Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 251 posts

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#61

Post by 908B64B197 »

rob74 wrote: post #19
coredog64 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and derivatives) The 737 wasn’t particularly expensive to design or build. It shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example.

Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).

The original 737s by Boeing were all-American masterpieces that had pretty great safety records considering the sheer number of miles flown and delivered airframes.

The 737-MAX, courtesy of Post McDonnel Douglas-Boeing merger [0], with code written by offshored 9$/h Indian coders was a complete disaster.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing...

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#62

Post by SgtBastard »

rob74 wrote: post #35
ThePowerOfFuet wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 737 Max has almost nothing to do with the 737. Don't conflate the two.

Do pilots need a different type rating to fly the 737 Max? No? Then it's a bit strange to say that it has nothing to do with the 737...

IANAP, but a lot of the root cause analysis around the 737 max crashes was that they were sufficiently different and so should have required re-certification of pilots before being allowed to fly them. Due to the costs involved, Boeing made the ultimately fatal mistake of minimising these changes to airlines so that pilots didnt know what they were flying (insofar as some of the subsystems).

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#63

Post by 908B64B197 »

noahtallen wrote: post #12
InTheArena wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now,…

> Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown... But they have direct competitors for these types of routes too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are as good as Boeing’s options! (And even some which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X and wo…

> which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220

What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project.

Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for NAFTA.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#64

Post by WalterBright »

tinglymintyfrsh wrote: post #56
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

It is. They're just difficult because their wingspan is too damn big to fit in most airports. If they had retractable folding legs like us sardine passengers in economy class, they'd fit like a champ.

Seattle built a new terminal to accommodate the big jets for $1 billion. After completion, they discovered the jets won't fit.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/sea-t...

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#65

Post by devoutsalsa »

InTheArena wrote: post #11
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and placed the blame for the A320 not selling be…

Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+ engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747s, a340s, and similar planes simply couldn't compete in routes efficiently served by twin engine planes. The a380 is a great plane for an airline like Emirates which primarily serves Dubai because there is a lot of tourism demand for long haul travel on a jet w/ huge passenger capacity. If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#66

Post by wahern »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #33
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

Emirates, the largest owner of A380s, is asking for a bigger one https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim-clark-o... Apparently the slot limitations at major city airports are becoming a harder constraint to work with, especially as a larger swatch of Asia gain the ability to travel long haul. Losing the A380 in 15-20 years is going to make flying between big city pairs more expensive.

None of the engine manufacturers are interested. That's what killed the A380--Rolls Royce pulled out of a re-engine deal that would've brought A380 engines into the 21st century. "Green" concept showcases notwithstanding, all the engine manufactures seem to have decided to cut back on investment and coast for awhile. Something will need to change to spur competition in the engine space, and then we might see hungrier competitors. But the shelving of the A380 supply chain means there'll still be a steep hill to an A380 derivative.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#67

Post by dsfyu404ed »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #65
InTheArena wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and placed the blame for the A320 not selling be…

Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+ engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747…

>If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane.

This goes for just about every largest of its kind piece of commercial cargo moving equipment.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#68

Post by dsfyu404ed »

reisse wrote: post #28
rob74 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).

737 MAX MCAS issue pale in comparison to 737 classic rudder issues (two crashes confirmed because of the issue, three crashes suspected, and a few more cases where pilots were able to overcome the plane). Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it.

>Yet it happened in the era without social networks and Internet news, so few people remember about it.

And the public's opinion of the air travel industry was different so hand wringing over it wasn't so fashionable.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#69

Post by majormajor »

InTheArena wrote: post #8
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now,…

I don't know about Denver but ATL and DFW have been extremely busy airports for at least a couple of decades, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't have been taken into account.

And if neither of those airports is a "mega hub" than I don't think LAX is either. They have the gate count, the passenger count, and the Delta/American hubs.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#70

Post by majormajor »

nerdbert wrote: post #58
badcppdev wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell demand is high because ticket prices are very high. Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0] I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I thin…

Ticket prices are high because demand in the front of the plane is low. Economy class tickets have to go up a lot to make up for empty first and business seats.

I'm seeing higher coach prices on some routes that I know well than I could get (domestic) first class for in 2019... so that makes up for a LOT of empty first class seats...
Post reply on HN