Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 254 posts

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#41

Post by trhway »

stanski wrote: post #27
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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…

To be fair, the time difference between a jet airline and blimp would be a lot bigger than 3 times or so. 7 hour in a metal tube vs 5 days in a blimp sounds more realistic.

there is well forgotten middle ground - large and relatively slow (say 200-300mph using today's tech) plane, something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#42

Post by briandear »

Animats wrote: post #25

"Is there a market" has always been a big question for very large aircraft. The C-5A flew in 1968, and there was talk of a civilian model. But nobody wanted a commercial aircraft that big.

The problem is wingspan; those planes are difficult in the terminal area, the wingspan on a 380 is at the maximum limit for many airports. So unless airports get rebuilt, those large wingspan airplanes are going to be limited compared to the smaller options. It’s a 262 ft wingspan. The C5 Galaxy is 223 ft; a Galaxy would “fit” fine at most airports, but the 380 is cutting it very close. An Antonov has a 290ft wingspan which would make it impossible to use as a normal passenger plane (although they’re very popular in Houston for shipping oilfield equipment.) The 380 is a fun plane, but it’s of limited usefulness beyond passenger load.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#43

Post by avar »

_ph_ wrote: post #32

I am not giving up on the A380 yet! :) While it might be more profitable for the airlines to use the large 2-engined planes on more direct routes, air traffic is still increasing. Yet, most international airports already are operating at their capacity. So I wonder when the point is reached, where it is no longer possible to add more flights to increase the passenger count. Then, larger airplanes would be needed.

At that point the A380 will be a 30-40 year old design, and won't be competitive anymore.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#44

Post by Xixi »

akfanta wrote: post #22
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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…

> I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

Lower cost/passenger, called CASM (Cost Per Available Seat Mile) only gets you so far without taking into account the other side of the equation: RASM (Revenue Per Available Seat Mile). Empty seats and heavily discounted tickets are not good for business. The more seats, the lower CASM, but also the lower RASM.

Double deckers are very efficient by design, but the newest airliners are nearly as efficient as (or even more efficient than) an A380.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#45

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

Y_Y wrote: post #28
alistairSH wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd like to offer "dwarfs" as a spelling of this word.

You are correct. Dwarves is plural dwarf noun. Dwarfs is the verb.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#46

Post by mikeash »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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 777 is still doing pretty well, isn’t it? I’ve never been in an A380, but I’ve flown the 747 and 787 and there was no real difference in the experience.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#47

Post by ak217 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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…

I won't miss the A380. I will miss the 747 because of how uniquely majestic it looks. https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Airlines/Boeing-747-40...

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#48

Post by mikece »

Someone1234 wrote: post #34
akfanta wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

It is a well known fact. The 747-8 and A380 have collapsed in terms of new orders and both companies have acknowledge they lack a way forward. To quote Boeing president of marketing Randy Tinseth: > We don’t see significant demand for passenger 747-8s or A380s The last major order for the 747-8 (28 aircraft) was in 2016 and 2014 for the A380 (13 aircraft). Enough to keep production alive for another few years, but af…

Has Boeing stopped making 747-8F (freighter)? It was my understanding that a slower build rate of 747-8F would continue. Back in 2012 Boeing touted that half of all air freight was being moved by 747s [1]; I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Airbus would make a freighter version of the A380 to exploit it's greater lift capacity.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121011082258/http://www.boeing...

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#49

Post by xnyan »

akfanta wrote: post #22
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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…

> I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

It's kind of cool reason: there are now planes with smaller capacities (think around 100 passengers) and are efficient to operate over long hauls.

Up to very recently the economics of air-travel dictated that long flights (e.g. USA to Europe)be on planes as big as possible and this plus other reasons meant flights to Paris are available from big cities like New York but not small to moderate metro areas like Raleigh, NC.

With new high efficiency jets, you can have 100ish person long flight service to a large city from a region like Raleigh that could never support the economics of a massive 300-400 person A380.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#50

Post by tracker1 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #35
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

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…

Blimps were never like that. The modern understanding of blimp travel is based on a handful of hollywood movies, the filming of which came nowhere near any real blimp. The amount of helium/hydrogen necessary to lift a small apartment is immense. Then, if you are going to spend day in the air, all the water. It would almost certainly easier/cheaper/cleaner to provide a similar service inside a jet for a few hours than…

I would suggest that trains would probably be the better alternative, with similar features.
Post reply on HN