It's not that the A380 was 4 engine - the only important metric is CASM - cost per available seat mile.
On that metric - the A380 competed well with the 777, which was the market at the time that Airbus decided to go ahead with their super jumbo.
Ironically, that metric is why the 747 dominated the long haul international market for so long, its CASM was less than half that of Concorde when they both hit the market in 1968, and the 747 was dramatically lower than the DC-8 and 707.
The real failure of the A380 (and I've said this before on BITOG) was Airbus getting the future of air travel wrong.
In about 1998, Boeing and Airbus looked ahead.
Airbus saw ever-larger airplanes competing for the finite number of slots at major hubs around the world. More passengers for each slot was the way to win in that vision of the future. Hence, A380.
Boeing saw long-range point to point service as the future. Mid size markets connected directly, bypassing crowded hubs and airspace. Enter the Sonic Cruiser - a 0.95 mach mid-size (767) airplane of exceptional range. As the design work progressed, 9-11 and oil price shocks altered airline demand - they wanted fuel-efficiency more than speed, with long range, in a mid-size airplane. The 7E7 (for efficient).
7E7 was radical, composite fuselage, new systems architecture and engines to maximize economy. Long range. Mid size. When the design was finalized, it was named...
787.
1,500 orders later, it's quite clear that Boeing got the vision of the future right.
Here's an example of where the 787 crushes the competition: SFO - Chengdu, China.
Why Chengdu? Home of an incredible number of high-tech companies and factories building tech. Apple, Intel, IBM, Cisco, Nokia, Motorola, and others all have facilities and business there. So, lots of folks want to go SFO-Chengdu (pre-CV-19, and soon, when it opens up again).
To travel on any regular airline, the route is through Tokyo, Beijing, or Hong-Kong hubs of those major carriers. Change planes, two flights, takes about 24 hours.
But the 787 can fly direct, at 0.85 mach, in just under 16 hours. 8 hours faster. No hub delays. Lower CASM than the 777 or 747s used on those SFO-hub flights.
787 wins.
That's why Boeing has sold so many of them.
And the A380?
The biggest loser. Nobody wants huge numbers of people moving between hubs when point to point service can be more efficient, and a better travel experience.
