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

Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#31

Post by ubernostrum »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #24
ubernostrum wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article noted, this isn't just a US thing and actually isn't just an A380 thing. The A380 is just a very high-profile victim of it. The problems are twofold: 1. Four-engine airliners, regardless of size, are losing, basically worldwide, to twin-engine airliners with better fuel consumption. This is why the A380 and 747-8 sales are sluggish. This is why the A340 buyback program exists (airlines can't get rid of…

The 380 makes a lot of sense in heavily congested air corridors. Anywhere in China, Japan, SE Asia...there is more demand than airports and runways, so a bigger plane will just work better. The US market is better for point to point because we have many more small airports and lots of redundant infrastructure that doesn't really need to be maximized. Europe is somewhat in the middle.

The 380 makes a lot of sense in heavily congested air corridors. Anywhere in China, Japan, SE Asia...

You'd think that, but the Asian carriers who've bought A380s are still mostly using them on their long-haul routes.

This is a lesson Boeing has learned twice now: once with the 747SP, and again with the proposed 787-3. Both were designed as specialized aircraft to bring efficiency to slightly shorter high-density routes. But the 747SP only had a production run of 45 aircraft, and the 787-3 was cancelled due to lack of interest. The 787-8, on the other hand, has been doing well in Asia, and several low-cost carriers fly them now.

The A380 is an even worse fit because it requires upgrading the airport infrastructure, which either won't happen or won't happen soon enough on some of the highest-density routes (as the article notes, Mumbai couldn't handle A380s until very recently).

Boeing seems to be sensitive to this with their planned folding wingtip on the 777X family, designed to guarantee that airports which can handle current 777s will be able to handle the larger 777X. It'll be interesting to see if that pans out.

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

pdonis wrote: post #30
cletus wrote: post #25

It's interesting how the airline industry has evolved. Years ago going from Australia to Europe typically meant going on the "kangaroo route" [1], typically via Singapore (the Qantas/BA/Singapore connection last year was replaced with a Qantas/Emirate/Dubai alliance). If you flew to continental Europe you often ended up flying to London and catching a local flight. I visited the US in the 90s and ended up using US Ai…

> why do people prefer direct flights? It is at least in part due to the horrible experience and security theater that is modern air travel The security theater part doesn't make sense, because connecting passengers don't have to go through security a second time. I'll agree with the "horrible experience" part, but I think the main reason people prefer direct flights is simply that it saves time.

They do if it's an international connecting flight (that is, if the change occurs at the port of entry), our if the flights are in different terminals in the same airport, or...

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#33

Post by jzwinck »

pdonis wrote: post #30
cletus wrote: post #25

It's interesting how the airline industry has evolved. Years ago going from Australia to Europe typically meant going on the "kangaroo route" [1], typically via Singapore (the Qantas/BA/Singapore connection last year was replaced with a Qantas/Emirate/Dubai alliance). If you flew to continental Europe you often ended up flying to London and catching a local flight. I visited the US in the 90s and ended up using US Ai…

> why do people prefer direct flights? It is at least in part due to the horrible experience and security theater that is modern air travel The security theater part doesn't make sense, because connecting passengers don't have to go through security a second time. I'll agree with the "horrible experience" part, but I think the main reason people prefer direct flights is simply that it saves time.

If connecting passengers never went through additional security, this man would still be alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#34

Post by pdonis »

jzwinck wrote: post #33
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why do people prefer direct flights? It is at least in part due to the horrible experience and security theater that is modern air travel The security theater part doesn't make sense, because connecting passengers don't have to go through security a second time. I'll agree with the "horrible experience" part, but I think the main reason people prefer direct flights is simply that it saves time.

If connecting passengers never went through additional security, this man would still be alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

He had a four-hour layover in Singapore. Did he leave the secure area during that time, even though he was not required to?

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#35

Post by pdonis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why do people prefer direct flights? It is at least in part due to the horrible experience and security theater that is modern air travel The security theater part doesn't make sense, because connecting passengers don't have to go through security a second time. I'll agree with the "horrible experience" part, but I think the main reason people prefer direct flights is simply that it saves time.

They do if it's an international connecting flight (that is, if the change occurs at the port of entry), our if the flights are in different terminals in the same airport, or...

> They do if it's an international connecting flight (that is, if the change occurs at the port of entry)

Yes, that's true; but that's not a reason to prefer direct flights that are domestic only, which a lot of US air traffic is. Other parts of the world do differ, yes. (Although I wonder: do international flights within the EU still require re-screening if you make a domestic connection? There's no passport control or customs, right?)

> our if the flights are in different terminals in the same airport

...and the airport doesn't have a way of going from terminal to terminal without leaving the secure area; but lots of airports, particularly those with a lot of connecting flights, do have that (either a train or shuttle bus).

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ubernostrum wrote: post #31
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 380 makes a lot of sense in heavily congested air corridors. Anywhere in China, Japan, SE Asia...there is more demand than airports and runways, so a bigger plane will just work better. The US market is better for point to point because we have many more small airports and lots of redundant infrastructure that doesn't really need to be maximized. Europe is somewhat in the middle.

The 380 makes a lot of sense in heavily congested air corridors. Anywhere in China, Japan, SE Asia... You'd think that, but the Asian carriers who've bought A380s are still mostly using them on their long-haul routes. This is a lesson Boeing has learned twice now: once with the 747SP, and again with the proposed 787-3. Both were designed as specialized aircraft to bring efficiency to slightly shorter high-density rou…

I believe Japan is the only country that actually uses a lot 747s for domestic routes...because so much traffic and so little airspace. Thailand also uses some 747s for domestic routes (e.g. Bangkok to Phuket).

There are plenty of airports in Asia that can only handle N flights per hour and are now handling N + K, so bigger planes are inevitable until new airports can come online (and even then, it might just be cheaper to fly a bigger plane for something like BJ to Shanghai).

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#37

Post by inopinatus »

foxylad wrote: post #26

One factor in favour of the single direct flight in smaller aircraft is the horrendous efficiency of airports. The amount of time spent queuing (checking in, enduring security humiliation, and in departure lounges) is usually a very significant part of the total travel time. And having to do it more than once makes it more than twice as tedious. I recently travelled from London to south-east France by train, and it w…

If you take that itinerary again I recommend considering changing to/from the Eurostar at Lille instead. It still has the TGV connection, but via a short walk down the concourse rather than a cab/metro ride across Paris.

Did this a few weeks ago and also saved myself a great deal of strike-related uncertainty (Paris region connections were at a standstill).

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#38

Post by hudibras »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #36
ubernostrum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 380 makes a lot of sense in heavily congested air corridors. Anywhere in China, Japan, SE Asia... You'd think that, but the Asian carriers who've bought A380s are still mostly using them on their long-haul routes. This is a lesson Boeing has learned twice now: once with the 747SP, and again with the proposed 787-3. Both were designed as specialized aircraft to bring efficiency to slightly shorter high-density rou…

I believe Japan is the only country that actually uses a lot 747s for domestic routes...because so much traffic and so little airspace. Thailand also uses some 747s for domestic routes (e.g. Bangkok to Phuket). There are plenty of airports in Asia that can only handle N flights per hour and are now handling N + K, so bigger planes are inevitable until new airports can come online (and even then, it might just be chea…

Both JAL and ANA have stopped flying 747s, as of earlier this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/international/bid...

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#39

Post by snoonan »

mynameishere wrote: post #16

Do any ordinary travelers care about the type of plane they're on? Do they even know before they get to the airport? If I had to choose between an old 737 with a 4 hour flight, and an A380 with a 6 hour flight (including the layover) there's just no question. And I can appreciate the presence of a bar in the back! It just doesn't matter that much. It seems obvious that an airline is going to focus on initial costs, f…

I've flown the NYC -> SIN route on Singapore Air a few times a year for a long time. When they upgraded the route to the A380, it changed a lot about that long haul experience. All things being equal (crew, airline, route, etc), this plane is so much more comfortable for long haul trips. Even economy class. As stupid as it sounds, it feels more like a sky ship than a plane. You can sort of forget you're on a plane.

I'd actually prefer NOT to fly one on a local route, though. Too much of a hassle boarding 400 people for a short flights.

Re: Oversize Expectations for the Airbus A380

#40

Post by seanmcdirmid »

hudibras wrote: post #38
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Japan is the only country that actually uses a lot 747s for domestic routes...because so much traffic and so little airspace. Thailand also uses some 747s for domestic routes (e.g. Bangkok to Phuket). There are plenty of airports in Asia that can only handle N flights per hour and are now handling N + K, so bigger planes are inevitable until new airports can come online (and even then, it might just be chea…

Both JAL and ANA have stopped flying 747s, as of earlier this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/international/bid...

I didn't know that, thanks!
Post reply on HN