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

81–90 of 254 posts

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

#81

Post by WalterBright »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #75

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…

It took a long time for the 747 to reach break-even, but after that every one sold was a huge infusion of cash to Boeing. The 747 was an enormous bet-the-company gamble, and it paid off enormously.

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

#82

Post by tropo »

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.

The flights aren't so long in the 747 though, because it is faster.

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

#83

Post by dk1138 »

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 had the luck of doing this flight in 1st class a few times. It is bar-none the best flying experience I've ever had. There is little to no sound pollution up that far. They have closets instead of overhead bins, so you have tall ceilings that really open up the space. The bathrooms are huge. No showers, but huge. It is the only flight experience where I've gotten off the plane feeling more rested than when I got on.

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

#84

Post by ChuckMcM »

WalterBright wrote: post #81
ChuckMcM wrote: post #75

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…

It took a long time for the 747 to reach break-even, but after that every one sold was a huge infusion of cash to Boeing. The 747 was an enormous bet-the-company gamble, and it paid off enormously.

I think you sort of have to plan for it to be like that. If you tried to pay for all the tooling on the sales of the first 100 you would likely price yourself out of the market. So somewhere an analyst has to say, "Our lowest predicted lifetime volume is , our expected volume is , and our exceeds volume would be ." and then look at how much per plane to charge to pay off the tooling.

It sounds from the press coverage that Airbus is coming in below even their lowest forecast lifetime volume, which my just be exaggeration on the press' part, but if true it means some write downs are in Airbus' future.

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

#85

Post by fphhotchips »

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).

Increased cabin pressure increases humidity, which in turn results in (for me at least) a reduction in issues like dry eyes, dry skin, and sinus problems. In addition, the increased oxygen is extremely noticeable - when you get off the plane you feel more like a human being, even if you've only got 4 hours sleep.

Note that my experience in comparing the A380 to the 787 is on USA - AUS flights, so your mileage may vary on shorter flights, but on longer flights it's a godsend.

E: I also have way fewer issues with my stomach/gut on the 787.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by zepearl »

dingaling wrote: post #64
mikece wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cruising speed in an A380: 560 mph (900 km/h) [1] Cruising speed of the Hindenburg: 76 mph (125 km/h) [2] That's a multiplier of 7.2, though the shorter the flight the more pronounced an airship's time to reach cruising speed and come back down from cruising speed will factor into the overall ratio. And this assumes we can't make airships go faster than the Hindenburg (is 155mph/300km/h unreasonable?). [1] https://en…

Airships couldn't fly great-circle routes of shortest distance, so the actual distance would be much longer. They did pressure-flying, skirting around weather formations like a helicopter flying through mountains. Sometimes they could get a slingshot by riding a wind as it flowed from a high.

Maybe for airships/blimps the approach would have to be different than for airplanes, meaning more intermediate stops? (maybe their "landing/takeoff"-cycle is more efficient than the ones of airplanes?) Kind of bus/tram vs. trains?

Or maybe just complementary? E.g. long routes handled by airplanes, "medium" routes handled by airships/blimps, and the rest handled by trains/bus/whatever?

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

#88

Post by mikeash »

Pharmakon wrote: post #77
mikeash wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for explaining. I guess my struggles with space and entertainment overshadow these things as well, and thankfully I haven’t had a stroke yet.

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

#89

Post by FabHK »

mikeash wrote: post #46
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.

The 777 is a great and safe machine, but more cramped than the A380. The A380 is much more comfortable for pax, in my view: more spacious, quieter.

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

#90

Post by ars »

radicalbyte wrote: post #68
0xffff2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 commercia…

Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen) going to be viable for flying within a reasonable timeframe? Whilst I expect that short-haul flights will be replaced by high-speed trains we're still going to need planes for intercontinental travel. EasyJet are hoping to have electric planes covering the London-Amsterdam route in 2030: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/fligh…

> Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen)

There is no difference between a synthesized fuel and one pumped from the group - it's the same molecules. What matters is your energy source to make the synthesized fuel.

In any case hydrogen is a particularly bad fuel for airplanes. The best fuel is actually the one we already use.

Post reply on HN