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

31–40 of 254 posts

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

#31

Post by FigBug »

akfanta wrote: post #22
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 totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

Hub and spoke model is getting replaced by point to point model.

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

#32

Post by _ph_ »

I am not giving up on the A380 yet! :) While it might be more profitable for the airlines to use the large 2-engined planes on more direct routes, air traffic is still increasing. Yet, most international airports already are operating at their capacity. So I wonder when the point is reached, where it is no longer possible to add more flights to increase the passenger count. Then, larger airplanes would be needed.

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

#33

Post by diebeforei485 »

dboreham wrote: post #20
diebeforei485 wrote: post #12

In hindsight, it's telling that even the biggest A380 operator didn't actually buy the plane themselves - they leased it through various special-purpose vehicles which were then sliced into various investment portfolios. Goldman Sachs is one investment bank that set up some of the structures for this - https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/G...

Isn't this kind of financial engineering SOP for all sorts of large assets since decades?

Except that the issuer of the security is the lessor in this case, not the airline. The airline can just give the plane back to Doric after the 12-year lease period (which ends in 2020-2021 for the first batch of aircraft), and let Doric deal with the investors.

This is in contrast to, say, recent deals by United Airlines Inc, where the airline (or its related party, such as its parent holding company United Continental Holdings Inc) was the entity issuing the security.

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

#34

Post by Someone1234 »

akfanta wrote: post #22
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 totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

It is a well known fact. The 747-8 and A380 have collapsed in terms of new orders and both companies have acknowledge they lack a way forward.

To quote Boeing president of marketing Randy Tinseth:

> We don’t see significant demand for passenger 747-8s or A380s

The last major order for the 747-8 (28 aircraft) was in 2016 and 2014 for the A380 (13 aircraft). Enough to keep production alive for another few years, but after that it is unclear. And even then many of those are for cargo/freight, not people.

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

#35

Post by sandworm101 »

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…

Blimps were never like that. The modern understanding of blimp travel is based on a handful of hollywood movies, the filming of which came nowhere near any real blimp.

The amount of helium/hydrogen necessary to lift a small apartment is immense. Then, if you are going to spend day in the air, all the water. It would almost certainly easier/cheaper/cleaner to provide a similar service inside a jet for a few hours than inside a blimp for a few days. So if you cannot afford the jet today, you wouldn't afford the blimp either.

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

#36

Post by Someone1234 »

stanski wrote: post #27
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…

To be fair, the time difference between a jet airline and blimp would be a lot bigger than 3 times or so. 7 hour in a metal tube vs 5 days in a blimp sounds more realistic.

I'm not sure there's value in debating that. It is a hypothetical blimp that doesn't exist.

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

#37

Post by foldr »

code4tee wrote: post #19
macspoofing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).

It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum when new designers were using composites. Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.

>For example aluminum when new designers were using composites

The A380 makes pretty extensive use of composites. It's only conservative in this respect compared to the Dreamliner.

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

#38

Post by nradov »

akfanta wrote: post #22
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 totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?

Engines, engine maintenance, and fuel are a huge expense for airlines. Twin engine airplanes can only scale up so far. When designers have to add four engines that drives costs way up and efficiency goes down.

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

#39

Post by mikece »

stanski wrote: post #27
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…

To be fair, the time difference between a jet airline and blimp would be a lot bigger than 3 times or so. 7 hour in a metal tube vs 5 days in a blimp sounds more realistic.

Cruising speed in an A380: 560 mph (900 km/h) [1] Cruising speed of the Hindenburg: 76 mph (125 km/h) [2]

That's a multiplier of 7.2, though the shorter the flight the more pronounced an airship's time to reach cruising speed and come back down from cruising speed will factor into the overall ratio. And this assumes we can't make airships go faster than the Hindenburg (is 155mph/300km/h unreasonable?).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Specifications [2] https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/size-speed/

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

#40

Post by Xixi »

code4tee wrote: post #19
macspoofing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).

It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum when new designers were using composites. Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.

That's not completely true: the A380 is using composite extensively, more so than any aircraft built before (A330/340 or Boeing 777), although less than either Boeing 787 or A350. The problem of the A380 really boils down to one thing: it's too big.

Other than its size, the A380 is still surprisingly efficient despite engines that are largely outdated (compared to 787/A350 engines). But double deckers are very efficient by design, so maybe it's not that surprising. I think the only airliners more efficient currently flying (in terms of fuel per passenger, with normalized density/layout) are the A350-1000 and 787-10 (though one could argue the latter is more of a mid-range aircraft, so not directly comparable). The 777-9 will also beat it. Even more surprising when realizing that the A380 is in fact a shrink: there was supposed to be an even bigger (longer) version, so it's overbuilt (read: overweight) for its size.

But empty seats (or seats sold at very high discount, or a low seat count because the airline knows it's not going to sell that many tickets to begin with) don't make it economically viable on most routes out there. Besides Emirates only British Airways seems very happy with them. Even the 777-9 is starting to feel like it's too big, with very few airlines ordering it. Even the smaller A350-1000 is not raking in orders...

Post reply on HN