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

151–160 of 254 posts

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

#151

Post by rfugger »

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…

Seat pitch and width is largely up to the airlines. Korean Air 787s aren't bad at all in economy.

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

#152

Post by AceyMan »

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?

The dagger in the heart of the big 4-engine aircraft are the changes in the ETOPS allowances¹ by the regulatory bodies.

Used to be you needed the redundancy of four power plants to provide the needed nines to cross the ocean and still ensure (well, meet the statistic standard) that you could make land with one engine out.

The reliability of the modern turbofans allow the big twins to take almost the same transoceanic flight path as the 4-engine planes. Considering the complexity and cost of running 4 engines vs 2, it's a no-brainer to give up a few percentage points on ETE for a massive cost savings.

(me: licensed aircraft dispatcher)

¹—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS?wprov=sfla1

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

#153

Post by lathiat »

Someone1234 wrote: post #34
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 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…

Emirates ordered 20 confirmed + 16 options only last year: https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-orders-36-a38...

But it seems likely they will be the end of the line.

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

#154

Post by grkvlt »

Xixi wrote: post #52
xnyan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

A 300-400 person A380 is a very light A380: Emirates go from 489 passengers (ultra long-range version) up to 615 passengers (2 class long-range). The A380 is that huge. Also I don't think there are many 100 passengers airliners capable of crossing the Atlantic: long range single aisle (A321NEO-LR) seats around 180.

Look at BA flight 001, which is a transatlantic flight from LCY/SNN to JFK in an Airbus A318-100 [0] with only 32 (business class) seats. According to BA, a standard two class configuration would seat 107. Admittedly, it has to refuel in Shannon to allow it to make the Westbound leg, but the Eastbound trip goes non-stop from New York to London.

0. https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fl...

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

#155

Post by grkvlt »

cameldrv wrote: post #63
Xixi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower cost/passenger, called CASM (Cost Per Available Seat Mile) only gets you so far without taking into account the other side of the equation: RASM (Revenue Per Available Seat Mile). Empty seats and heavily discounted tickets are not good for business. The more seats, the lower CASM, but also the lower RASM. Double deckers are very efficient by design, but the newest airliners are nearly as efficient as (or even m…

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…

For point 3. I believe Airbus has a lot of commonality between its cockpits on different aircraft, so it is easier to get type certified on an A350 or A320 if the pilot already has a rating on the A380. This means the reserve crew can fly the other smaller planes when not required for the A380. Boeing has not had this commonality until recently - I think it was a selling point for the 787 that it had the same cockpit layout as the 777, thus minimising crew training.

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

#156

Post by jen729w »

taitems wrote: post #132

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…

The front row — only 2 seats wide — of that upstairs economy section is a great little place to travel with a partner. The small cabin makes it feel much more premium.

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

#157

Post by gdpgreg »

chrischen wrote: post #145
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…

Blimps were large overall, but pretty sure the actual passenger area was still tiny.

They were very mass limited, you only get 1kg of lifting ability per cube of gas.

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

#158

Post by wenc »

FigBug wrote: post #31
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?

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

I’m not sure that is true, though you do hear people say it from time to time.

I believe that the ratio of hub and spoke routes vs point to point routes will dynamically shift in response to demand and to external factors like laws, fuel prices, aircraft efficiency, etc.

The hub and spoke model is usually the more compelling economic model to serve many low demand cities by pooling passengers as well as for routing flexibility. Hub and spoke will never truly be replaced.

Whereas point to point is more efficient for high demand city pairs. Modern composite material ( fuel efficient ) aircraft also make it feasible to fly segments with lower load factors, up to a point, so you don’t need to fill up a plane to make a route viable, making it possible to bypass hubs. Even then you would never fly point to point from say Des Moines to Asheville NC. You might fly to a non hub airport like RDU, but if enough flights end up at RDU it becomes a de facto regional hub like CLT.

Depending on the demand patterns of flight routes, airlines can reconfigure routes to fly to hubs or point to point or a mix of both, whichever maximizes profit, so it’s not an either-or.

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

#159

Post by Xixi »

grkvlt wrote: post #154
Xixi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 300-400 person A380 is a very light A380: Emirates go from 489 passengers (ultra long-range version) up to 615 passengers (2 class long-range). The A380 is that huge. Also I don't think there are many 100 passengers airliners capable of crossing the Atlantic: long range single aisle (A321NEO-LR) seats around 180.

Look at BA flight 001, which is a transatlantic flight from LCY/SNN to JFK in an Airbus A318-100 [0] with only 32 (business class) seats. According to BA, a standard two class configuration would seat 107. Admittedly, it has to refuel in Shannon to allow it to make the Westbound leg, but the Eastbound trip goes non-stop from New York to London. 0. https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fl...

On the other hand the A318 is not in production anymore, and I doubt it would cross the pond with 107 seats. There's two tendencies in the market of airliners at the moment: single aisles are getting bigger, and twin aisles are getting smaller.

This is pretty noticeable on Airbus side for single aisles: the A321 used to be little more than an anecdote, now Airbus is ramping up the A321NEO to be about a third of its entire A320NEO family production (anticipating upsizing in the order book).

On the wide-body side many 747 have been replaced by 777-300ER, A350-900 and 787-9. Quite the downsizing. 787-9, A350-900 and 787-10 are raking in orders. Meanwhile the A380 is dying, the 747-8 is all but dead (though the 747-8F is still there). The 777-9 order book is a caricature of that of the A380 (Emirates + some anecdotes, even more so with Etihad likely to cancel). A350-1000 and 777-8 sales are underwhelming to say the least (although the latter will become a tremendous freighter).

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

#160

Post by jahewson »

chrischen wrote: post #145
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…

Blimps were large overall, but pretty sure the actual passenger area was still tiny.

They were much bigger than it seems, with cabins inside the main structure of the airship itself:

https://www.airships.net/lz-130-graf-zeppelin/

Post reply on HN