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

Post by jandrese » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

_s wrote: post #127

HeavenFox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it really hard to agree with you. Maybe you flew exclusively in business or first class? > its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done 787 is designed for 8-abreast seating. In reality, carriers almost always went for 9-abreast. 11-abreast is physically impossible. It is possible in an A380 though, and airlines are really considering it. > ... and its a premium quality experience How is flying…

Not OP but I will go out of my way to select Airbus jets; their NVH is noticeably lower than Boeings jets, which results in a far more comfortable travel, especially long-haul (A380 being up there in terms of comfort).

Post by ant6n » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:21 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #129

tuna-piano wrote: post #69

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 int…

Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:35 AM UTC

forkandwait wrote: post #100

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?

If I were building a model, I would estimate my customers average hourly income and figure that is how to calculate break even in a time vs money calculation for a flight. I make 60 an hour (low for regular flyers I bet), a flight change adds 4 hours, so a $240 cost difference for each direct flight is realistic. That might turn into real money if you scale it.

Post by chiph » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:44 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #129

tuna-piano wrote: post #69

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 int…

Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.

Post by userbinator » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #114

I am a frequent business flyer, 10+ per year international long haul from Australia. I appreciate that from a north american perspective the 380 didn't make sense either economically from the economy which bankrolls Boeing, or strategically from the economy which has specific interests in international flights homed out of its east and west coast population centres. I can tell you that for the South Pacific, Japan, I…