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

91–100 of 254 posts

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

#91

Post by ATsch »

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?

Other people have mentioned the new, higher-efficiency planes, but the reason they've had this much effect is that they've caused a fundamental shift in the architecture of airline routes by killing the "hub and spokes" model. Instead of using small planes to move passengers to the big hub airports, it is now faster and cheaper to fly direct even for long routes, turning decades-old wisdom about airlines on it's head.

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

#92

Post by positr0n »

trhway wrote: post #41
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.

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

"As a result of its size, passengers were asked to crowd together on one side or the other to help make turns."

That's amazing

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

#93

Post by Pharmakon »

mikeash wrote: post #88
Pharmakon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personally I feel the same way as you. I’d rather be a bit low on O2 and not have to chew on my own knees for 8 hours, than enjoy deep breaths in a tiny tin can.

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

#94

Post by johnm1019 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84
WalterBright wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would not suggest pricing things in this way. The analysts should look at what competing products cost, and where is ours unique and what advantage does it give the airline. Convert that advantage over competing products to a dollar amount. Add that to the price of the competing product. Subtract some so you always win when the customer does their own cost/benefit analysis.

If you price your products based on your costs, you're either losing profit-margin or sales (sales, because you're making the wrong thing at the wrong price).

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

#95

Post by FabHK »

Xixi wrote: post #69
cameldrv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ultimately the equation. There are not very many routes that you can fill up an A380 on without cutting ticket prices enough to get people to change their schedule. Add to that: 1. It takes a long time to load that many people, so it only makes sense on long routes. 2. You need special facilities at the airport: bigger taxiways, special gates, large waiting areas, extra customs officials. This cuts into the p…

On point 4: four engines have some disadvantages, but in terms of fuel consumption the difference is within 1% or 2% of two engines. The issue has more to do with maintenance, and reliability: with two extra engines, you are that much more likely to have one going tech and be grounded. EDIT: interesting link, that contradicts some of what I say above: https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...

Also, aircraft are certified to be able to complete take-off with one engine failure.

Thus, twin engines have to have basically 100% reserve, while the 4 engines only need to have 33% reserve (to make up for one engine failing).

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

#96

Post by FabHK »

ak217 wrote: post #47
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...

The A380 is not quite the beauty from the outside, but I found the pax comfort unparalleled, and that matters more to me than how it looks, frankly.

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

#97

Post by FabHK »

_ph_ wrote: post #26
djcapelis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The A340 in a few airlines (Lufthansa for sure, others probably too) has a set of lavatories below deck. So other than the 747 and A380 that’s the only other plane I can think of with stairs for passengers.

I flew on the Lufthansa A340 from MUC to SFO and very much liked their lavatory setup. Having 6 lavatories in one spot solved very much the logistics of selecting the right one and reduced the waiting time. Also, it is nice not to sit besides the constantly closing doors.

What’s interesting is the extra security measures: lots of handles to hold onto and oxygen masks for the pax down there waiting for the toilets.

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

#98

Post by mikeash »

Pharmakon wrote: post #93
mikeash wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personally I feel the same way as you. I’d rather be a bit low on O2 and not have to chew on my own knees for 8 hours, than enjoy deep breaths in a tiny tin can.

I guess it’s a lot cheaper to increase pressurization than to give every passenger a reasonably sized chair.

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

#99

Post by FabHK »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #14

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) :)

There is (was?) a A380 flight with Emirates from Dubai via Bangkok to Hong Kong, and back, and you could buy tix for that last segment BKK–HKG for about 200 USD, or 300 USD business, or 400 USD first.

Cheapest way to get a shower at 35k feet (without miles wizardry), I’d think! (And who doesn’t want to shower on a 2 hour flight... :-)

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

#100

Post by 0xffff2 »

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…

I believe that hydrogen is being looked at a bit, but it presents some significant safety concerns since it needs to be compressed pretty substantially to get good energy densities. It's my general impression that the safety concerns outweigh the usefulness for the time being.

Right now, my organization is focused on a number of hybrid electrical approaches with the main goal being to minimize losses by using the descent phase to charge batteries that are then used to assist in climb on the next flight.

I haven't heard about the EasyJet proposal before. I'm looking for more info, but I can't find enough to form an intelligent opinion yet. Interestingly enough, it seems to be a YC backed company that's developing the vehicle.

Post reply on HN