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

71–80 of 247 posts

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

#71

Post by tuna-piano »

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?

Supposedly the A380 also has a max weight that would not use all the available volume for cargo.

"The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight."

https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...

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

#72

Post by Blindedwino »

jedberg wrote: post #25

What a shame. The best flying experience I've ever had was coach on an A380 from SFO to Frankfurt. It was the only time I arrived feeling awake and fresh. The air felt cleaner, the lighting was great, and it was so smooth . I get why it isn't popular, but it's just too bad. I really liked flying on one.

I worked at Airbus while the A380 was being developed, I still remember fondly seeing the test flights over our office and looking at it in awe. Then a while later I got to fly in one and it is indeed the best and most modern plane I've been in.

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

#73

Post by Havoc »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #15

Interning at Boeing in 2005, when the Dreamliner was still 2-3 years away from production, I asked a BD manager if Boeing was worried about A380 (the burning question at the time was "Who is going to win, A380/Airbus or Dreamliner/Boeing"). Without pause, he said "Not worried at all, A380 serves the hub and spoke model, which is dying. People hate layovers, they want more direct flights." Not a hard insight to grasp,…

As long as hub & spoke works out cheaper (which it will thanks to centralisation & economies of scale) it'll have a place in the budget market

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

#74

Post by geezerjay »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #28
pkaye wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a obvious insight to grasp since airlines take a strategy that makes them the most money and passengers are cost sensitive. Wasn't this the driving force behind the hum and spoke model?

Passengers are cost AND travel-time/hassle sensitive. It appears Airbus didn't place enough value into the "travel-time/hassle" part. More detail: the Dreamliner is 20% more efficient than previous generation planes. This allowed airlines to "break" the major hubs into many quicker/easier direct flights at a price that passengers are willing to pay. Boeing bet increasing value in this manner was superior than Airbus'…

Passangers are sensitive to travel time but the constraint is placed firmly on cost, particular on major tourism destinations where airports are already saturated.

Furthermore, some international and national air travel networks are in fact organized in a hub and spoke pattern, particularly trans-oceanic flights where demand is high and cost is the main competitive advantage, including business travel.

It's easy to claim now that the choice that was made a couple of decades ago was the right or wrong one, just like it's very easy to pick yesterday's lottery numbers, but if the world economy didn't tanked and if Airbus's projects weren't with so many delays then I really doubt Boeing's bet would be so right.

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

#75

Post by mpweiher »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #23
matt4077 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a limit to scalability at airports, especially the big & busy ones in western metropolis: JFK, LHR, FRA. It's easy to build a new runway, or a new airport, in the desert, or when you can evict anyone in the way. But try doing in a country ruled by law, when the city has long engulfed the airport build in the 60s.

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…

But the points that people want to fly to are those busy airports. New York, London, Tokyo etc. are not random places in the boonies that serve as hubs, they are destinations.

And traffic growth to those destinations is huge.

Also don’t forget that airspace is also quite congested.

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

#76

Post by joezydeco »

Laforet wrote: post #17
MBCook wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are most planes leased? Do the manufacturers try to resell them when they come off lease or are they inspected to be used for parts for repair?

Depends on the airline. Most Middle Eastern airlines, for example, own the aircrafts they operate though a small number were indeed leased. A brand new A380 lists for $300 million dollars so not all airlines have the cash to pay for them upfront, enter leasing companies who put down the capital and rent the planes out to interested airlines. Normally when the lease expires it is off to another renter at a marked.down…

So that makes me even more curious about the fate of airlines like Emirates.

The gulf states have been pouring money into these airlines and (allegedly) price-dumping seats to try and push others out of the routes. Delta has been very vocal about this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...

What's the endgame besides making Dubai into some kind of massive hub and spoke while sitting on a pile of A380s that nobody else wants? It seems like a financial black hole at this point as long as oil prices stay where they are.

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

#77

Post by mulmen »

raz32dust wrote: post #49
double0jimb0 wrote: post #15

Interning at Boeing in 2005, when the Dreamliner was still 2-3 years away from production, I asked a BD manager if Boeing was worried about A380 (the burning question at the time was "Who is going to win, A380/Airbus or Dreamliner/Boeing"). Without pause, he said "Not worried at all, A380 serves the hub and spoke model, which is dying. People hate layovers, they want more direct flights." Not a hard insight to grasp,…

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 380 and the 747 really aren't comparable and the 380 didn't replace the 747. 747 is widely used for cargo routes for example. The 380 was Airbus saying they think there is a market for a jet significantly larger than the 747. Boeing didn't think there was enough market for two superjumbos so they just added a bit to the 747 instead of designing a whole new 380 competitor.

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

#78

Post by cwyers »

pkaye wrote: post #20
double0jimb0 wrote: post #15

Interning at Boeing in 2005, when the Dreamliner was still 2-3 years away from production, I asked a BD manager if Boeing was worried about A380 (the burning question at the time was "Who is going to win, A380/Airbus or Dreamliner/Boeing"). Without pause, he said "Not worried at all, A380 serves the hub and spoke model, which is dying. People hate layovers, they want more direct flights." Not a hard insight to grasp,…

It is not a obvious insight to grasp since airlines take a strategy that makes them the most money and passengers are cost sensitive. Wasn't this the driving force behind the hum and spoke model?

Others have mentioned the improvements in range in more fuel-efficient aircraft. But there's also other incentives at play. Remember when United had a passenger dragged off the plan on a commuter flight? Turns out that wasn't United, but one of many regional airlines that contracts with United. United's union contract constrains the size of these flights, but the pilots at these airlines make less than members of the union. So there's other incentives for airlines to abandon hub-and-spoke in favor of more commuter flights.

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

#79

Post by dmead »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #15

Interning at Boeing in 2005, when the Dreamliner was still 2-3 years away from production, I asked a BD manager if Boeing was worried about A380 (the burning question at the time was "Who is going to win, A380/Airbus or Dreamliner/Boeing"). Without pause, he said "Not worried at all, A380 serves the hub and spoke model, which is dying. People hate layovers, they want more direct flights." Not a hard insight to grasp,…

Can you clarify why it serves the hub and spoke model?

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

#80

Post by cc439 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #18
rdtsc wrote: post #3

I like to use A380 as an analogy when a team works to perfect a product, adds lots of features, rewrites it a few times with the latest most buzzword-compliant technology, tests it until it is absolutely perfect, and ships it. ... Only to find out by that time the market has moved on and nobody wants to buy that kind of a thing anymore. Pretty sure that's a common theme for companies which end up on https://ourincred…

The problem is that you cannot simply ship a not "absolutely perfect" plane. Or, actually, it's not a problem but a blessing given that there were no commercial flight related fatalities in the USA in 2017 (per http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aviation-safety-201801... ). No doubt: Without the drastic levels of regulation the FAA (and JAA) impose on civilian flight, fatalities would be orders of magnitude higher…

There's "perfect" as in "perfectly reliable and perfectly safe" and "perfect" as in "we achieved every last design goal regardless of other factors".

That last part is where Airbus may have missed the mark as design goals such as the A380's high floorspace to seat ratio were great decisions given its intended market (long haul flights, customers like space on long haul flights) also led to a less-than-optimal passengers per flight to operating cost per flight ratio in a market where hub to hub demand is declining. It also led to a low maximum takeoff weight for the size of its floorplan, making it useless as a freight/cargo aircraft, the one niche where the ancient 747 still reigns as king of the skies. A more robust design intended to hold more passengers would have also allowed it to carry more cargo which may have saved the program considering how expensive 747s are to operate.

Post reply on HN