11–20 of 254 posts
It is sad it seems to be dying - from a “wow that can fly” point of view - but at this point it looks like the a380 was the wrong bet :-/
An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm walking to work. It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the sky.
For those of you in the Bay Area, this is like having a cheap ticket to fly to South Lake Tahoe, or commuting from Santa Rosa to San Jose. Operators like Surf Air might become commonplace. And the A380 and 747 had to die as airliners came to realize this is the future.
It is sad it seems to be dying - from a “wow that can fly” point of view - but at this point it looks like the a380 was the wrong bet :-/
An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm walking to work. It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the sky.
I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Flying in a larger aircraft makes one feel less like cargo, in particularly for airlines that offer places to stretch your legs (e.g. "bar" seating, showers, staircases, etc). I was always kind of secretly hoping large blimps would return. And we'd get to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat…
The A350 has staircases IIRC ?
The A350-900ULR is used by Singapore Airlines on the Singapore - New York flight that clocks 18 hours and a half. To be able to fly that far it needs to be light on payload: few passengers, no cargo. So there's some empty space in there...
I got upgraded from business class to first class on an Emirates A380 flight from Dubai to London a couple of years ago. Showering mid-flight was an experience I'd never forget! Especially, the gauge in the shower which goes down while the water's running (Lasted about 8 minutes, IIRC) :)
It’s an interesting aircraft and nice to fly in, but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. Boeing got some flack at the time when they canceled their own superjumbo plans but history now shows they were spot on shifting their focus to the 787 and getting a head start on the efficient midsize long range jet market.
>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).
It’s an interesting aircraft and nice to fly in, but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. Boeing got some flack at the time when they canceled their own superjumbo plans but history now shows they were spot on shifting their focus to the 787 and getting a head start on the efficient midsize long range jet market.
>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).
Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.
In hindsight, it's telling that even the biggest A380 operator didn't actually buy the plane themselves - they leased it through various special-purpose vehicles which were then sliced into various investment portfolios. Goldman Sachs is one investment bank that set up some of the structures for this - https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/G...