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

A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#241

Post by mixmastamyk »

youngtaff wrote: post #187
mixmastamyk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC to London presumably could still support the larger plane.

There's something like 70 London to New York flights a day so in theory yes from a passenger numbers PoV it could support the A380 once there's terminal infrastructure. But one of the reasons BA run so many flights (10?) a day is so that customers have choice and flexibility - it's not unknown for people to book business or first class seats on multiple flights in the same day so they can fly earlier if their schedul…

Sure, there is convenience to having multiple flights a day. However, over say a half-dozen, diminishing returns kick in.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#242

Post by orginal__idear »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Flying in a larger aircraft makes one feel less like cargo, in particularly for airlines that offer places to stretch your legs (e.g. "bar" seating, showers, staircases, etc). I was always kind of secretly hoping large blimps would return. And we'd get to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat…

I faked a leg injury to get on first the one and only time I've been on an A380. Took the opportunity to walk around the craft... when I got to the back spiral staircases the immense size kinda hit me.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#243

Post by wenc »

lizknope wrote: post #109
xnyan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of cool reason: there are now planes with smaller capacities (think around 100 passengers) and are efficient to operate over long hauls. Up to very recently the economics of air-travel dictated that long flights (e.g. USA to Europe)be on planes as big as possible and this plus other reasons meant flights to Paris are available from big cities like New York but not small to moderate metro areas like Raleigh,…

I've been flying Raleigh to London nonstop every 2 or 3 years since 1995. I don't know if there is a direct to Paris flight.

There's one (on DL) but it doesn't fly daily until peak season.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#244

Post by bobthepanda »

apapli wrote: post #215
bobthepanda wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boom and others are trying to re-enter the supersonic space with smaller jets. The main problem with Concorde was that it couldn't fill up seats at the ticket prices being charged, and transatlantic subsonic flights were both more comfortable at the equivalent ticket price, and at the flying time sweet spot of 6-8 hours, which is long enough to just sleep and wake up in the morning. Had SSTs come of age in the '80s a…

The accidents didn’t help either, right? I like the idea of Boom, but would much prefer the engineering from either Airbus or Boeing. I think all this talk “MVP” and startups so often in the same sentence over nearly a decade now makes me worried that Boom won’t have enough resources to achieve anything less than an exceptional job with regards to safety. And my life isn’t worth risking to save a few hours of travel…

The FAA doesn't hand out flight certifications like candy. I wouldn't be worried too much.

Concorde's only fatal accident was a result of running over debris that punctured the fuel tank and burst a tire, so it wasn't necessarily any issue with the plane itself. Conveniently enough, this also happened near the EOL of the plane, right before a recession and 9/11.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#245

Post by getalyft »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #203
EdwardDiego wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair though, according to Seatguru.com, Lufthansa are the most 'efficient' in terms of seating - that is, you will have the least leg-room etc. on a Lufthansa flight. The precise airplane model doesn't matter, they always have the least space for a passenger. Bonus for when you press the steward summons button and an angry balding German steward (who nonetheless has a ponytail) turns up half an hour later and d…

I know this is anecdotal but it made me chuckle because this was exactly my experience as well. There is barely enough legroom for me (and I'm not all that tall, 185 cm or 6'1" in freedom units), and I managed to spill a bit of coffee by accident since I basically have to play tetris with my limbs. Up comes a strict German stewardess and proceeds to berate me saying that "it's a brand new carpet, just installed last…

I remember being parked at the gate on a Lufthansa flight. The passenger next to me was on her cell phone finishing up a call. An angry stewardess marched over to yell at her for being on the phone and said "It is against German law!". The passenger, being a New Yorker, she just said "We're not in Germany honey". I thought they were going to drag her off the plane, but the stewardess marched off in a huff. I avoid Lufthansa whenever I can. They are usually overpriced, and they confuse Teutonic efficiency with customer service.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#246

Post by tropo »

jpatokal wrote: post #137
tropo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flights aren't so long in the 747 though, because it is faster.

Not so: while the 747 is notionally faster in terms of maximum speed, most modern large jets all cruise at March 0.85. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/which-passe...

Of course one can fly slower. The 747 is still capable of 0.92 for most variants and 0.9 for the 747-8. Other passenger jets can't do that.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#247

Post by SkyMarshal »

ggm wrote: post #142
daurnimator wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 787 is a compromised experience in the air. Why do you say that?

Dense seating in economy, is the sole reason. The airlines decided to ignore the Premium trend, and made economy basic as densely packed as they can, and provide limited premium economy to guarantee it had high margin and was full. So, business and premium on a 787 is great, but economy is really really tragically bad, as a long-haul experience. 787 for shorthaul, nobody cares. Ask anyone who sits in the cheap class…

To each their own, I suppose, but fwiw I love the 787, even economy, for longhaul. I fly a mix of longhaul business and economy, depending on who's paying. When I get off a 787 at the end with no noticeable jetlag, it's pretty amazing. And that's the part of the experience I tend to remember, along with how much I was able to get done on the flight due to no dehydration-induced fuzzy-brain. By comparison, I don't even notice slightly less room.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#248

Post by youngtaff »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #241
youngtaff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something like 70 London to New York flights a day so in theory yes from a passenger numbers PoV it could support the A380 once there's terminal infrastructure. But one of the reasons BA run so many flights (10?) a day is so that customers have choice and flexibility - it's not unknown for people to book business or first class seats on multiple flights in the same day so they can fly earlier if their schedul…

Sure, there is convenience to having multiple flights a day. However, over say a half-dozen, diminishing returns kick in.

Well BA run 12 flights a day between London and NYC (9 from Heathrow, 1 each from City and Gatwick) and it seems to work for them.

They're catering to the people traveling business class who want flexibility and it seems to work for them - they run something like 86 biz class seats and only 140ish economy on some flights

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#249

Post by toomuchtodo »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #203
EdwardDiego wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair though, according to Seatguru.com, Lufthansa are the most 'efficient' in terms of seating - that is, you will have the least leg-room etc. on a Lufthansa flight. The precise airplane model doesn't matter, they always have the least space for a passenger. Bonus for when you press the steward summons button and an angry balding German steward (who nonetheless has a ponytail) turns up half an hour later and d…

I know this is anecdotal but it made me chuckle because this was exactly my experience as well. There is barely enough legroom for me (and I'm not all that tall, 185 cm or 6'1" in freedom units), and I managed to spill a bit of coffee by accident since I basically have to play tetris with my limbs. Up comes a strict German stewardess and proceeds to berate me saying that "it's a brand new carpet, just installed last…

While terrible customer service, I can appreciate the steward’s care for the equipment.

Re: A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

#250

Post by daurnimator »

ggm wrote: post #142
daurnimator wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 787 is a compromised experience in the air. Why do you say that?

Dense seating in economy, is the sole reason. The airlines decided to ignore the Premium trend, and made economy basic as densely packed as they can, and provide limited premium economy to guarantee it had high margin and was full. So, business and premium on a 787 is great, but economy is really really tragically bad, as a long-haul experience. 787 for shorthaul, nobody cares. Ask anyone who sits in the cheap class…

> Dense seating in economy, is the sole reason

On the Qantas 787 (which I fly regularly MELSFO) the seats in economy are IMO better than the A380 (which I used to fly MELLAX)

787 economy has 32 inch pitch; 17.2inch width: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qantas_Airways/Qantas_Airw...

A380 economy has 31 inch pitch; 17.5inch width: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Qantas_Airways/Qantas_Airw...

Post reply on HN