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

Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 355 posts

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#111

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #97
Robotbeat wrote: post #85

777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply cannot scale because they already have to have short wings to fit in airports. Folding wings (like the 777x) can address this. Longer, higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the march to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow electrification of most air travel. And I do think that supersonic air travel will make a st…

> We're also becoming richer as a species. I don’t understand this. Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because it’s a zero sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages count but can be scaled up or down without effect.

> Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool?

Quality of life is not a zero sum game. If you want to be quantitative, one could deploy a proxy metric like the Kardashev scale [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#112

Post by masklinn »

digi_owl wrote: post #52
Xixi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not successful because it was big, it was successful because it could fly further than anything else. It is however because it was big that it could fly far: if I remember correctly the fuel needed to fly grows with the surface of the plane (in 2 dimensions), while the fuel that can be hauled grows with its volume (in 3 dimensions). The 777 had already mad…

Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time. This while providing a price pr seat that most people could accept. Now we have twin engines that can at least do the Atlantic trip just as well, allowing all manner of smaller airlines to offer trips from a multitude of airports.

> Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time.

Technically they could but regulations didn't allow it at the time: 1953 FAA regulations required that twin-engined aircrafts always be within 60mn of an airport, and ICAO had slightly less restrictive limits of 90mn. This meant some routes were entirely unfeasible, or the flight path required to keep within 60~90mn of an airport at all time made it uneconomically unfeasible.

3- and 4-engined aircrafts were not affected by these rules (starting in '64 for the 3-engined ones).

The rules started being relaxed in the mid-80s with the introduction of ETOPS ratings (initially 120 and 180, now up to 370).

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#113

Post by Robotbeat »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #97
Robotbeat wrote: post #85

777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply cannot scale because they already have to have short wings to fit in airports. Folding wings (like the 777x) can address this. Longer, higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the march to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow electrification of most air travel. And I do think that supersonic air travel will make a st…

> We're also becoming richer as a species. I don’t understand this. Isn’t richness/poorness relative to something else in the same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because it’s a zero sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages count but can be scaled up or down without effect.

No, it's not merely relative. I mean we can martial more resources to do as we please. Just like most people (in developed countries at least) can drive around 50-60mph in a vehicle (a car in 1st world or a scooter in developing countries) but 200, 300 years ago they couldn't. We've become richer.

It's like this: when public transit advocates ask why move a ton of metal around per person when literally stuffing them in a train is more efficient, the reason is because we're (in the US) rich enough to not have to pick the most "efficient" solution to every problem. Otherwise we'd be drinking generic Soylent and sleeping in pods instead of eating lush, delicious food and sleeping in houses.

The whole world is going to get there, and you're not going to convince more than a handful of people to voluntarily live like a drone when they don't have to. So we better figure out how to live these non-efficient lifestyles more sustainably.

(EDIT: Yes, I do think that if public transit offers a /better/ service, it has a future. But if it's significantly worse than what people already have, then good luck convincing people to use it.)

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#114

Post by briandear »

monocasa wrote: post #94
1_2__4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern one. It’s really weird you don’t acknowledge that at all.

The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.

However the efficiency allows long, thin routes. Essentially the 787 and now the newer 777 allow more agile routing over longer distances which opens up airlines to greater routing efficiencies that aren’t as dependent on super-hub airports. There are over 600 787 routes, of which 368 are long haul and 90 are completely new routes. For example, ANA flies Tokyo to San Jose and BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now.

My point is that passenger capacity isn’t such an important metric when comparing the ‘47 and the ‘87. And the A380 is an airplane built for last century’s model of air travel.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#115

Post by csours »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
mpweiher wrote: post #33

I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official back…

> if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Boeing has built and sold over 1,500 747s [1]. It first flew in 1969 and is now being end of lifed. It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetime. The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a commercial disaster. The 747 was a great plane for 1969. Airbus built the finest horse-drawn carriage just as the Model T came out. > constrained slots at major air…

I'm sure you realize this, but some might not: a 747-8 in 2017 is very different from a 747-100 in the 1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#116

Post by personlurking »

oblio wrote: post #76
code4tee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve flown just about every commercial model of airplane made in the last 30 years including Emirates A380 biz class. While that was undoubtedly an amazing trip, it had a lot more to do with the airline than the airplane. My enthusiasm for the trip also dropped off when I had to spend several hours waiting around in the middle of the night at their hub in Dubai.

Why? What happened in Dubai?

Probably has to do with the way airlines schedule their flights, depending on the final destination and direction. Sometimes you'll catch a flight and can't make a connecting flight for several hours.

How Airlines Schedule Flights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXahSnA_oA

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#117

Post by junkscience2017 »

dghughes wrote: post #65
code4tee wrote: post #6

Boeing played the market correctly here. When everyone was oohing over the A380 Boeing said super jumbos were on their way out and focused on the 787. If it hadn’t been for Emirates buying so many A380s to begin with it would have been a flop from the start (Emirates alone operates almost half of the A380s ever built). The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin engine jets and here Airbus is scrambling…

Boeing plays a lot of games like getting 40% of its revenue from the US government but crying unfair when other countries get any subsidies at all. Look at the nearly 300% duty it demanded added on to the parts made by their competitor Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier.

Yet Bombardier itself is subsidized to the point where many have suggested it would be easier to just nationalize it...yet no one is critiquing that arrangement

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#118

Post by cdibona »

monocasa wrote: post #94
1_2__4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern one. It’s really weird you don’t acknowledge that at all.

The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.

It's a better bet to say the 777 killed the passenger 747. The real question is if cargo operations will continue to drive 747 demand.

It'll probably look like tanker/military demand for the 767.

The a380 cargo option never really developed...

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#119

Post by kss238 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus’s bet at the time raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing’s didn’t. The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly.

> The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly Selling planes is complicated. For the same reason the F-35 sources random things from practically everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous to have suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers. [1] https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada

The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every state in the US is a political one, not from a logistics issue. Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#120

Post by jeffcore »

bobity wrote: post #86

Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much more comfortable than any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on an A380 in any class you won't go back...

No one is really disputing that the A380 is more comfortable than the older 747, but that's not enough to save it as more and more carriers prefer frequency over size.
Post reply on HN