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

221–230 of 247 posts

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

#221

Post by jsjohnst »

Zombieball wrote: post #162
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…

I think you even cut the quote short... > In business, its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done “In business” as in business class? Most 787 I’ve been on are 1-2-1 reverse herringbone in business.

Fair point, 11 across seating is complete b/s for business, but it’s being offered by Airbus for economy on the A380 (3-5-3). Funny that he accuses the 787 of doing something lousy the A380 actually offers.

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

#222

Post by lmm »

Theodores wrote: post #168
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…

If you live under the London Heathrow flight path then the A380 makes a lot of sense. Despite many airlines operating point to point services rather than hub and spoke there are places like London Heathrow where a lot of people want to get to and there are not enough plane slots for everyone. I do not believe that Heathrow is uniquely congested. These few airports, even if there are only five or so that have the same…

> Incidentally I am amazed at how many more Airbus planes fly into Heathrow than Boeing. Particularly with the smaller jets, A320 size the equivalent Boeing planes seem relatively rare. Imaginably they are on a different flight path.

There's a transatlantic divide here: Airbus is a European manufacturer and disproportionately popular in Europe, the converse is true with Boeing in America. The NYT being a US paper and HN being a mostly-American site, you'll see a tendency to favour Boeing here.

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

#223

Post by kalleboo »

jsjohnst wrote: post #220
kalleboo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Certainly it makes more or less of a difference to different people but you said "I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787", so I was explaining why some people don't see any pros to the 787.

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

#224

Post by dingo_bat »

kalleboo wrote: post #218
dingo_bat wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I just assumed that buying a new jumbo jet would need costlier tickets, the initial cost more than offsetting the cheaper operating costs. Otherwise why are they not operating yet?

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

FabHK wrote: post #216
sho wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by jsjohnst »

dx034 wrote: post #194
sho wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh absolutely. You can turn around a small plane in under an hour, a feat you'd be really pushing to do with a 380. Even refuelling for a long haul can take longer than that. And different constraints apply to different airports. If you have plenty of gates but no landing slots, like Heathrow, you don't mind if the planes hang around a little longer. Atlanta would have the opposite issue with their 5 runways, which c…

I was always wondering why no one has started using 6/7 doors for loading/unloading. You could get all passengers on/off in less than 10 minutes each, the doors are there. Cleaning is just a question of how many people work on it and refuelling could be done by 2 trucks I guess? At the moment they just don't need it because the plane won't be turned around faster anyway (boarding with 3 doors takes 20+ min alreay).

> I was always wondering why no one has started using 6/7 doors for loading/unloading.

I can answer your question with a question, name an airport with that many jet bridges at one gate.

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

#227

Post by jfyne »

cr1895 wrote: post #188
jsjohnst wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Norwegian 787s have the light and call buttons as part of the touch screen display in front of you. So different per customer

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

#228

Post by gadders »

erispoe wrote: post #178
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…

I have flown the A380 in economy multiple times. It is a premium experience. The plane is so big that you don't feel turbulences as much. And it's relatively new, so it's very silent. On the upper deck, because of cabin curvature, window seats have a large armrest opening and doubling as a generous chest where you can put all your stuff and keep your legs free of clutter.

Certainly when I flew economy with Emirates, it compared with Premium Economy on Virgin, and was much better than any other economy airlines I've flown.

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

#229

Post by jsjohnst »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #215
jandrese wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It’s an available option that Airbus sells for the A380 (3-5-3 in economy), but thankfully no airlines currently use it that I know of. To my knowledge, Boeing has never considered it.

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

#230

Post by jsjohnst »

wlesieutre wrote: post #82
dmead wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only routes with enough people to fill an A380 are from one hub to another. If you flew Buffalo to Chicago to Denver to Colorado Springs, the Chicago to Denver leg could be on an A380 combined with people on tons of other itineraries that use the same hub-to-hub connection. But airlines are moving toward more small flights that just get you from one place to another without routing through the same central points…

Chicago - Denver is too short a flight to justify an A380 even if it’s full. Nothing short of NYC to SF or NYC to LAX would likely be justified.
Post reply on HN