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

171–180 of 254 posts

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

#171

Post by vinay427 »

joezydeco wrote: post #166
duxup wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Henry Ford Museum outside Detroit

Well, now you've convinced me to go to the Technik Museum. The Henry Ford Museum was an institution of my childhood and one of the things everyone we knew enjoyed when they visited the area.

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

#172

Post by vinay427 »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #102
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.

787 is still to small for some routes. The flights to APAC from the west cost moved to 787 and with in a year where back to 777 because of number of seats. I like the 787 better, windows, cabin pressure and humility all make for a more plesent flight. That being said, I have a much better chance of getting an upgrade on the 777.

Those were likely just improper uses of the 787, because it naturally makes new routes viable by fitting into a different size class which is great for making air travel more convenient. More non-tops seem to pop up every week on a 787 or A350.

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

#173

Post by Johnny555 »

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 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-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.

At the price you'd have to pay for day or two blimp ride, you'd probably be able to fly first or business class. Would you rather sit in a 500mph plane for 7 hours in a business class seat (which folds out into a bed), or ride in a 100mph blimp for 35 hours, even if you can walk around?

The Hindenburg carried 50 - 70 passengers with a crew of 40 - 60. Even if it's cut in half, that's an awfully high passenger to crew ratio (an airliner has a ratio of around 20 - 30 passengers per crew member). Even if fuel costs are minimal, you're sitting in an expensive aircraft for a day or so -- the airship may cost a fraction of the price of an airplane, but it travels at a fraction of the speed.

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

#174

Post by tapland »

I have the pleasure of a nice view overlooking Copenhagen Airport. It's at a far enough distance that most airliners kind of disappear when doing their final approach, and an A380 showing up really puts the size differences on display. It looks like a huge whale or cruise ship floating over the landscape.

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

#175

Post by mikejb »

FabHK wrote: post #99
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... :-)

If you buy a First-class ticket, don't just enjoy the parts of the flight itself, but also the optimizations around it. With my first-class flight from Dubai to Munich it was impressively efficient:

I got picked up at my Hotel in Dubai, in a car with WiFi where I could have worked, until the Driver dropped me at the first-class gate. No queues, friendly staff, dropped my luggage and went through security within 5 minutes of leaving the car. Went straight to the lounge, where I got drinks and could have worked some more, until I got picked up for boarding. First class is the last to board, to minimize waiting time in the airplane. Same idea goes on arrival: First class leaves first. I got straight to passport control before the 500 people from the lower deck were able to form a queue there. When I was done, my luggage was already waiting for me, picked it up and met my driver to get me home - again all within probably 5 minutes of leaving the plane. This first class flight really was designed to enable the traveler to be most efficient with their time.

That the luggage was ready was most impressive to me. At least Emirates marked the luggage, and probably loaded it in a way that first&business luggage gets out first, and fast.

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

#176

Post by inopinatus »

ggm wrote: post #126
FabHK wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. I, and almost every regular longhaul international flyer I see on comments/forums online say its the favourite experience inside the shell. The 350 and the 777x may rank alongside. The 787 is only good in superior classes. The 380 is by far the smoothest, quietest experience in the air for >10h flights.

I’ve loved the ride in the 380 since it first took to the skies, but the A350-900 more recently took my #1 spot for overall passenger comfort, particularly atmospheric (and therefore sleep) quality. 350 > 380 > 787 > 747 imo

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

#177

Post by Johnny555 »

xvilka wrote: post #141
bluGill wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same problem - because of the time spent on the train the airplane is still cheaper, even before you account for people willing to spend extra for the faster flight.

Well, if you take countries like Japan or China with their high speed railways, it takes also less time to check-in, board, the most basic security checks; moreover, often train stations are located in the city, as opposed to airports outside. So it is not a clear cut.

Even for fairly long distances, the train can be time competitive.

A couple months ago I took a train from Tokyo to Fukuoka (around 600 miles driving distance). The train took 5 hours station to station -- I was staying near Shinagawa station so walked into the station 15 minutes before departure, and walked out of Hakata station in downtown Fukuoka 5 hours after departure.

If I flew from Haneda, it would have been a 2 hour flight, plus 45 minutes to get to the airport 45 minutes before the flight and 30 minutes from Fukuoka airport to Hakata, or about 4 hours total. Add about 45 minutes if flying out of Narita since it's farther from downtown.

But the train is around twice as expensive.

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

#178

Post by distant_hat »

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 flown the A380 with Emirates a bunch of times in economy and it was quite nice. Much more quieter and a lot more space. They also gave bassinet seats for my infant which made a huge difference on a 10 hour flight.

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

#180

Post by radicalbyte »

ars wrote: post #90
radicalbyte wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen) There is no difference between a synthesized fuel and one pumped from the group - it's the same molecules. What matters is your energy source to make the synthesized fuel. In any case hydrogen is a particularly bad fuel for airplanes. The best fuel is actually the one we already use.

By artificial fuels I mean ones created by us using renewable energy. If we can create something similar to current fuels from a renewable source then that would be fantastic.
Post reply on HN