Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 355 posts

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#161

Post by coredog64 »

nradov wrote: post #74
mpweiher wrote: post #33

I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official back…

I don't think the Boeing 747 really created much of a cross-subsidy for their smaller models. Most of the major airlines with 747s had a mix of Boeing and Airbus airplanes.

The 747-400 set the stage for large aircraft that could be operated with only a pilot and co-pilot. That, in turn, paved the way for the 777's fancy new avionics. Those avionics then went down market, including the then-new 737NG.

At least, that is my insider's perspective from the era (95-00).

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#162

Post by ivankolev »

mpweiher wrote: post #149
mdasen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo. It's easy to make a bet on twin-engines getting certified for longer ocean crossings when you already have the 747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the 787 and you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when you already have the 747. However, the…

Excellent points, and I agree that the switch in the market certainly was a large component, and probably the larger component. I still think that Airbus simply could not not do the A380, just as a defensive move and hedge, and that it may have served a commercial purpose even if it didn't manage to be profitable on its own. > constrained slots [..] certainly money [..] Are slots primarily a money problem? My underst…

In the early years of the post-communist era state disintegration that is currently going on in Bulgaria, the national airline "Balkan" was sold for a funny sum of $150k [1] and subsequently liquidated supposedly netting a lot of unaccounted money for its valuable slots.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Bulgarian_Airlines

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#163

Post by avh02 »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #145
samfisher83 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 windows seem to block cell phone signals. Their tinting technology seems a a little unnecessary.

The reason for the tinting is really simple - weight. You have to be able to shade the windows and doing this way is less weight then have pull down screens. Everything in aircraft design here comes down to weight reduction.

I also think giving crew control is a factor. Rather than asking/telling individuals to open their shades you just control it. I guess this makes compliance with regulation easier.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#164

Post by sjm-lbm »

waqf wrote: post #153
sjm-lbm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. just to piggy back on this and add a "why": the smaller long range planes are allowing airlines to connect smaller cities with direct flights while still making money. This is easier for customers, and is insanely popular. An example here is British Airways' service from New Orleans to London. Obviously, some amount of people have always wanted to get from New Orleans to London, but previously they've been flying…

But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing slots in London?

Yes. But that's a slightly different problem, and one that could potentially be solved in other ways (an extra runway at LHR, going to a different airport in another European capital if London is unwilling to make the changes needed to keep their airport competitive for connecting passengers transiting through, stuff like that).

Slot utilization at busy airports is one of the better pro-jumbo arguments going around at the moment, though. There's just not enough market pressure to cause airlines to push passengers away from direct flights and towards less popular routing options right now.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#165

Post by GiorgioG »

rsync wrote: post #156
ghaff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And as far as airport congestion goes, building new airports is far easier than new rail lines. Might tell Berlin that :-) It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly.

"It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly." I remember DIA (Denver) being built relatively quickly and without trouble - is my memory faulty ? (genuinely curious)

Is this the same airport that constantly made the news for its troublesome baggage system?

Edit: Yep - https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/broadway_17th/2015/0...

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#166

Post by kbenson »

waqf wrote: post #153
sjm-lbm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. just to piggy back on this and add a "why": the smaller long range planes are allowing airlines to connect smaller cities with direct flights while still making money. This is easier for customers, and is insanely popular. An example here is British Airways' service from New Orleans to London. Obviously, some amount of people have always wanted to get from New Orleans to London, but previously they've been flying…

But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing slots in London?

Does the comparison not work if the smaller city is in Europe and he major hub is one of the ones in the US? Or even two US cities?

I think perhaps using London as an example is overshadowing the point being made. If you aren't aggregating passengers at hubs which you then use larger planes for the common leg of the journey, you don't need as many larger planes.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#167

Post by tomalpha »

avar wrote: post #128
joezydeco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Two American carriers (United and Delta) already knew this. They discontinued the 747 and their last flights were earlier this year. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/... https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/... The A320s and 777s (and soon A350s) are just more efficient for passenger ETOPS flights. Hell, United wi…

Flying jumbo jets is bad business these days, but the immediate reason for why these carriers dropped the 747 in 2017 was because starting in 2018 they wouldn't have been allowed to fly due to new FAA rules around fuel tank inerting. Of course putting "we won't be allowed to fly them since the regulator thinks they're too likely to explode coming next year, but we're still selling flights on them!" in your own press…

Do you have a source for that?

I’m particularly interested because I’m due to fly on a British Airways 747 in a couple of weeks to the US.

As an aside, BA appears to have the largest remaining passenger 747 fleet[0] and doesn’t plan to fully retire them until 2024.

[0] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/last-ba-747-400-t...

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#168

Post by valuearb »

rsync wrote: post #156
ghaff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And as far as airport congestion goes, building new airports is far easier than new rail lines. Might tell Berlin that :-) It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly.

"It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly." I remember DIA (Denver) being built relatively quickly and without trouble - is my memory faulty ? (genuinely curious)

Everything but the baggage system.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#169

Post by jeblair »

rsync wrote: post #156
ghaff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And as far as airport congestion goes, building new airports is far easier than new rail lines. Might tell Berlin that :-) It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly.

"It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly." I remember DIA (Denver) being built relatively quickly and without trouble - is my memory faulty ? (genuinely curious)

"As expected, Mayor Wellington Webb announced today that the new Denver International Airport, already six months late and more than $1 billion over budget, will not open on May 15, missing its fourth deadline." [1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/us/denver-delays-opening-o...

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#170

Post by zitterbewegung »

KeepTalking wrote: post #159

While the focus is on the original business case for building Mega planes like the A380 the knock-on/hidden impact of closing the A380 line has detrimental impact on Airports that invested millions into being 'A380 ready'. Airports around the world spent millions of dollars building out A380 capable terminal gates, wider taxi-ways and bigger baggage handling systems to deal with A380 arrivals and departures. Food cat…

Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn’t cost effective . Maybe the A380 will have the same outcome ? It seems like ORD knew this .
Post reply on HN