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

71–80 of 254 posts

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

#71

Post by mikeash »

jpatokal wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights. Also, most airlines are now buying 787s and A350s instead of 777s.

I guess I’m too busy trying to cope with squeezing into the seats and finding something to stave off boredom to notice humidity.

How does increased cabin pressure make for increased comfort? Once your ears equalize, the only difference should be less oxygen available, which I’d think would make you feel better (albeit stupider).

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

#72

Post by bluGill »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #66
sxates wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NYC to London presumably could still support the larger plane.

Unlikely. Those who really want to get to Stockholm will not get on the NYC to London plane if they can get a direct plane. Substitute ALL other cities in Europe for Stockholm and a fair number of people are not on that plane. Those who do want to get from NYC to London have different schedules, some want to take the 5am flight and get to London in the afternoon, some want to get to the airport at a normal time and still get to London at a good hour. Some want to leave right after the days work is done. Some want a last supper with their family before leaving... Smaller planes are customer friendly. Also smaller planes leaves more room for redundancy - if one plane is broke you have less people who need to be rerouted to some other planes making it more likely you can get everyone to London without a major delay.

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

#73

Post by mixmastamyk »

bluGill wrote: post #72
mixmastamyk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC to London presumably could still support the larger plane.

Unlikely. Those who really want to get to Stockholm will not get on the NYC to London plane if they can get a direct plane. Substitute ALL other cities in Europe for Stockholm and a fair number of people are not on that plane. Those who do want to get from NYC to London have different schedules, some want to take the 5am flight and get to London in the afternoon, some want to get to the airport at a normal time and s…

You may be underestimating the number of passengers flying direct between two megacities sharing a similar culture/language.

Here on the west coast there is a packed to the gills flight almost every hour from LA to Houston, and more than one airline servicing the route as well.

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

#74

Post by bluGill »

dingaling wrote: post #65
FigBug wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hub and spoke model is getting replaced by point to point model.

Not particularly; most growth is still at hubs

Hubs are all very big cities. very big cities are growing faster than small ones in general. Big cities not quite big /lucky enough to be a hub are getting point to point routes that are farther away than just hubs. Small cities still have flights only to hubs.

Of course this depends on the destination. Even tiny airports often have point to point trips to Las Vegas on dirt cheap airlines because that is a popular destination.

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

#75

Post by ChuckMcM »

One of the less obvious concerns about the retiring of the A380 would be the write down of all the infrastructure that Airbus invested in to be able to build these planes. It does seem like the "future of flight" is efficient, smaller, twin jets rather than these 'super tankers' of the sky.

One of the interesting tours you can go on in Everett WA is the Boeing 'Future of Flight' tour where you see the building where they are now building 777 and 787's but were originally building 747s. The adaptations to handle the smaller aircraft are pretty creative but the costs larger tooling is just written off. On a program that lived as long as the 747 has that isn't a big deal, but when you've only made 20% of the planes you expected to make? I would think that has to hurt your profitability.

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

#76

Post by bluGill »

tracker1 wrote: post #50
sandworm101 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same problem - because of the time spent on the train the airplane is still cheaper, even before you account for people willing to spend extra for the faster flight.

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

#77

Post by Pharmakon »

mikeash wrote: post #71
jpatokal wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights. Also, most airlines are now buying 787s and A350s instead of 777s.

I guess I’m too busy trying to cope with squeezing into the seats and finding something to stave off boredom to notice humidity. How does increased cabin pressure make for increased comfort? Once your ears equalize, the only difference should be less oxygen available, which I’d think would make you feel better (albeit stupider).

You don’t experience hypoxic euphoria until you’re really struggling. Before that you feel sluggish, some people will experience headaches, and most people will feel a general sort of low-grade malaise. All told, not fun. More critically it also increases the risk of stroke.

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

#78

Post by inferiorhuman »

jpatokal wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights. Also, most airlines are now buying 787s and A350s instead of 777s.

> I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights.

IMO even on the lower deck the A380 is the quietest jetliner I've been on. The last 747 I was on (United) still had the old, comfy, interior. The 787 may have the benefits of a quieter, more humid cabin but the slimline seats and tighter seat pitch made it a much less pleasant experience for me (United was among the worst of the bunch).

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

#79

Post by inferiorhuman »

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.

I've done the opposite flight on Lufthansa in an A380 in cattle class, it's still a delight. The A380 is still exceedingly quiet and comfortable, and the Lufthansa product was exceptional (especially compared to United). That said there's probably a fair amount of pressure for the German flag carrier to fly the premier German plane.

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

#80

Post by bgorman »

bluGill wrote: post #72
mixmastamyk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC to London presumably could still support the larger plane.

Unlikely. Those who really want to get to Stockholm will not get on the NYC to London plane if they can get a direct plane. Substitute ALL other cities in Europe for Stockholm and a fair number of people are not on that plane. Those who do want to get from NYC to London have different schedules, some want to take the 5am flight and get to London in the afternoon, some want to get to the airport at a normal time and s…

British Airways recently added London-Chicago on a a380.
Post reply on HN