Is the Airbus 380 the future of air travel or a relic of the past?

Certainly not the future of air travel. It was envisioned as a hub-hub connector and is an important plane for a handful of busy airports that don't have a lot of runway space: Heathrow, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Sydney, Dubai...

But the ETOPS ratings mean the 787 and A350 are the future of air travel. Four-engine planes are going away, and while the A380 is quite efficient when full, it is hard to find many routes where that size plane makes sense.

As a passenger I need to say that the A380 is by far the best passenger plane in the air. Lightyears ahead of anything else. 777 or 747 are definately no bad planes but compared to A380 at least in ECO class you feel like being pressed in like a sardin in a tin.
If there is an option to fly A380 instead of any other plane I would allways choose A380.
Unfortunately it seems that passenger comfort is not a main focus area for most airlines.

Best plane I have ever travelled on from a passenger perspective, hands down. By far the quietist in the sky (only one I can sleep on!)and far more stable during turbulence. Willing to pay extra to fly it and wished more airlines would dare operating it.

I wonder if Airbus is really that optimistic, that they are either blind or brilliant, or if it is simply a PR stunt to mitigate the loss on shareholders.

The seats in Economy Class in the A 380 are still the most comfortable and roomiest I have ever flown in and I have done a lot of Australia to US and Australia to Europe flights. The other prime consideration with the 380, particularly on the long, long flights across the Pacific is that the 380 has 4, repeat 4 big engines. The 777 and 787, while obviously reliable and safe aircraft still don't have the 2 extra engines, just in case.

It is just, plainly and simple, the BEST Airplane a passenger can fly! Silent, spacious, very stable! If Airlines thought about Passengers instead of profits...

I would love to fly on the A380, but the cost of a ticket from Houston to London is about $1000 more than the standard fare on other aircraft. I’ve watched two different documentaries on the development and construction of the 380. It looks like a marvelous airplane. I just can’t afford to buy a flight on her.😥

Relic, by far. When they decided to focus on being the biggest in a market that was looking for maximum efficiency, that should have said something. Boeing called it right with the 787, and the nail on the coffin, or the proof - so to speak - is when Airbus shifted focus on the 350 to compete again.

it is absolutely anachronistic for the concept of mobility of the future. An aircraft too big and expensive that does not meet the new needs of the peoples to move quickly and in a short time even on very long routes.

In how many languages can you say Relic of the past?

Face it. It’s an ugly plane. I’ve flown an Air France version from Paris to LAX. The tail is enormous. Overkill.

I will say... that wing is beautiful symmetry as you view it from the mid body entrances. Graceful.

Bottom line- It’s slooooowly going to disappear.

Starting from the 1950s compare the seating capacities of the most popular aircraft of the times:
DC-3 30
DC-4 60
DC-7 70
B-707 150
B-747 400
B-777 300
What does that trend tell you? Did the 747 signify a peak in seating capacity?
I predict that eventually 300 seater aircraft will become too small for the growth in demand and that 500+ seater aircraft will become mainstream.
If 160,000 lbf thrust engines can be developed, it could be a twin, but until then, the A-380, introduced way ahead of its time, will fill this requirement.

A modern dinosaur.