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

71–80 of 251 posts

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

#71

Post by progman32 »

WalterBright wrote: post #60

> striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has invested heavily in kick-starting Australia’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions. The CO2 emitted is exactly the sa…

The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2 that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point?

[1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio-aviati...

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

#72

Post by MichaelZuo »

wahern wrote: post #66
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote.

I doubt airlines are actually interested in committing tens of billions of capital, today, to get a dozen % improvement in fuel efficiency a decade from now.

And why would a private investor take such a huge risk without guarantees of making it back several fold?

So it doesn't happen.

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

#73

Post by wunderland »

madeofpalk wrote: post #6

Note: Qantas resumed A380 flights in January 2022 after shelving them due to the pandemic. I guess this article is about them finishing bringing back the last A380s https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-returns-flagship-...

This is pretty clear from the article:

“ Qantas stored 12 of its A380s in Victorville. There are now seven servicing the airline’s London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong routes, with another three expected to return next year following the completion of an extensive maintenance check and cabin reconfiguration process. The remaining two jumbos were left in Victorville to be broken up into parts.”

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

#74

Post by alexanderchr »

0xDEF wrote: post #18
tonywastaken wrote: post #9

Lufthansa is bringing A380s back as well

Probably the cheapest way to fill the highly busy Germany-Thailand air routes during the German summer vacation weeks.

It’s too premium heavy for charter routes. They are starting with Munich to Boston and New York.

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

#75

Post by bobthepanda »

hinata08 wrote: post #39
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,…

I wonder about statistics for hub vs pairs Airlines line Turkish seem to do well, with their shinny new super hub in Istanbul. There can only be so much pair to pair flight, so we will always have some hub airlines. I took Nice to Manila last year. Friends of mines flew from random town in France to Abu Dhabi, through Istanbul. On my flight to Istanbul, I talked to passengers going to a random town in Egypt for divin…

It’s not just about hubs but about frequency as well. If given the choice flyers often prefer the airline flying 3 or 4 737s at varying times of day over the one big airplane.

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

#76

Post by matthewmacleod »

WalterBright wrote: post #60

> striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has invested heavily in kick-starting Australia’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions. The CO2 emitted is exactly the sa…

It's clear that different fuels can have a different carbon impact. A "C atom from a biofuel" may in isolation be indistinguishable from one sourced from a fossil fuel, but it is exactly not the same in terms of its impact; claiming so is obviously disingenuous.

None of this means that biofuels are actually an effective method to reduce the carbon impact of aviation. Life-cycle analysis is pretty hard. We can broadly say that most biofuels are carbon neutral in the gross sense, but the carbon cost of their production could mean that they have an equivalent or even greater overall carbon impact than fossil fuels. It requires energy to transport and process biomass, and changes in land use can have second-order effects – like impacts on food production.

It is, in fact, pretty darned complicated. Reducing this to "everyone except me is an idiot sucker" is not even slightly helpful.

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

#77

Post by fukawi2 »

hristov wrote: post #20

I like the a380 because it treats the lowly economy passenger (i.e., me) the best of all the large planes. It has the most headroom (even though it has two stories) so the cabin feels more airy and less cramped. So this is good news.

The one thing I don't like, and this may just be Emirates cabin configuration, but the space between the seat back and the cabin wall on the widow seat is too large to be able to rest your head "comfortably" against the wall to sleep.

I flew MEL DXB LON KEF a couple of weeks ago. First 2 flights were A380, and the last was 757. I got better sleep on that 4 hour flight than either the other 2 legs (13 and 8 hours).

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

#78

Post by popey »

There's a famous air-show where I live - Farnborough. Some years back there was an A319 and an A380 on show. They went up for a display in the sky, one after the other. The way the pilot threw the A319 around was pretty amazing, then the A380 went up and did basically the same manoeuvres. Pretty spectacular to watch these things. My brain still doesn't quite understand how the hell those metal birds stay in the air!

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

#80

Post by WalterBright »

progman32 wrote: post #71
WalterBright wrote: post #60

> striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has invested heavily in kick-starting Australia’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions. The CO2 emitted is exactly the sa…

The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2 that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point? [1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio-aviati...

Let's say you have a log from a tree you just chopped down. You have the same amount of wood dug up as coal.

Each emits the same CO2 when burned. Where is the net decrease in CO2? What difference does it make being fossilized?

Post reply on HN