Live data from Hacker News

Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

bbc.com

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#11
post #9

Curious that the article didn't mention the 787, which is what Boeing bet on rather than an even bigger plane like the A380. Seems like that was a good move.

What the article really missed on mentioning is ETOPS (which is part of the success story of the 787). If you look at the total distance, there are very few routes that can only be serviced by a 747 or A380. Historically, though, many more routes were services by these 4-engine behemoths because of ETOPS rules ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS ). In a nutshell, ETOPS says how far away a twin-engine plane can be fr…

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

That wikipedia page desperately needs a more readable introduction. Thanks for the info.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#12
post #9

Curious that the article didn't mention the 787, which is what Boeing bet on rather than an even bigger plane like the A380. Seems like that was a good move.

What the article really missed on mentioning is ETOPS (which is part of the success story of the 787). If you look at the total distance, there are very few routes that can only be serviced by a 747 or A380. Historically, though, many more routes were services by these 4-engine behemoths because of ETOPS rules ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS ). In a nutshell, ETOPS says how far away a twin-engine plane can be fr…

It should also be mentioned that ETOPS covers not only the plane, but also the airline. For example if replacing the engines, then the work will be done by two different teams as it less likely they will make the same mistake. Consequently we now have aviation headlines like the 747-8i (with 4 engines) getting ETOPS (t stands for twin) http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/boeing-747-8i-gains-330-m...

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#13

They surely have their niche - Europe to East Asia, USA to UAE. I think they'll survive.

That only works if you actually have the ability to fill the aircraft, smaller WB/UWB aircraft are cheaper to maintain, require less crew (even per passenger), consume less fuel and are much less restrictive in terms of airports in which they can land and be serviced.

People don't count the fact that one of the reasons why smaller jets are more successful these days is that airports became much better at air traffic control, planes land and take off much faster on average than even few decades ago, combine it with more airports being built or expanded into multi-runway airports and you got much more landing/takeoff slots than before.

Big planes take quite a bit of space in the airport, they need special taxi considerations, and special terminals (especially the A380 with it's full double deck design), all of which comes with a premium in airport taxes when operating such aircraft. It would not surprise me if landing a single A380 costs more than double what landing a A330/787/777 costs these days.

And since It's not only cheaper to fly more smaller planes to the same destination, but also more commercially appealing to customers I highly doubt that companies will continue to run big ass planes for much longer, yes the A380 won't go away, neither will the 747-800 but i really doubt they'll get much more beyond the original orders, and even most of those I'll suspect will be converted into cargo within the next 10-15 years.

I flew on the A380 and the 787-800 to HK (Lufthansa and BA), and on a 777/787 on the same route, and I have to say the smaller aircraft are much nicer to fly on, fewer people, quieter, you get more personal service from the staff, bathrooms don't look (nor smell) like a porta potti at a Kiss reunion concert after the first 3-4 hours of the flight.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#14

Maybe I'm not the usual passenger, but I realized recently that it's been many years since I've been on a plane larger than a 737 -- and I fly at least once a month. Most of my flights are to/from reasonable sized but not megacities (SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc), and since I try for direct flights, I almost always end up on Embraer 145 or 175 or similar small planes. I think at long…

I fly a lot -- as in, I've got around 20,000 miles worth of flying between now and the end of June, and typically hit the 100,000-mile frequent-flier status tier each year -- and I'm based in Kansas City.

And... yes, if you're mostly flying domestically within the contiguous 48 US states, you're going to be almost exclusively on planes seating up to 180 passengers, and often smaller. There are some larger planes on major hub-to-hub routes, and sometimes larger planes on major vacation routes at the right time of year, but for the most part you just don't see them unless you're flying long-haul international.

Really it just comes down to economics. Those 737-sized planes hit a good balancing point in terms of passenger capacity, fuel efficiency, cost to acquire, etc. This makes more sense when you remember that even the non-"jumbo" widebody jets are still freakin' huge; for perspective, here's a photo of an Airbus A320 (one of those 737-sized planes) parked next to a 777:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-America/Airbus-A320-21...

767s, 787s and A330s are all a bit smaller than the 777, but still not exactly small craft. Flying those big monsters around domestically just isn't viable outside of a few select routes, and even then it doesn't always happen. Domestic widebody flying tends to be to/from Hawaii, and otherwise you need to go to another continent to be on a bigger plane (as will be the case with my upcoming travel -- the only two segments on widebodies are to/from London).

On the plus side, the terrible economics of tiny regional jets are finally catching up to the airlines, and they're being used less or in some cases even retired in favor of the larger/more comfortable Embraer E-Jet series and the smaller end of the A320 family.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#15
post #9

Curious that the article didn't mention the 787, which is what Boeing bet on rather than an even bigger plane like the A380. Seems like that was a good move.

What the article really missed on mentioning is ETOPS (which is part of the success story of the 787). If you look at the total distance, there are very few routes that can only be serviced by a 747 or A380. Historically, though, many more routes were services by these 4-engine behemoths because of ETOPS rules ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS ). In a nutshell, ETOPS says how far away a twin-engine plane can be fr…

Another important thing to note is that the A380 has, relative to its size, terrible cargo capacity, and using extra hold space to carry cargo in addition to a load of passengers has historically been a lucrative side business for passenger airlines. There are also doubts about whether it would even be possible, structurally, to do a freighter conversion of an A380, meaning that one of the traditional easy ways to squeeze that last bit of money out of a plane (by selling it off to a cargo airline when you no longer want the plane for passenger service) probably isn't an option with the A380. Meanwhile those 3-engine MD-11s and DC-10s are still up in the sky, having undergone freighter conversions to fly for FedEx and DHL and other cargo carriers.

That's also the reason why the 747-8F is the better-selling variant: cargo airlines love the 747 freighters (and from the beginning, the 747 was designed for this, in anticipation of them being retired out of passenger service and replaced by supersonic airliners that never really materialized), even if the passenger versions are no longer a good fit for the market.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#16
A weird thing to watch is three separate Auckland (New Zealand) to Dubai Emirates A380 flights depart 15 minutes apart, every day. Why such huge capacity on this obscure transcontinental route ? These three flights are really Sydney-Dubai, Melbourne-Dubai and Brisbane-Dubai. I heard from someone that the airport fees mean it is cheaper for Emirates to park three A380s in Auckland for most of the day than the Australian airports.

For as long as this arrangement lasts, it means that these amazing planes are serving the trans-Tasman (NZ-Aus) route every day. Believe me, there is no comparison at all in flying comfort between an Emirates A380 and any kind of 737/A320 (especially given that the A380s are less than half full).

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#17
post #4

"Air travel is set to more than double from today's 3.3 billion passengers a year to 7.3 billion by 2034, says the International Air Transport Association" Even with more efficient planes, that's a lot of greenhouse gas emissions.

You can easily take your part off by not flying and not owning a car.

You personally can also help by never riding any sort of buses or trains. Whatever their benefit relative to other options, they are still significant producers. I am a bad person and would never do such a thing, but guard-of-terra is clearly better than all of us and presumably already makes these sacrifices.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#18

A weird thing to watch is three separate Auckland (New Zealand) to Dubai Emirates A380 flights depart 15 minutes apart, every day. Why such huge capacity on this obscure transcontinental route ? These three flights are really Sydney-Dubai, Melbourne-Dubai and Brisbane-Dubai. I heard from someone that the airport fees mean it is cheaper for Emirates to park three A380s in Auckland for most of the day than the Australi…

You have to keep in mind that to get to Europe, any Australasian has to stop over at least once. Dubai is the most convenient; so really this route is Australasia to Europe.

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#19
There are two major future super-jumbo markets not mentioned here, and they're whoppers: core domestic routes in China and India, eg. Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/Hong Kong and Delhi/Mumbai/Chennai/Hyderabad/Kolkata. The distances are too long to be covered by any form of terrestrial transport, even bullet train (there's already one for BJ-SH, but it takes five hours), and as both countries get richer, demand will grow exponentially. China's airports are huge, but badly hampered by military ATC restrictions, while India's byzantine permitting process means eg. Mumbai's airport isn't going to expand any time soon (and I'm not holding my breath for the construction of Navi Mumbai), which means the only way to increase capacity is larger planes. And indeed, China Southern is already flying A380s domestically.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/the-world-s-shortest-airbus-a380-fli...

Re: Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?

#20

They surely have their niche - Europe to East Asia, USA to UAE. I think they'll survive.

That only works if you actually have the ability to fill the aircraft, smaller WB/UWB aircraft are cheaper to maintain, require less crew (even per passenger), consume less fuel and are much less restrictive in terms of airports in which they can land and be serviced. People don't count the fact that one of the reasons why smaller jets are more successful these days is that airports became much better at air traffic…

787-8 only. No 800. I know...it broke convention
Post reply on HN