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

51–60 of 254 posts

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

#51

Post by wahern »

avar wrote: post #43
_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.

Road transportation accounts for ~50% of oil consumption. In 20 years most cars may be electric. And if renewables continue growing such that oil consumption isn't simply shifted to power plants, the fuel inefficiency of the A380 may matter much less.

Also, the shift to point-to-point can only grow so much before the fuel efficiencies of the 787 and A350 come into equilibrium with the density of the A380. Moreover, most of the world continues to flock to mega cities. As cities expand airport usage increases while simultaneously making it more costly to expand or build airports.

But 20 years, let alone 40 years, is a long ways out; who knows what will transpire. That said, the 777 is 25 years old and still dominating. At 30 and 35 years it still may be dominating even as the 777X slowly replaces it. A 30-year-old A380 may still be no less relevant, if not more relevant, than today.

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

#52

Post by Xixi »

xnyan wrote: post #49
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'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,…

A 300-400 person A380 is a very light A380: Emirates go from 489 passengers (ultra long-range version) up to 615 passengers (2 class long-range). The A380 is that huge. Also I don't think there are many 100 passengers airliners capable of crossing the Atlantic: long range single aisle (A321NEO-LR) seats around 180.

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

#53

Post by andjd »

sxates wrote: post #24

My direct flight from San Francisco to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A380 (in premium economy) is a delight. I go out of my way to get that flight on that plane. Room to stretch out and walk around makes such a difference. But I don't know what the economics behind planes like this is - maybe it's not so great an experience for the airlines as it is for passengers.

Agreed. Even flying economy the A380 feels a lot less cramped than any other plane I've flown on and for long-haul flights, that's a big deal.

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

#54

Post by 0xffff2 »

bdamm wrote: post #13

The A380 and 747 are both remarkable aircraft, but I love my direct flights to all major cities within 1000 miles, and many beyond that. Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to, until it takes 30 minutes to fly instead of 3 hours to drive. And with so many airports linking up mass transi…

>Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to

(All) electric airliners are unlikely to exist commercially without a fundamental breakthrough in energy storage technology. Even hybrid-electric systems are only barely viable as a research area right now, and they are decades away from commercial production.

I'm a researcher in this field, and I wish I could say otherwise, but the rosy picture you paint is unlikely to be reality at least within the next 3-4 decades.

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

#55

Post by thatfrenchguy »

alistairSH wrote: post #6
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The A350 has staircases IIRC ?

I don't believe it does, at least not in a typical configuration. The only true double-deckers are the 747 and the A380. Some other wide-bodies have been configured with a galley below the passenger deck, so flight crew have stairs but not passengers. Maybe there's a variant with lavatories below deck? If so, it's not common.

Ah correct, that's the one for the crew, not passengers. My bad.

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

#56

Post by cryptonector »

Someone1234 wrote: post #36
stanski wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure there's value in debating that. It is a hypothetical blimp that doesn't exist.

Blimps can't go all that fast.

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

#57

Post by cryptonector »

Xixi wrote: post #44
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?

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 m…

And then there's the airport gate retrofit cost that the A380 has. The 777X has a clever solution to that (folding wing tipes), but it's still smaller in capacity.

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

#58

Post by toomuchtodo »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #33
dboreham wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this kind of financial engineering SOP for all sorts of large assets since decades?

Except that the issuer of the security is the lessor in this case, not the airline. The airline can just give the plane back to Doric after the 12-year lease period (which ends in 2020-2021 for the first batch of aircraft), and let Doric deal with the investors. This is in contrast to, say, recent deals by United Airlines Inc, where the airline (or its related party, such as its parent holding company United Continen…

Is it possible to short these securities?

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

#59

Post by sxates »

xnyan wrote: post #49
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'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,…

Is there an issue with congestion into major airports like New York and London with more smaller planes instead of fewer larger planes? An A380 type plane holds about 3x the number of people as the mid-sized ones right? Fewer takeoffs and landings would be another benefit.

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

#60

Post by nexuist »

avar wrote: post #43
_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.

I think aviation probably has a huge time-to-market compared to almost every other technology field; the B-52 first flew in 1952 and is scheduled to be decommissioned around 2050 (!)

Aircraft bought today will be in service for at least several decades; it wouldn't be profitable for airlines to dump cash into them otherwise.

Post reply on HN