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

Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 247 posts

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#141

Post by jsjohnst »

Someone1234 wrote: post #138
jandrese wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I find Boeing seats to be more comfortable than Airbus seats. Maybe it's just my butt but it is noticeable.

Neither one is a seat manufacturer. Airline seats are independently purchased, and while both Boeing and Airbus have contracts for factory installed seating (and for their demo aircraft), most larger airlines seem to independently source and install their own seats. One seat model could appear on both an Airbus and Boeing aircraft. See: http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_subscription/interiors/...

Except for the 787. If memory is correct, Boeing dictates what brand / models of seat is used in the 787 (something rather unusual). I can try and find a source if needed, but I’m pretty sure I heard that from a reliable source.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#142

Post by jsjohnst »

tuna-piano wrote: post #69

One interesting point, about airports being at capacity. A third runway at London Heathrow is estimated to cost roughly the same as the entire A380 program! In a world where an additional runway (at the most congested airport) costs as much as creating a futuristic gigantic airplane from scratch, maybe it's not that crazy? (Not sure how the additional spacing and other costs with the A380 add into this, but still int…

The problem is the extra capacity of the A380 is possibly negated by the extra spacing it needs due to the hellish jet wash behind it.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#143

Post by Someone1234 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #141
Someone1234 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither one is a seat manufacturer. Airline seats are independently purchased, and while both Boeing and Airbus have contracts for factory installed seating (and for their demo aircraft), most larger airlines seem to independently source and install their own seats. One seat model could appear on both an Airbus and Boeing aircraft. See: http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_subscription/interiors/...

Except for the 787. If memory is correct, Boeing dictates what brand / models of seat is used in the 787 (something rather unusual). I can try and find a source if needed, but I’m pretty sure I heard that from a reliable source.

Their contract with LIFT by EnCore on a single aircraft type doesn't negate the point I made. Which was that neither aircraft manufacturer is a seat manufacturer, and that most seats aren't aircraft manufacturer exclusives.

Seat manufacturers produce seats for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft and aside from brackets, they're identical. So claiming that one manufacturer is more comfortable than the other is a little odd, given the market realities in the industry.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#144

Post by mc32 »

ggm wrote: post #114

I am a frequent business flyer, 10+ per year international long haul from Australia. I appreciate that from a north american perspective the 380 didn't make sense either economically from the economy which bankrolls Boeing, or strategically from the economy which has specific interests in international flights homed out of its east and west coast population centres. I can tell you that for the South Pacific, Japan, I…

Perhaps it makes some sense, but not enough sense for airlines to buy/lease these airliners. If people demanded them, the airlines would be supplying them.

Perh if Australia or Japan had 300million people and they had lots of business travelers, airlines would see a future in it, but for now, it seems they don't. Budget airlines seem to have seen the biggest growth. A380s aren't quite budget.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#145

Post by jsjohnst »

ggm wrote: post #114

I am a frequent business flyer, 10+ per year international long haul from Australia. I appreciate that from a north american perspective the 380 didn't make sense either economically from the economy which bankrolls Boeing, or strategically from the economy which has specific interests in international flights homed out of its east and west coast population centres. I can tell you that for the South Pacific, Japan, I…

I question anyone who would chose any other plane over the 787 if they had a choice, especially for long haul flights. My sinuses are night and day feeling better after a flight on a 787. That alone makes up for any annoyance with the windows or other minor inconveniences people frequently quote.

> its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done

Citation needed! I just checked every airline’s seating config for the 787 and all are either 3-3-3 or more rarely 2-4-2 in economy.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#146

Post by petecox »

ant6n wrote: post #133
Gibbon1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.

Put security inside the damn train and we'll talk.

I'm not sure on the train but Spain has security scans at railway departures for long distance rail. Not as stringent as for an international aeroplane flight but, given the investment, in theory it could be.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#147

Post by jsjohnst »

Someone1234 wrote: post #143
jsjohnst wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the 787. If memory is correct, Boeing dictates what brand / models of seat is used in the 787 (something rather unusual). I can try and find a source if needed, but I’m pretty sure I heard that from a reliable source.

Their contract with LIFT by EnCore on a single aircraft type doesn't negate the point I made. Which was that neither aircraft manufacturer is a seat manufacturer, and that most seats aren't aircraft manufacturer exclusives. Seat manufacturers produce seats for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft and aside from brackets, they're identical. So claiming that one manufacturer is more comfortable than the other is a little od…

I didn’t disagree with your core point (in fact, I completely agree with it). I was just clarifying that in the case of the 787, it wasn’t the airline’s choice.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#148

Post by Gibbon1 »

chiph wrote: post #137
Gibbon1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.

> where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people You'd need to back this up with strong zoning. I think it was Sacramento where they put the airport out in the countryside .. and then land developers discovered all this cheap land near it. Sure enough, the new residents started complaining about the noise from takeoffs and landings. Flight paths is one of the things I look at when I pick a new place to live.

In San Jose they ended up buying up and demolishing a whole neighborhood. It was a big deal at the time, but likely forgotten by most people.

I find it annoying that they build commuter rail projects and scrupulously avoid going too close to the airport when by rights the airport aught to be a standard stop.

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#149

Post by mixmastamyk »

_s wrote: post #127
HeavenFox wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it really hard to agree with you. Maybe you flew exclusively in business or first class? > its not 11 abreast pack-em-in which is what the 787 has done 787 is designed for 8-abreast seating. In reality, carriers almost always went for 9-abreast. 11-abreast is physically impossible. It is possible in an A380 though, and airlines are really considering it. > ... and its a premium quality experience How is flying…

Not OP but I will go out of my way to select Airbus jets; their NVH is noticeably lower than Boeings jets, which results in a far more comfortable travel, especially long-haul (A380 being up there in terms of comfort).

NVH?

Re: Airbus A380, Once the Future of Aviation, May Cease Production

#150

Post by rdl »

ggm wrote: post #114

I am a frequent business flyer, 10+ per year international long haul from Australia. I appreciate that from a north american perspective the 380 didn't make sense either economically from the economy which bankrolls Boeing, or strategically from the economy which has specific interests in international flights homed out of its east and west coast population centres. I can tell you that for the South Pacific, Japan, I…

I've had far better experiences as a passenger in Y and C (I rarely fly intl F) on 767, 777, 787, and a340s than on any A380. With some airlines I actively seek out the 767 flights because they pre-date the "maximum density seating" trend, and there are a bunch of airlines where mid-life refit aircraft are better than 3-5 year old newer aircraft.

I'm much more Boeing vs. Airbus as a meaningful distinction, or which generation of a particular airline's seating system (especially in C and F) than a specific-aircraft carer, though.

Post reply on HN