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

161–170 of 254 posts

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

#161

Post by SkyMarshal »

danepowell wrote: post #123
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 love the A380 as an aerospace enthusiast, but absolutely despise it as a passenger. In my experience (with Lufthansa), the boarding process is chaotic and takes forever, the seat pitch is minimal in economy, and never have I felt more like cattle than when sharing the situation with 700 other passengers. I'm curious how your experience as a passenger sounds so different from mine.

I've only flown the A380 twice, once in business and once in Lufthansa's economy. Had the same experience as you in economy, never felt more like cattle. I'll take the 787 any day.

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

#162

Post by the_duke »

danepowell wrote: post #123
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 love the A380 as an aerospace enthusiast, but absolutely despise it as a passenger. In my experience (with Lufthansa), the boarding process is chaotic and takes forever, the seat pitch is minimal in economy, and never have I felt more like cattle than when sharing the situation with 700 other passengers. I'm curious how your experience as a passenger sounds so different from mine.

Considering the parent mentioned showers and bars, he/she probably flies first class from time to time.

Some carriers (Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airlines) have very impressive FC setups on the A380, with other aircraft having a stripped down/smaller version.

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

#163

Post by ghaff »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #110
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…

> And we'd get to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat-back of the person in front resting on your knees, or 24 hours on a slow blimp with a bed, the ability to walk around, and social areas. Kind of like a cruise ship in the sky. The big differentiator is what you want to pay for. Even on a 787, 777, A350 if you choose first or business class, you can really be comfortable. On the other hand, I…

747s used to have a First Class Loungue in the upper deck before that got almost universally converted to more business class searing. As you say, comfort is pretty much just a function of you and a critical mass of others willing to pay a sufficient premium.

Obviously you’re still in a somewhat space constrained metal tube up in the air but air travel can be made pretty comfortable if money isn’t a big deal.

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

#164

Post by SkyMarshal »

fphhotchips wrote: post #85
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).

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 var…

/second all of that the 787. It's the least jetlag-inducing plane for long flights.

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

#165

Post by larkeith »

zepearl wrote: post #87
dingaling wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I suspect we could do much faster landing/takeoff in airships nowadays than before, with dynamic positioning and azimuth thrusters or similar (rather than relying entirely on tether lines and/or mooring towers). It might be possible to have a faster cycle than airplanes due to VTOL abilities and more on-board infrastructure allowing for landings at smaller airfields than most commercial flights are able to use - though I imagine most local airfields would require some degree of retrofitting before they could support airship landings.

While I doubt they will ever be a primary transportation medium, I wonder if there would be enough demand for a cruise-ship-style airship to be commercially viable; I for one would absolutely love to spend a month on a luxury cruise around the world, landing every other day without the limitations of only seaside locations.

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

#166

Post by joezydeco »

duxup wrote: post #144
joezydeco wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to visit the Lufthansa 747-200 that's on display at the Technik Museum in Speyer, Germany: http://www.rodbearden.com/Av13/Speyer/Boeing%20747-200%20D-A...

It appears to have a slide....

It does! You hike up to visit the inside of the plane and go out on the wing, then ride a burlap sack back down. It’s a super fun museum, the only counterpart I’ve seen here in the states is the Henry Ford Museum outside Detroit.

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

#167

Post by bdamm »

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…

High speed trains are unlikely to replace short hop air transport in America. The fact is that rights of way don't exist, and land acquisition is enormously expensive. Freight dominates the railways.

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

ulfw wrote: post #134

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

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by drallison »

I flew on an Air France A380 from CDG to SFO a few months ago seated in premium economy. It was an outstanding flight, comfortable and pleasant. I would choose to fly on an A380 over most of the other long distance aircraft, given the choice.

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

#170

Post by chrisper »

danepowell wrote: post #123
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 love the A380 as an aerospace enthusiast, but absolutely despise it as a passenger. In my experience (with Lufthansa), the boarding process is chaotic and takes forever, the seat pitch is minimal in economy, and never have I felt more like cattle than when sharing the situation with 700 other passengers. I'm curious how your experience as a passenger sounds so different from mine.

For long hauls I'd always recommend to upgrade to Premium Economy. It's not quite first class, but it's much better than regular economy imho.
Post reply on HN