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

241–247 of 247 posts

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

#241

Post by ggm »

HeavenFox wrote: post #119
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 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…

Yes. huge bad on my part, mistaking nine for eleven. In my defence, I cite stupidity, parity error and failed arithmetic in kindy twice.

The eight-vs-nine thing, very quickly becomes the ten-vs-elevn thing in larger widebody jets. Its a double squeeze: both on the functional seat width, and on the consequence of 3 or 4 or 5 abreast seating and the middle seat passenger.

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

#242

Post by dx034 »

sho wrote: post #236
dx034 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think it's just not worth it. Gates would have to be redone at huge expense with aerobridges on either side, and the technical challenge of putting the bridge over or around the wing somehow would be formidable and expensive. Airports would be loathe to eat the cost. And unless you very tightly controlled the passenger load order and which side they were on etc, there'd just be chaos on board anyway with people col…

Why not use stairs? Many low cost carriers do that for smaller planes. People who don't want to walk stairs can still wait and exit via the front but others will appreciate getting out quicker. Many business travellers only use carry-on so that it doesn't matter to them when luggage comes out. And even a business class in a A380 can currently take long to deboard.

Using stairs is usually safe enough, the left side of the plane tends to be clear and having one person monitoring that no one leaves the area is sufficient.

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

#244

Post by cr1895 »

jfyne wrote: post #227
cr1895 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, I wonder if only the bulkhead seats are different. In those the display isn't always in front of you so the light control has to be available elsewhere.

Next time I'll avoid a bulkhead seat in any case.

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

#245

Post by ant6n »

petecox wrote: post #146
ant6n wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put security inside the damn train and we'll talk.

I'm not sure on the train but Spain has security scans at railway departures for long distance rail. Not as stringent as for an international aeroplane flight but, given the investment, in theory it could be.

Security theatre for trains? Then it's not a train no more, but just an airplane that doesn't fly.

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

#246

Post by mpweiher »

mpweiher wrote: post #2

Putting public pressure on Emirates, by Airbus's outgoing sales chief: "buy now or you won't be able to buy in the future" "Mr. Leahy, the Airbus chief operating officer, said on Monday that the A380’s best days were ahead. Passenger traffic is doubling every 15 years, he said, meaning that the original rationale for the model still holds." They just need to tide it over the lean years. EDIT: clarified what I meant w…

It seems to have worked. Two days later: "Superjumbo jet future secured by Emirates order"

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42732842

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

#247

Post by txcwpalpha »

mpweiher wrote: post #152
txcwpalpha wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not necessarily true. NYC and London serve as huge hubs. 22% of JFK's traffic in 2016 was connecting passengers, aka passengers that did not start nor end their trip in NYC [1]. That's 22% of traffic that you can free up by adding more point-to-point flights and bypassing JFK entirely. ~35% of LHR's traffic was connecting passengers [2]. If you live in a small/midsize city in the eastern US and want to go to E…

Not sure how you can write “that’s not necessarily true” when your numbers confirm what I wrote: the vast majority of the traffic goes to the “hubs”, the connecting traffic is in the minority. So when total traffic doubles, that’ll be a 160% increase to JFK even if you remove all the “hub” traffic, which is unlikely, and you assume the increase will be evenly distributed, also unlikely. UPDATE: I don't see how the "d…

I'm not sure how you can claim that they confirm what you wrote. There is a stark difference between what you originally wrote and what your second comment claims you wrote. You originally wrote:

> New York, London, Tokyo etc. are not random places in the boonies that serve as hubs, they are destinations.

This is much different than your second comment stating the "majority" of traffic. Hell, your second comment even contradicts your first comment: in the first, you claim they are not hubs, and in the second, you acknowledge that they are hubs.

Empirically, your first statement is not true, and now you're trying to move the goalposts. As my numbers show, over a fifth of passenger traffic (which is a very significant number) to those airports are connecting passengers, and use those airports as a hub. Therefor, your claim that these airports are not hubs is false.

Post reply on HN