It's a failure - Airbus has been involved in creative accounting to show a profit on the airplane - i.e. counting future deliveries that were later canceled as part of the program profit. They may end up breaking even.
Flaws?
Oh, so many...it was years late to production, it was 100,000 pounds over design weight, it burned more fuel than promised, required airports and airlines to spend billions to upgrade infrastructure, and it was built for a market that never really existed.
FedEx and UPS canceled their orders, QANTAS returned the airplanes early off lease, Air France, Lufthansa and others cut their orders, the A-380F (freighter) program was canceled.
If it wasn't for the huge number of orders from Emirates, the program would've been the largest, most expensive failure in aviation history. Emirates propped up this program because they wanted the biggest airplane as a matter of prestige. Emirates itself is propped up by government interests, so, no they never really turned a profit with the airplane. The impending demise of Etihad won't help when those airplanes hit the used market.
Nobody wants this big, ungainly, thirsty, pig of an airplane.
I talked about this previously, when I said:
Boeing did an analysis in the late 90s on the future of markets. Their result: that hub to hub flying was mature and that future growth would be long range between medium size cities in a point to point model.
The 787 (called 7E7 for "Efficiency" when it was in development) was designed for that point to point model, it needed exceptional range and great economy.
Airbus disagreed and went after the hub to hub market dominated by the 747. They built the A-380. It promised a per-seat-mile efficiency gain of 25% over the 747...but that leaves it close to the 777 figures and well short of the per-seat-mile cost of the 787.
I've been pretty open in my criticism of the 380 - and I think I am right on the weight overage (I am going, not off the wikipedia or EADS press release of 10,000 lbs overweight, but the promised design and performance specs that EADS shopped to the airlines, including UAL, in the late 90s). The -380 has failed to deliver on performance, reliability and was years late in delivery.
I can forgive the 787 delivery delays, it was groundbreaking construction, including composite structure and new secondary systems architecture.
The 380 was conventional construction...with the only real difference being the higher pressure hydraulics (to save weight) that ended up being scaled back...
Face it, the A-380 is underwhelming despite its size...the lower per-seat-mile operating cost of the 787 will give it a huge advantage in the future fuel price environment, while the operating flexibility of the 787s very longe range, and mid-size capacity will allow it to operate in a multitude of markets in which the 380 could never compete.
As an example, United is now going to offer DEN-NRT (Tokyo) direct flights. The -380 couldn't fly that route, and there isn't enough business there for its capacity. But that direct route will siphon off a bit of business from the SFO-NRT route...leaving fewer passengers for carriers that might operate the -380 in that major hub-hub market.
Boeing has nearly 1,500 orders for the 787. It's back-ordered for the next decade. It's making money and it's opening new markets. A hugely successful airplane program.
20 years ago, Boeing guessed right, and Airbus guessed wrong.