321–330 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? What happened in Dubai?
Many flights in Dubai happen late at night / very early morning due to a combination of time zone alignment and daytime heat making it harder to service large planes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not successful because it was big, it was successful because it could fly further than anything else. It is however because it was big that it could fly far: if I remember correctly the fuel needed to fly grows with the surface of the plane (in 2 dimensions), while the fuel that can be hauled grows with its volume (in 3 dimensions). The 777 had already mad…
Also, up until relatively recently regulators wouldn't let twin engines fly transoceanic flights because they deemed it too risky. They added ETOPS[1] regulation in order to allow this [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 747 sales were falling A380 was officially started in 1993. 747 orders per year, starting 1993 2, 16, 32, 56, 36, 15, 35, 26, 16, 17, 4, 10, 43, 72 I don't see "falling". At best, I see cycles.
And you see low numbers. All throughout the discussion here, I see mostly references to the 787 and 747. No. It was the 777 all along that constrained the A380. And the 777X was the coup de grace.
Airbus does not have large cross section twin. Hence the A350xwb is critical to their future, not A330neo. Large cross section ETOPS twin 777X is the real 747 replacement. A380 is a halo product and not 747 replacement. The market is too small for A380 production run vs RnD costs.
Now Airbus product line is more secure. A350xwb completes their prouct line-up. Single aisle, medium cross section twin, large cross section twin.
Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much more comfortable than any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on an A380 in any class you won't go back...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets say there are 52 windows and each shade weight 2 pounds which I don't think they do. That is 104 pounds on a 380,000lb aircraft. That is .02% of the weight of the aircraft.
> Lets say there are 52 windows The actual number is almost double that, but that doesn’t negate your point. More than weight, I think it was seen as a “nicety”. I think with the new Gen 2 (and soon Gen 3) Windows, people won’t mind them as much as the newer generations are MUCH darker.
Also it doesn't get all the way dark. I just feel it was a piece of engineering that doesn't need to be there in my opinion.
The 747 struggled initially as well. If the A380 is completely full it is almost 30% cheaper per passenger per mile to fly compared to 787. Maybe some new company will come up with a way to make money like southwest or spirit.
Sounds like filling the A380 is the problem, without flooding the various markets with availability. Curious- I've always read the A380 is more expensive per seat mile than 787. Source?
You would basically have to fill it up to its capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of airlines have replaced 747s with A380s. British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Qantas immediately come to mind.
Qantas are currently replacing 747s with a fleet of A380s and 777s
That, and their Emirates alliance have finally turned things around (they weren’t profitable internationally for several years until about two years ago).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing could have chosen to compete with the A380 and built their own Superjumbo, but they chose not to, instead working on the Dreamliner. The 744, which was the last update to the 747 to see large market penetration, wasn't all that cost effective either: > with 70 percent of its seats occupied, used more than 95 percent of the fuel needed by a fully occupied 747 Yes, the A380 is more fuel efficient, and cost per s…
Qantas will be retiring all its 747s in the next few years as their replacements, a mix of A380s and 787s, come in.
The 787 will be a big part of their strategy from here on in. Their first has finally entered service in the last month or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 747 was a problem that was disappearing on it's own. When the A380 was approved, the 747 was no longer obscenely profitable, it was already facing lower demand and the requirements for an expensive update. Airbus crippled itself trying to eliminate it with the A380, they blew a huge amount of capital they'll never get back. The hub and spoke model is dead and won't be coming back. New slots can be easily created…
> New slots can be easily created by adding runways or building new airports. I wouldn't call that "easy". How many new runways are going to be built next year? How many new airports? I'll make a guess that the answers are "none" and "very few or none".