Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'? • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by akhilcacharya » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #2

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…

Yup. The flight from my city to Houston is on an ERJ145, and is nearly 3 hours. Its absolutely ridiculous.

737's are increasingly becoming used for transcons (USA + South America/Carribean/Hawaii), while the 752's that are still in operation are used for Transatlantic flights.

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

#22

Post by billforsternz » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 3:49 AM UTC

sfrechtling wrote: post #18

billforsternz wrote: post #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 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.

Well, yes. Dubai is the Emirates hub. Europe-Australasia is one reason Dubai makes sense as a hub location. In fact one of the (few) redeeming features of travelling to Europe from Australasia is the large number of countries that are about half way, meaning a lot of airline/stopover options.

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

#23

Post by autoreverse » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 3:57 AM UTC

rogerbinns wrote: post #12

jballanc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

FYI according to Wikipedia the "t" longer stands for twin in FFA usage.

"The FAA has decided to use the single term, 'ExTended OPerationS,' or ETOPS, for all affected operations regardless of the number of engines on the airplane."

(my capitalisation)

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

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

#24

Post by saryant » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 4:17 AM UTC

autoreverse wrote: post #23

rogerbinns wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

FYI according to Wikipedia the "t" longer stands for twin in FFA usage. "The FAA has decided to use the single term, 'ExTended OPerationS,' or ETOPS, for all affected operations regardless of the number of engines on the airplane." (my capitalisation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

And colloquially, "engines turn or passengers swim."

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

#25

Post by geoelectric » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 4:40 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #13

guard-of-terra wrote: post #7

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…

OTOH, I took the A380 from SF to France last year and thought it was the quietest, most comfortable plane I'd been on.

Hopefully the same tech advances that hit that plane hit the smaller ones too. That was the first flight where my noise canceling headphones actually seemed somewhat superfluous.

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

#26

Post by josai » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 5:38 AM UTC

jballanc wrote: post #9

shawkinaw wrote: post #3

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…

> all the good ol' 3-engine birds [..] have been put to pasture

.. except in cargo operations, where the MD-11F is all the rage. Cargo is exempt from ETOPS, which is why you see trijets still operating for FedEx, DHL, etc.

edit: I see ubernostrum said almost the exact same thing below! I'll leave the comment, as he/she didn't mention the ETOPS cargo exemption.

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

#27

Post by josai » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 5:56 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #13

guard-of-terra wrote: post #7

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…

> most of those I'll suspect will be converted into cargo within the next 10-15 years

My understanding is that it's currently unsure whether the 380 can be converted to cargo at all. The division of the passenger cabin into 2 decks makes for 3 decks total, which will necessitate installation of internal lifts, at significant cost, weight and complexity.

Well, it'll probably happen, but it will probably push the economics out a bit.

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

#28

Post by josai » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 5:59 AM UTC

billforsternz wrote: post #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 Australi…

> it is cheaper for Emirates to park three A380s in Auckland

I think parking at Sydney is about $15/tonne MTOW - the 380's MTOW is 575 tonnes, so that's a cool $8700/day just to sit there doing nothing.

Even if they lose a few thousand on a half-full flight, it evidently still makes sense.

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

#29

Post by pmontra » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 6:27 AM UTC

"We fill our aeroplanes because of the way we design the interiors, the amount of money we spend on the brand, and [in] getting the job done."

Is this really how people pick an airline? I type in my destination in a web site, sort the options by price, discard the ones with too many or too inconvenient connections, pick the cheaper. The airline is not so important. The plane definitely not, given that on intercontinental routes they are more or less the same and some companies are geographically placed on optimal locations: going from Europe to Australia with one or two stops in a single day basically means flying through the Emirates.

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

#30

Post by darkmighty » Sat, Apr 25, 2015, 6:30 AM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #29

"We fill our aeroplanes because of the way we design the interiors, the amount of money we spend on the brand, and [in] getting the job done." Is this really how people pick an airline? I type in my destination in a web site, sort the options by price, discard the ones with too many or too inconvenient connections, pick the cheaper. The airline is not so important. The plane definitely not, given that on intercontine…

Yes, but the margin on that is already very slim. By selling a single cabin which no one else offers and charging outrageous amounts they compensate for that. At least that's how I would explain it.