Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by dingaling » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:36 PM UTC

dawhizkid wrote: post #24

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…

I don't think they're scrambling. The A350 is their 787 competitor and looks amazing. Can't wait to try it out.

> The A350 is their 787 competitor and looks amazing

The A350 is considerably bigger than the 787, it actually competes against the 777 ( original and X ).

The 787-8 and -9 have the same floor area as the much older Airbus A330-200 and -300 respectively.

Airbus doesn't have a direct rival to the 787 other than the warmed-over A330Neo.

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

#132

Post by ComputerGuru » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111

ComputerGuru wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge, microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water, and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still “richer” than him.

(Some Roman rulers did have “AC” though:

Attempts to control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where wealthy citizens took advantage of the remarkable aqueduct system to circulate cool water through the walls of their homes. The emperor Elagabalus took things a step further in the third century, building a mountain of snow—imported from the mountains via donkey trains—in the garden next to his villa to keep cool during the summer. [0])

0: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_hist...

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

#133

Post by andy_ppp » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

zimzam wrote: post #122

andy_ppp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, there is so much space around Berlin I don’t even know where to start with this, there’s even an airstrip in town still. I know it’s a park now but seriously of all the major cities I’ve lived in building a new airport should be relatively easy... unless it’s a conscious decision to prefer the train? Tegel is horrible but it’s also really quick - you can and I have arrived 30mins before a flight and make it just…

The Berlin mention is a reference to the Brandenburg airport which has been under construction since 2006 and was scheduled to be completed in 2012. They are now hoping to open in 2020 or 2021. http://madridjournals.com/2017/12/14/berlins-money-guzzling-...

Yes as I was checking the spelling of Tegel I came across the Brandenburg airport information and linked to it above. It makes Terminal 5 look fast and flawless by comparison!

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

#134

Post by dingaling » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

brndnmtthws wrote: post #5

When it comes to airplanes, bigger isn't necessarily better. I guess the novelty value has worn off and giant jets like this have limited appeal. If there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of course it would make sense, but due to the limited number of airports that can service these planes and the high cost, I don't see much future in them. The efficiency just isn't there.

> If there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of course it would make sense

There could have been, but Airbus shied-away from a really radical design like a blended-wing-body and stuck to traditional tube-and-wings design, just on a larger scale.

There's not much margin for efficiency improvement in that case other than begging the engine manufacturers to work more magic.

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

#135

Post by tolien » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:39 PM UTC

Yizahi wrote: post #90

I may be dumb but I don't understand the numbers in the article. They write Airbus has "96 unfilled orders" then say that "47 of those are unlikely to be delivered". So they won't be ordered or won't be delivered? If it's the latter then won't it be breach of contract on Airbus side and just kinda plain stupid? And if it's the former that doesn't it contradict previous number of 96 units ordered? Next they say "deliv…

Some orders will be transferred to other models, e.g. Airbus sold customers an A350-800 that didn't exist yet then cancelled the project that would have developed it. The orders were transferred to the -900 and A330neo, with the airlines presumably getting an inducement to do so.

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

#136

Post by ComputerGuru » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #124

ComputerGuru wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I understand what he's saying. And I don't think it's a zero sum game. That's just a phrase people like to use to sound smart. People in poverty today are a hundred times better off than those in poverty in the 1500's. If it really was a zero sum game, then for all the iPhone X-toting SF hipsters, there would be thousands of people living in conditions worse than the Middle Ages.

No, because living conditions have nothing to do with being rich or poor. I’m not arguing that quality of life has not gone up; it’s has undoubtedly done so. The richest of kings of yore didn’t lead a more comfortable or luxurious life than a middle class citizen of any country today. But they were “richer.”

But disparity in wealth (which is the definition of being rich/poor) has nothing to do with that.

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

#137

Post by Robotbeat » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #132

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge, microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water, and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still “richer” than him. (Some Roman rulers did have “AC” though: Attempts to control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where wealthy citi…

The typical person in a developed country (especially) or even a developing country can marshall more resources now than a typical Egyptian thousands of years ago. Travel farther and faster. That's what I'm referring to.

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

#138

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #132

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge, microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water, and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still “richer” than him. (Some Roman rulers did have “AC” though: Attempts to control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where wealthy citi…

> But quality of life has nothing to do with richness

You're arbitrarily defining "richness" as relative monetary worth so you can make this circular argument.

"Richness" refers to money, i.e. resources. As you point out, the average person today can Marshall more resources than the average person could before. That makes the average person today richer.

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

#139

Post by gsnedders » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #114

monocasa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version runs the new 777s now

Still 787-9s; I'm unaware of any plan to move it to 777s.

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

#140

Post by Robotbeat » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #136

reaperducer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what he's saying. And I don't think it's a zero sum game. That's just a phrase people like to use to sound smart. People in poverty today are a hundred times better off than those in poverty in the 1500's. If it really was a zero sum game, then for all the iPhone X-toting SF hipsters, there would be thousands of people living in conditions worse than the Middle Ages.

No, because living conditions have nothing to do with being rich or poor. I’m not arguing that quality of life has not gone up; it’s has undoubtedly done so. The richest of kings of yore didn’t lead a more comfortable or luxurious life than a middle class citizen of any country today. But they were “richer.” But disparity in wealth (which is the definition of being rich/poor) has nothing to do with that.

Disparity in wealth is not the definition of rich/poor in this context, clearly.

(And IMHO, viewing the economy and wealth in strict zero sum terms is depressing, counterproductive, and incorrect.)