Live data from Hacker News

Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

smh.com.au

131–140 of 251 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were also optional safety systems that lower cost carriers in the undeveloped/developing world didn’t buy, which would have prevented most of the incidents.

don't blame it on the airlines. Boing shouldn't have been able to certify a plane without redundant sensors.

Yes. But it wasn’t just about training the pilots, those systems/sensors should have been present even in the cheaper planes (or the cheaper planes simply shouldn’t have been sold).

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

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The C919 and C929 both fly with western avionics and jet engines, so they aren’t really that far off from airbus and Boeing, and don’t really bring anything new to the table beyond more competition from China in putting everything together.

They're building their own engine as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAE_CJ-1000A I agree that the C919/929 pose no threat as is, but the Chinese are clearly playing the long game here and their massive domestic market coupled with government arm-twisting lets them scale: the C919 has already racked up over 1000 orders.

China is still at least 20 years behind on jet turbines. They can get the power or economy (in terms of use time/overhaul), but not both at the same time. Jet turbines are hard to reverse engineer, and you really just have to put the time in on materials engineering.

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

#133
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Sure, it's obviously a matter of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. But the re-engine for the A380 was basically a rote, low-risk, B-team exercise for Rolls Royce. All they had to do was tweak their existing generation stuff. The program was already well underway, and they still dropped it; they all but explicitly said the reason was, "meh, we lost interest". Something seems to have changed. Putting my cynical…

The term you were looking for appears to be tacit collusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion

Me: What's the official economics term for passive collusion, when players in a market avoid competing with each other without any explicit agreement not to?

GPT-4: The official economics term for passive collusion, when players in a market avoid competing with each other without any explicit agreement not to, is "tacit collusion." Tacit collusion occurs when firms in an industry indirectly coordinate their actions, such as price setting or output levels, without explicit communication or agreements. This behavior can lead to higher prices and reduced competition, similar to the outcomes of explicit collusion or cartels, but it can be harder to detect and regulate.

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

#134
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do they need new engines? Would it be that hard to just use some new, existing engine (like whatever they put on the 787) and stick that on the A380? Or is it not feasible because 2 of them aren't enough for such a large plane, and 4 of them are just too much engine and don't yield enough fuel savings because they're being run at part-throttle? These planes might not make much sense for many routes, but for trans…

The plane is too big for 2 engines. But the massive engines for 2-engined planes are too big and inefficient for use in a 4 engine configuration. For example, each engine on 2-engine plane must be powerful enough alone for takeoff, whereas in a 4-engine configuration safety regulations only require a minimum of 2 (or 3?) working engines. The former require a much larger performance envelope, even though that increased performance is only required for a brief moment if ever, which is a source of inefficiency. Similarly, maintenance requirements are stricter for the former as they require more frequent safety checks and because they're run harder during takeoff (to reduce the width of the performance profile) they break down more frequently.

This is why a 4-engined plane like the A380 isn't necessarily less economical for having 4 engines instead of 2. Airbus and Emirates have always argued, and arguably Emirates has demonstrated, that all things considered the A380's 4 engine configuration is still cost competitive. However, long-term these factors cannot overcome the aged engine technology. When the A380 debuted, its engines were already half a generation behind the latest, greatest wide body engines, and now they're even further behind. Moreover, IIRC, even older 777 models have received engine upgrades so now the A380's engines are technologically behind aircraft that preceded it.

Airbus and Emirates weren't asking Rolls Royce to deliver anything fancy; just a replacement engine sporting updated blade designs, increased bypass, and other ubiquitous advancements since the mid 1990s; but nothing bleeding edge, like new gearing technology. Rolls Royce agreed, but then decided to pull out because they were "scaling back" (IIRC), not because costs ballooned or any other aspect specific to the project changed.

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

#135
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Lufthansa a380 in BKK. (Though not 100% sure)

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

#136

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 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.

> While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.

Cyclists generally prefer carbon fiber over aluminum because the former is smoother than the latter. 787 is carbon fiber, A380 is a fiberglass/aluminum composite. I wonder if that's why the 787 is smooth.

I'm not an expert on planes but I'm not aware of another commercial airliner that's carbon fiber.

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

#137

I just got back from a road trip where I visited this boneyard (among other things) in the Mojave Desert.[0][1][2] The airport/planes are all fenced in, but you can still go up to the fence and see them up close. Pretty wild to see so many planes in one place. [0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjkmpacv7yvpur5/PXL_20230411_00382... [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pgdlmn7z9ej0rc/PXL_20230411_00433... [2] https://www.dropbox…

I couldn't recommend seeing it more highly.

I stopped there on the way to the Grand Canyon, and I honestly enjoyed the Boneyard more than the Grand Canyon.

Plus, the Mexican food nearby is great :)

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

#138
post #106
post #79

I miss flying A380s--such a pleasure. Other airlines (I am talking to you, Emirates): you bring it back too!

It's always a treat to fly on. I managed to score some first class award tickets on Etihad's A380s from Sydney to Abu Dhabi to London... for July 2020. As you can imagine, that didn't work out. I fly Sydney to LAX on Qantas usually once a year and somehow I always get swapped from an A380 to a 787 :/ I understand that this plane isn't the most fuel efficient, and that the A350, 787, and 777X are replacing it, but the…

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I also flew the SFOSYD leg at least twice (generally 3+) times a year in my last job. Qantas was my preferred airline but never got to fly an A380. I flew it from SFODXB for many years and you can’t beat that shower and leg space..

Let’s make a petition that all airlines start flying A380’s :)

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

#139

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…

i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were trying to get rid of it.

If you sit in the forwardmost section of the cabin far ahead of the engines (possible to do in economy on the A380), the pin-drop silence (by airplane standards) combined with the long and slow takeoff makes the moment of lift totally surreal.

I think the guy next to me panicked because he thought there was engine trouble and we were going to overrun.

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

#140
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).

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...

$9 converted to Indian currency is Rs720 with a conversion rate of 80Rs per dollar which is around 3 lakhs a month, which is a lot in India, equates to a mid six figure salary here based on what you can afford. I'm not sure how you are trying to make a point here. Also it's unfortunate that you retort to blaming the coders and mild racism, instead of accepting Boeing messed up. FAA not once in it's reports nor any aviation experts blamed the code, Boeing went cheap and removed a redundant device the MCAS system needs during a malfunction. Even during the incident HN was quick to blame pilots for being unskilled, now it's the coders mistake? The American company went greedy and went cheap, ignored its engineers, bent FAA over it's back to make rules that suit them, ignored all the warnings. Tried to brush away opinions. And was fully aware of the issue. Instead it tried to hide it. I'm not sure where your so called $9 coder sits here.
Post reply on HN