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

111–120 of 254 posts

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

#111

Post by ardy42 »

michaelt wrote: post #104
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?

You might enjoy watching [1]. TLDR: There's a ~20 year lead time on a radical new plane design. The A380 is designed for an airline industry dominated by 'hub-and-spoke' airlines (where a large plane can make efficient use of expensive landing slots at busy airports), while the 787 Dreamliner is designed for an airline industry dominated by 'point-to-point' airlines (where a small plane can avoid the busy airport and…

> 20 years after they were both conceived of, it's looking like the hub-and-spoke model is the future.

That seems like a typo. Did you mean the point-to-point is the future?

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

#112

Post by agumonkey »

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…

airlander 10 for you

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

mikece wrote: post #39
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.

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…

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by agumonkey »

code4tee wrote: post #19
macspoofing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).

It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum when new designers were using composites. Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.

That will make for a very nice book in business schools

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

#115

Post by shimms »

anyfoo wrote: post #105
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).

Not really your main point, but I find it interesting that you mention staving of boredom, while for me it's hard to imagine getting bored on a plane. For me, being on a plane is one of the few moments where I essentially have unconditional free time. I use it to listen to music, read, watch videos, even play videogames, or do any of various other things on my laptop. (And that's not counting the moments where I'm in…

This is the cause of my fear of wifi becoming standard on flights.

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

#116

Post by secfirstmd »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #78
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'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…

United is always amongst the worst of the bunch.

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

#117

Post by 0xffff2 »

FabHK wrote: post #101
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…

Yes. I think a lot of people envisage performance improvements like in semiconductors, doubling every 2 years or so. In reality, battery tech seems to be improving at maybe 5% or so annually, doubling every 15 years, or so (please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t work in the field). Given the specific energy of kerosene vs batteries, at least two doublings seem necessary for things to get commercially viable. So, 3+…

Kerosene also benefits from the fact that it is consumed over the course of the flight, so that an airplane gets lighter and therefore less fuel-intensive as it flies. The weight of enough batteries for a fully electric narrow-body airliner is punishing when you consider that you have to carry that weight around all the time instead of it steadily decreasing from takeoff onward. I haven't run the numbers, but off the cuff I'd estimate that you need at least one more doubling of energy density to account for the higher average weight of the aircraft in flight.

Now you have to hope you can maintain sustained consistent improvements for half a century just to get into the realm where battery energy densities start to make sense for a fully electric airliner with the same capabilities as our fully hydrocarbon based airliners of today. And of course it's not anywhere near as simple as swapping the engines on existing air frames, so if you want to have your electric airplane the day that the batteries exist, you need to make a pretty sizeable bet today by investing in the groundwork for all of the other systems.

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

#119

Post by FigBug »

mikece wrote: post #48
Someone1234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They have 24 open orders and are making 0.5 a month. 767 has 111 open orders for freighters and aerial refueling tankers. Both are on their last legs.

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

#120

Post by FabHK »

positr0n wrote: post #92
trhway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Somewhat unrelated, I’ve been wondering for a while whether all pax in concert moving to the front/back of the cabin could bring a jet out of its flight envelope. There’s one or two related aviation stack exchange questions (that I’ve contributed to, IIRC), but I’ve never seen an informative authoritative account.
Post reply on HN