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

211–220 of 247 posts

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

#211

Post by PorkBoneSoup »

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…

I completely agree. I actively seek A380 flights out from Australia as they're always far more comfortable. The Dreamliner is ok if you're doing long internal flights (eg. Melb to Perth) but I've never enjoyed a dreamliner flight to Changi as much as I have with an A380.

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

#212

Post by jk2323 »

koyote wrote: post #189
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.

Yes, of cause. The new China hubs (giant market, gov backed) are the reasons for the Downfall of HK and SG. (tiny market, geolocation not great).

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-01-19/ominous...

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

#213

Post by runj__ »

jsjohnst wrote: post #145
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…

I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice, especially for long haul flights. My sinuses are night and day feeling better after a flight on a 787. That alone makes up for any annoyance with the windows or other minor inconveniences people frequently quote. > its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done Citation needed! I just checked every airline’s seating con…

First class on an A380 is a better experience than a 787, if we're talking economy the economy upper deck on LH flights are truly a bliss to fly in: the first row is highly recommended.

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

#214

Post by Havoc »

kalleboo wrote: post #171
Havoc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It looks like the problem with the hub & spoke model right now is that the big hub airports are all slot-restricted. LCCs like to use smaller airports out of town that have cheaper open slots, and this makes it harder to implement hubs. But I predict as they build out intercontinental travel (like Norwegian are doing now), hubs will emerge for the intra-continental legs.

>right now is that the big hub airports are all slot-restricted

Dubai too? Looked to me like they had loads of capacity left last few times I went through

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

#215

Post by MagnumOpus »

jandrese wrote: post #132
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…

11 abreast in a 777? No wonder you hate that plane. Who flies that monstrosity? Is that 3-5-3 seating in a 6.2m fuselage? Or is it 6-5? Do you have to turn sideways to fit?

That was exaggeration for effect. Not even in the 747 or 380 do you see 11 abreast. (JAL tried it as a short-lived experiment once, nobody liked it, surprise surprise).

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

#216

Post by FabHK »

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…

The relevant metric (at least in theory) is wing loading, that is supported weight per wing area. Having said that, I find the A380 super smooth (I also take care that I sit near the wing/center of gravity).

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

#217

Post by jsjohnst »

psergeant wrote: post #161
jsjohnst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice, especially for long haul flights. My sinuses are night and day feeling better after a flight on a 787. That alone makes up for any annoyance with the windows or other minor inconveniences people frequently quote. > its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done Citation needed! I just checked every airline’s seating con…

This is true of all the modern fleet, A350, A380, and the 787, in my extensive experience.

The 787 is definitively better than the A380 (spec wise and personal experience wise) for cabin pressurization and humidity, but I’ve not flown on the A350. As it turns out, the A350 specs out better on both air quality measures than the 787 (just looked it up) and professional reviewers agree it’s better.

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

#218

Post by kalleboo »

dingo_bat wrote: post #160
jpatokal wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delhi-Mumbai and Shanghai-Beijing are already in the world's top 10 busiest routes, but AFAIK there is no regular A380 service on either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_...

AFAIK Delhi-Mumbai is served almost completely by A320s and 737s. I doubt most people traveling on that route could afford a 787 or A380 flight.

Isn't the whole point of the A380 that it's cheaper per passenger-mile when fully loaded up? Why would an A320 ticket be cheaper? Is it the cost of the airframe? Could better leasing options (as other airlines leases run out) solve that?

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

#219

Post by jandrese »

Someone1234 wrote: post #138
jandrese wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I find Boeing seats to be more comfortable than Airbus seats. Maybe it's just my butt but it is noticeable.

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/...

Weird then that the seats they install in Airbus jets are distinct from the ones they install in Boeing jets.

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

#220

Post by jsjohnst »

kalleboo wrote: post #165
jsjohnst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice, especially for long haul flights. My sinuses are night and day feeling better after a flight on a 787. That alone makes up for any annoyance with the windows or other minor inconveniences people frequently quote. > its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done Citation needed! I just checked every airline’s seating con…

Most of my flights these days are on ANA 787's and I honestly can't feel any resulting difference in the humidity/pressurization even though I'm told it's there.

Take note of how much fluids you drink and how dry your nose / throat feels after the flights. Maybe you’re lucky and it doesn’t make as much difference to your body, but it does for many (including me).
Post reply on HN