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

Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 247 posts

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#61

Post by txcwpalpha »

saryant wrote: post #35
txcwpalpha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scalability of airports is really only an issue at a select few airports, though. JFK and LHR are the big ones that come to mind. FRA and ORD are pretty congested as well. SFO might become extremely congested in the future as they don't have much room to expand. However, that's still only The A380 is important to JFK and LHR slots, but I think it's much more likely that we see a the growth of alternate airports a…

Denver's airport was built with ATL scale in mind. It's already the largest airport in the US by land size, nearly twice as large as the next airport on the list, which gives them tons of room to expand without needing to buy up neighboring plots. The airport already has six runways and the master plan calls for six more. Two of the three existing concourses can be lengthened to add more gates and the plan allows for…

Aye. It's a similar situation for DFW. The original master plan called for thirteen terminals (see pic [1]), not including the additional cargo terminals/ramps. It currently has 5, and although it will probably never expand to 13, there is enough land space for plenty of expansion.

1: https://airwaysmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/noahjeppso...

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#62

Post by filereaper »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #57
raz32dust wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? I think A380 was aimed at replacing B747, which it did. Also I feel (no data) that hub and spoke is alive and well. It's just that it is using more efficient, lower capacity flights (B787, A350) which are easier to fill up and maintain.

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

777 has incredible range, the current 777-LR (worldliner) still flies further than the 787. I think Boeing will upgrade the 777 with better composites and engines, but I doubt 777 will be die anytime soon.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#64

Post by Alupis »

rwmj wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

You can't just take the seats out and fill it with boxes? What else is needed for a cargo plane?

Usually you need special flooring with tie-downs and rollers to facilitate moving the load around, which helps maintain an appropriate CG (Center of Gravity).

Purpose-built freighter models also remove things that aren't necessary and just add weight - such as windows (packages don't need a view). This allows the carrier to transport more cargo in the same flight.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#65

Post by totalZero »

deanCommie wrote: post #33

Can someone with a better understanding of economics than me explain something: How is the "point to point" (direct short flights via Ryanair and the like) beating "hub and spoke"(hubs like London and Frankfurt)? I don't mean for convenience - obviously it's nicer to not have layovers. But I mean economically. In the last 10 years, fuel prices have only gone up, as has environmental awareness, and the A380 is surely…

> In the last 10 years, fuel prices have only gone up

This is simply not true.

http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Page...

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#67

Post by altstar »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #57
raz32dust wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? I think A380 was aimed at replacing B747, which it did. Also I feel (no data) that hub and spoke is alive and well. It's just that it is using more efficient, lower capacity flights (B787, A350) which are easier to fill up and maintain.

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

There was a 380 cargo version. It was not economical for operators to fly and all the initial orders were cancelled. It was called the 380F.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#68

Post by txcwpalpha »

rwmj wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

You can't just take the seats out and fill it with boxes? What else is needed for a cargo plane?

You need a good way to get the boxes on and off the plane, such as the 747 freighter's nose door [1]. The A380 can't be fitted with one of these due to its cockpit placement.

The 2nd floor of the A380 also can't be removed because it's required structurally, and that really limits the size of the cargo you could potentially put in it.

1: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites...

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#69

Post by tuna-piano »

One interesting point, about airports being at capacity. A third runway at London Heathrow is estimated to cost roughly the same as the entire A380 program!

In a world where an additional runway (at the most congested airport) costs as much as creating a futuristic gigantic airplane from scratch, maybe it's not that crazy? (Not sure how the additional spacing and other costs with the A380 add into this, but still interesting to think about).

An additional runway at London Heathrow Airport will cost $20B USD [1]. The A380 development costs are estimated between $17B-$28B USD [2].

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42399840

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Total_development_...

Post reply on HN