented a future for long-distance commercial aviation based on big jets, shuttling between major hubs.

Passengers came to love the plane for its spacious, quiet cabins. Most airlines, though, were less enamored, turning instead to a new breed of fuel-efficient smaller jets that gave them the flexibility to serve less popular routes. A380 sales lost momentum early. Airbus never turned a profit on its flagship plane, and write-offs related to the program weighed on the company for years. This week, Dubai-based Emirates Airline, the A380’s biggest customer by far, cut sharply its plans to buy more of them. Airbus’ CEO said the airline’s decision  left the company with “no basis to sustain production.”

In 2000, Airbus unveiled its superjumbo program, saying it would spend $10 billion to build a 555-seat jet in an effort to supplant its U.S. rival’s 747. But development delays and $6 billion in cost overruns set the project back early. Boeing’s 747 has also fallen out of favor, but more gradually. The aircraft is now made mainly to haul cargo. Only about 230 A380s have been built, versus more than 1,500 747’s. But as we point out in Chapter 5, every product has a life cycle–some shorter than others.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. Why was the 747 more successful in sales and longevity?
  2. Research some of the reasons why the A380 program was an OM nightmare.

OM in the News: How Reliable is the Engine on Your Jet?

It was hard to miss the front-page headlines in almost every paper around the world last week when a massive engine exploded on a Qantas Airways A380 superjumbo jet. Early in my career, I worked on the design team for the GE CF-6 engine, also an immense device. So the news blasts caught my attention for 2 reasons: (1) I wanted to make sure the plane landed safely, and (2) I wanted to make sure it wasn’t an engine I had somehow touched.

The Qantas issue raises the question of just how reliable jet engines are (Ch.17). This particular engine, the Trent 900, made by Rolls-Royce was developed for the Airbus double-decker A380. But is is still what we call an “immature engine”, which has yet to meet expected levels of reliability. It is installed in only 21 planes (meaning 84 engines are in use). Other A380s use the GV7000 engine, jointly developed in the US by GE and Pratt & Whitney. Just for background, an A380 retails for about $300 million, of which $50 million is the cost of engines.

Qantas immediately grounded its A380 fleet for engine testing by Rolls-Royce experts. Rolls, according to the linked WSJ article has “been buffeted by a series of design  and reliability issues affecting engines it supplies for other jetliner types”.

That brings up another related reliability issue. Later in my career, I worked at  NASA headquarters and wrote a series of case studies on the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle has a reliability of 0.98 overall. This, of course, translates to a major disaster in 1 out of every 50 flights….which has indeed been the reality, with Challenger and Columbia exploding during 130 or so flights to date. You may want to discuss the Ethical Dilemma in Ch.17 that relates to such a 98% reliability.

Discussion questions:

1. What has taken place since this article was published?

2. Compare the reliability of a jet engine or plane to a Shuttle flight.