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

211–220 of 254 posts

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

#211

Post by ddalex »

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.

When flying a small airplane in Asia we were all weighted individually, and distributed around the plane accordingly.

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

#212

Post by Yizahi »

trhway wrote: post #41
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.

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

I read about other flying boat - Boeing-314. It seems that it was basically 74 first class equivalent passengers and it was very expensive in its time. Converting it to cattle-class economy maybe could push it to 100-120 or so passengers. It would still be very expensive due to inefficient flight profile and high fuel consumption. Limited routes too. They are very pretty though, I'm not denying that.

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

#213

Post by Reason077 »

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 used to think the A380 was quiet... until I flew on an A350.

I've been on both the -900 and -1000 variants, and they are just amazingly quiet.

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

#214

Post by Yizahi »

taneq wrote: post #205
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

I think the problem with these is that they're terribly inefficient. Large plus slow equals low altitude, which means thick air. Maybe it'd be possible to revisit nuclear powered aircraft? Modern, intrinsically safe reactors powering turboshaft engines could keep a ponderous flying platform aloft for months at a time.

I don't know much about modern reactors but I suspect even 3rd gen ones will still require immense shielding of a cabin and will be single contour design, meaning that exhaust will be irradiated, maybe less so than on prototypes from cold war. And as I remember soviet Tu-95LAL that did flew with a reactor did so WITHOUT any significant shielding for the crew.

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

#215

Post by apapli »

bobthepanda wrote: post #150
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

Boom and others are trying to re-enter the supersonic space with smaller jets. The main problem with Concorde was that it couldn't fill up seats at the ticket prices being charged, and transatlantic subsonic flights were both more comfortable at the equivalent ticket price, and at the flying time sweet spot of 6-8 hours, which is long enough to just sleep and wake up in the morning. Had SSTs come of age in the '80s a…

The accidents didn’t help either, right? I like the idea of Boom, but would much prefer the engineering from either Airbus or Boeing.

I think all this talk “MVP” and startups so often in the same sentence over nearly a decade now makes me worried that Boom won’t have enough resources to achieve anything less than an exceptional job with regards to safety.

And my life isn’t worth risking to save a few hours of travel time by putting it in the hands of a startup.

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

#216

Post by sseveran »

owenversteeg wrote: post #199
arnon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In American carriers, "Economy Plus" or similar is just a little bit of more leg room, in the standard 3-4-3 or 3-3-3 configuration. For companies like Lufthansa, SAS and others - premium economy is closer to what Business Class used to be 20 years ago. You get an amenity kit, better food selection with real cutlery, nicer pillow and duvet, and a much nicer seat - usually in a 2-2-2 configuration.

Huh! I've flown Premium Economy with a few European carriers (Air France, KLM and two others I believe?) and didn't notice anything different. Food on KLM/AF is always good though. I've never flown Premium Economy in Lufthansa or SAS (as far as I can remember.) And I've never seen a duvet on a plane even in first class! Are there actually airlines with duvets or just nicer quality blankets? The differences I've mainl…

There are indeed carriers that now provide much nicer bedding. I fly mostly Delta and United, and United has definetively the best bedding not the routes I fly (mostly to South America and occasionally Europe). In business class you get a blanket, a duvet, two pillows and you can request a mattress pad. Delta has a nice heavy blanket that I usually sleep on top of and a pillow.

Both carriers in the process of upgrading their seats in business class and adding a true premium economy product, not what delta calls comfort plus, which is really just more leg room at the front of the economy cabin. The true premium economy product is much closer to the premium economy that has been available on other carriers (emirates, cathay pacific, etc...) for a while and has better seats, food is served on plates, etc... It's not to far off from what one might get in a domestic first class.

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

#217

Post by jpatokal »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #198
owenversteeg wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I've flown both Premium Economy and Economy (>10 flights each I believe) for Delta, as well as both on a few other carriers, and I've never noticed a difference that was worth more than $20 in my mind. (Most of these were long-haul.) If it's free or very cheap, then sure, but it's such a small benefit that I've been on flights where I didn't even notice I was in Premium Economy until I stood up at the end of…

"Premium Economy" seems to be a Virgin Atlantic thing and is basically their business class. It includes much larger seats, premium in-flight entertainment, nicer toilets, and a much better food and drink selection. The section on the aircraft I've flown on is also much smaller (50 seats?) and curtained off from the unwashed masses. Agreed that a lot of airlines off an "economy plus" which is basically slightly faste…

Are you by any chance confusing premium economy and VA's Upper Class? (Which is basically business class on other airlines, if not first.)

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

#218

Post by fphhotchips »

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.

This is heavily dependent on fuel prices. At lower fuel prices, the decreased overheads of the larger planes (landing fees, staffing, etc) make them worth it. The CEO of Qantas is on record that it doesn't take much of an increase in fuel price for it to be better for them to run two of the (much more efficient) 787s than 1 A380. I assume the 777s are similar.

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

#219

Post by FabHK »

youngtaff wrote: post #191
FabHK wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, aircraft are certified to be able to complete take-off with one engine failure. Thus, twin engines have to have basically 100% reserve, while the 4 engines only need to have 33% reserve (to make up for one engine failing).

Norwegian currently have a 787 stuck in Iran with a broken engine, so I'm not sure they can take off with only one engine

From what I gather, certification requires that they can take off successfully if an engine fails during the take-off run (after V1). I doubt that they're allowed to leave with half the engines inoperational already.

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

#220

Post by leoedin »

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.

There was a plane crash in the Congo that was reportedly due to everyone running away from a crocodile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Bandundu_Filair_Let_L-410...
Post reply on HN