Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by Arn_Thor » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:36 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…

Wholeheartedly agree that I prefer the A380, particularly for its comfort, low noise and high stability. BUT, I'd always prefer to fly as directly as possible so I'd pick a direct-to-destination flight any day. And as far as multi-leg-journeys go, for the Asia-Europe route nothing is more infuriating than adding four hours in the air just to detour through Dubai. Granted, it's the smoothest transit experience I've had, but I'd rather save time and run through Schiphol if that is an option.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:37 AM UTC

sho wrote: post #151

holografix wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the “gets longer” reasons you state here are solved by the “add more staff” and “use more exits” options. I also live in Australia and have flown both the Dreamliner and A380 and if possible will always choose the A380. Far roomier plane, much quieter and even though it may be just a coincidence every time it seems to suffer far less turbulence.

> it seems to suffer far less turbulence That's not a coincidence. It makes perfect sense that a large heavy aircraft like the 380 will be harder for wind and air pockets to push it around, just like big ships are far more stable than smaller ones. There's a world of difference between coming into (say) Singapore with its turbulent tropical air on a little a320 and a giant like a 380. I've been on narrowbody flights…

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by reacweb » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:38 AM UTC

I am impressed. Most of the HN comments are praise, but A380 is failing because of airlines strategical choice of avoiding hub. Is again the best technical solution killed by intense lobbying ?

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

#184

Post by erispoe » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:41 AM UTC

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.

The A380 doesn't make sense for cargo. Too much volume for the weight it can lift. At the average plane cargo density, an A380 cargo would be at weight capacity way before it gets to volume capacity.[1]

The A380 cannot lift much more than a B747. But it has more volume, which comes in handy for passengers, not for cargo.

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

edit: 747 n° mistake

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

#185

Post by Arn_Thor » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 8:47 AM UTC

sho wrote: post #153

jsjohnst wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the extra capacity of the A380 is possibly negated by the extra spacing it needs due to the hellish jet wash behind it.

That's a relevant point - the 380 needs more separation, typically 3 minutes instead of 2. However most of the big "hub" airports are just as constrained by gate availability as by raw landing slots, and the capacity of the 380 makes up the difference (they get paid by passenger and MTOW). For example, an airport like heathrow might have 3 gates free and 8 minutes clear air on the runway. They could take 2 a380s at 0…

But the A380 takes longer to unload, clean and load again and so takes up gate space for longer. I'm sure it's not long enough to equal three 787s, but it's certainly diminishing returns.

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

#186

Post by jk2323 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 9:09 AM UTC

Most comments about the A380 here are US-centered.

1. The A380 can be upgraded and can be made more fuel efficient. But this is an investment Airbus would have to made.

2. The hub model is not dead. There are major hubs that are dying (Singapore and Hongkong), there are current major hubs UAE, Moscow (AsiaEU), Istanbul and there are coming major hubs (Addis Abbeba (EU, Asia Afica), potentially Tehran (geostrategic location, cheap oil, huge inner market, if they open up). At least if I look at it from China.

Especially from huge markets with price sensitive customers like India and China, I predict that the A380 could have a future. I think the Airbus CEO once said "This plane come 10 years too early".

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

#187

Post by skgoa » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 9:39 AM UTC

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…

> Only to find out by that time the market has moved on and nobody wants to buy that kind of a thing anymore.

... But somebody wanted to buy this product. Airbus expected the project to break even at ~300 sales and they have gotten 317 firm orders so far. People are massively overstating the commercial "failure" of this project. Even with their development troubles, Airbus is getting close to breaking even, if they can generate more sales over the next decade or so. (The break even point is estimated to be ~400 now.)

There are still firm orders for 5 years of production on the books. Early adopters are replacing their oldest planes with newly produced ones right now. ANA put in an entirely new, firm order two years ago despite not operating this type at all. Yes, no sale in 2 years is not great, but even Jan 2016 was long after everyone on the internet was calling for Airbus to kill the entire project already. If the 380 succeeds in ANA's fleet, there is scope for more orders from them or their close competitors.

Iran also has an agreement with Airbus that includes 12 380s, though that's not a firm order as far as I can tell. In addition to this, Emirates will probably have to order 50-100 new planes on top of their existing orders to replace their aging fleet in the near future. Emirates want an 380NEO, but they will probably have to accept the 380Plus that Airbus favors. Once they do, the 380 project will have the orders it needs to reach break even and to keep the production line open until a NEO makes sense. And if passenger numbers keep on increasing at 4-5% every year over the 10-15 years the 380 is likely to stay in production, the market Airbus had expected/hoped for originally might very well materialize.

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

#188

Post by cr1895 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 9:42 AM UTC

jsjohnst wrote: post #141

Someone1234 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither one is a seat manufacturer. Airline seats are independently purchased, and while both Boeing and Airbus have contracts for factory installed seating (and for their demo aircraft), most larger airlines seem to independently source and install their own seats. One seat model could appear on both an Airbus and Boeing aircraft. See: http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_subscription/interiors/...

Except for the 787. If memory is correct, Boeing dictates what brand / models of seat is used in the 787 (something rather unusual). I can try and find a source if needed, but I’m pretty sure I heard that from a reliable source.

So does that mean the placement of the overhead light/call button is the same in all of them?

I had an economy comfort seat on a KLM 787 recently and the buttons were affixed to the inside of the seat arm at leg level, and not recessed. I kept turning on the overhead light with my leg all through the night. Infuriatingly poor design. A few mm's more recess would likely have made it much harder to accidentally press.

Overall quite a negative first 787 experience...

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

#189

Post by koyote » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 9:42 AM UTC

jk2323 wrote: post #186

Most comments about the A380 here are US-centered. 1. The A380 can be upgraded and can be made more fuel efficient. But this is an investment Airbus would have to made. 2. The hub model is not dead. There are major hubs that are dying (Singapore and Hongkong), there are current major hubs UAE, Moscow (Asia EU), Istanbul and there are coming major hubs (Addis Abbeba (EU, Asia Afica), potentially Tehran (geostrategic l…

China also has a couple potential hubs as seen from Europe.

China Southern (which flies A380 via CAN) and Air China (one of very few 747-8 operators) often have the cheapest flights to Asia these days.

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

#190

Post by kelnos » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 9:45 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.

People don't actually value things that way, because people don't work for a wage every hour they aren't doing something else. This kind of calculation comes up all the time when people are trying to "value their time", but the reality is quite different.