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

221–230 of 254 posts

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

#221

Post by hanney »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #202
steedsofwar wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar view on the A380, but I love being a passenger on them more than any other plane. The extra leg room is what wins over for me and as I fly Emirates the in flight entertainment is brilliant. For me it’s a shame we are seeing a decline of these planes. I loathe to think the industry is going to go back to less leg room, more seats and feeling like cattle.

When I'm flying Emirates, the censorship on the IFE is hilarious. Watching the Gotham TV series, and they kept censoring the word "lesbian". Also, the Wolf of Wall Street Emirates style is significantly shorter (they cut all the scenes with extensive hookers and cocaine) and when Margot Robbie walks out nude they cropped the image and zoomed in on her face only, albeit with extensive pixellation. But hey, at least Em…

Perhaps the extensive pixelation and cropping might have been due to having too much to drink ;)

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

#222

Post by JorgeGT »

Yizahi wrote: post #212
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 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.

Pan Am's Clippers were basically modeled after the luxury trains of the era, divided in compartments with seats that could be converted into bunks, and a common dining lounge: https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/7146h....

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

#223

Post by fphhotchips »

ggm wrote: post #142
daurnimator wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 787 is a compromised experience in the air. Why do you say that?

Dense seating in economy, is the sole reason. The airlines decided to ignore the Premium trend, and made economy basic as densely packed as they can, and provide limited premium economy to guarantee it had high margin and was full. So, business and premium on a 787 is great, but economy is really really tragically bad, as a long-haul experience. 787 for shorthaul, nobody cares. Ask anyone who sits in the cheap class…

I cannot agree more. QF Premium economy on the 787 is ok (the A380 is as good or better I think), and business class is fantastic, but I spent about 7 minutes in an econ class seat recently and I was not looking forward to how my back was going to feel by the end. Really needed to be a 2-4-2, not a 3-3-3 - it's just not wide enough to support 3-3-3.

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

#224

Post by avar »

nexuist wrote: post #60
avar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point the A380 will be a 30-40 year old design, and won't be competitive anymore.

I think aviation probably has a huge time-to-market compared to almost every other technology field; the B-52 first flew in 1952 and is scheduled to be decommissioned around 2050 (!) Aircraft bought today will be in service for at least several decades; it wouldn't be profitable for airlines to dump cash into them otherwise.

A380 development started in earnest in 2000, it first flew in 2005. It seems reasonable that we could have a jumbo jet designed in 2035 fly in 2040.

The B52 is still flying, but a bomber doesn't need to be economical to operate like an airliner has to. The US military can't be said to have a limited fuel budget.

Sure, airliners operate for decades, but when they're bought they're state of the art. The A380 isn't economical to operate now.

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

#225

Post by growlist »

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 really disappointed with the A380, having been told there was a noticeable difference. It was just like any other place, and being British Airways in 2017 the overall service was very much no-frills, verging on comparable to Ryanair.

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

#226

Post by krolley »

giggsey wrote: post #206
distant_hat wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm doing London -> New Zealand on an A380 with Emirates next month, with a bassinet for a 14 month old infant. We're a bit worried that he may end up being too big for it. That, and keeping them entertained for two long flights.

14-months may be pushing it -- they have a stated weight and height limit but in practice it depends if your steward cares or not. Over weight/height isn't going to break the bassinet, we had ours with the legs hanging over the edge. Some stewards though whenever there is turbulence will ask you to take your baby out so you can cover them with a seat-belt. When they are sleeping this is not ideal. On a long flight, this can happen a lot (the seat-belt light turns on, even if you barely feel a bump from turbulence afterwards). We ended up saying "ok, sure" when they come and ask, and then when they walk off we just wouldn't do anything. All in all, I found travelling with an infant pretty OK. Depending on what time your flights are, they might sleep a good 8 hours in the bassinet!

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

#227

Post by youngtaff »

FabHK wrote: post #219
youngtaff wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With you… like this Thomson plane that had a failure due to bird ingestion during take off at Manchester - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

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

#228

Post by saiya-jin »

anyfoo wrote: post #105
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).

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…

Well, not everybody travels business. Me its for adventures, backpacking etc. No way I am carrying a laptop with me, even tablet is an overkill (rather I'll take heavier full frame camera for pics you simply can't take with phones).

So that leaves me with phone on which I want to preserve battery because adventures don't usually happen in concrete jungles of the cities, quite in contrary in fact. And usually crappy entertainment system, with really bad provided headphones (they don't block the engine noise very well so movies are sometimes hard to follow... I wish optional EN subtitles would be standard everywhere). I can handle it, I don't get bored with myself easily and usually carry a book on travels (migrating to kindle soon). But fun? Nah, that really ain't the word I would use.

It seems there are quite a few uber-rich people here that don't mind shelling out 500-2000$ on top of basic ticket for some additional comfort for 10-15 hours. I am not one of those, and neither is most of the population. I mean, I traveled in India for months, in buses where seat spacing caused me to be in embryonal position for 12+ hours, without possibility to stand up or stretch. So I can very easily handle one trip in plane. Unless it would be my minute income or less, I would rather put those money into improving the life of somebody poor but smart & hard working (plenty of those folks out there). You just need to find them and give it to them directly, no greedy middle-men.

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

#229

Post by mikeash »

anyfoo wrote: post #105
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).

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…

Wild guess here, are you under six feet tall?

I totally get what you’re saying, but unfortunately it just doesn’t work so well for me. I don’t have enough room to comfortably use a laptop. I have to play T-Rex to use the keyboard.

Movies and TV shows can be good for a while. I usually watch a few hours on a flight, but that only works for so long. Imagine spending an entire day in a movie theater, except the chair is sized for kids and the screen is tiny and you have to hold it up.

Reading is similar. It would be great, but the general discomfort makes it hard to focus long enough.

Were I flying in business or first class, I imagine it would be totally different.

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

#230

Post by grkvlt »

chrisper wrote: post #170
danepowell wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, since upgrades are to the next higher seat class only, with PE you stand the chance of getting moved to J, on the rare occasions the stars line up correctly and you get it for free, or of course if you pay for it at check-in, or if you have status, etc.
Post reply on HN