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

131–140 of 254 posts

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

#131

Post by freddie_mercury »

ggm wrote: post #127

I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using otherwise available shells (I believe) QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, ev…

It is not "QANTAS" and it isn't an acronym.

In October 1947 QANTAS was bought out by the government and shutdown. The company that exists today is the descendent of Qantas Empire Airlines (notice the different capitalisation) which was founded in 1934 as a joint venture by QANTAS and BOAC (British Overseas Air Corporation). When the joint venture was founded the name chosen was not an acronym and was not all uppercase. That name was "inspired by" QANTAS Limited but is not QANTAS.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1472377?c=people

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

#132

Post by taitems »

Not an aviation nerd, but had a local one explain a particular A380 issue to me. About once a month the main daily SYD/MEL to LAX routes had to turn around and it was pretty much always the Rolls Royce engine (one of two engine manufacturers for redundancy). And then it started happening on the other engine as well. Can't confirm the frequency, but when I was talking to a Qantas crew member about this over a year ago he nodded and said they won't be purchasing any new A380s. He said he felt they were bought for the marketing "me too" reason more than anything else.

EDIT: That being said I loved the A380, I frequently flew premium economy intl. on it and even if you could wrangle the small (something like 20 row?) economy section upstairs it felt less like cattle class.

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

#133

Post by anyfoo »

jacques_chester wrote: post #107
anyfoo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What about air travel prevents you from entertaining yourself? Discomfort and being surrounded by total strangers.

Okay, I can see that. Being on the shorter side, I rarely feel discomfort in airplanes. And total strangers are only a problem if we're not completely ignoring each other, which thankfully was the case most times I flew.

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

#134

Post by ulfw »

Very sad, having flown the A380 many times and it even once saved my life due to it’s masterfully engineered airframe and systems (uncontained engine explosion, the only accident A380 ever had). It seems we aren’t able to build anything great or unique anymore without it failing in the market (Concorde, A380). More cattle class mediocraty flying on 737s from the 60s and 3-3-3 seating 787s etc

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

#135

Post by daurnimator »

ggm wrote: post #127

I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using otherwise available shells (I believe) QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, ev…

> the 787 is a compromised experience in the air.

Why do you say that?

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

#136

Post by ggm »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #131
ggm wrote: post #127

I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using otherwise available shells (I believe) QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, ev…

It is not "QANTAS" and it isn't an acronym. In October 1947 QANTAS was bought out by the government and shutdown. The company that exists today is the descendent of Qantas Empire Airlines (notice the different capitalisation) which was founded in 1934 as a joint venture by QANTAS and BOAC (British Overseas Air Corporation). When the joint venture was founded the name chosen was not an acronym and was not all uppercas…

TIL. Amazing how you can still believe stuff which has never been true, for all of your life (it was never true for me that QANTAS existed since it ceased to exist before 1961) and only really learn it end-stage.

I suspect its one of these things Queenslanders want to be true, but we have to accept the reality. (I also thought BOAC persisted long beyond BA. I dont think I saw a BOAC jet but I sure saw BOAC turboprops in Edinburgh)

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

#137

Post by jpatokal »

tropo wrote: post #82
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.

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

Not so: while the 747 is notionally faster in terms of maximum speed, most modern large jets all cruise at March 0.85.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/which-passe...

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

#138

Post by Symbiote »

Theodores wrote: post #23
alistairSH wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm walking to work. It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the sky.

With one flying over my house right now I don't believe they are heading for the boneyard any time soon. For London Heathrow there is no better plane for the operator with not that many slots. Nowadays there are budget airlines using budget airports with very long taxi rides to somewhere useful. You can't argue with price. Yet right now we are in an age of cheap oil that facilitates this. Had we not had the taps full…

> part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be obtained.

Is that true? I see the border was last changed in 1972, but that's well before the EU and regional development funding was thought about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border

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

#139

Post by georgebarnett »

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…

I have stopped flying United for this reason.

~14 long haul flights (13+ hours) per year I used to buy from them, gone - because they screwed up the seats.

Idiots.

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

#140

Post by reeteshv »

FabHK wrote: post #120
positr0n wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I did recall one incident where the plane got out of balance because of passengers moving in concert.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/asaram-bapu-rape-accus...

Post reply on HN