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

61–70 of 254 posts

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

#61

Post by asdfadsfgfdda »

sxates wrote: post #59
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,…

Is there an issue with congestion into major airports like New York and London with more smaller planes instead of fewer larger planes? An A380 type plane holds about 3x the number of people as the mid-sized ones right? Fewer takeoffs and landings would be another benefit.

An A380 is in the highest wake turbulence category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence), requiring more separation from other airplanes in-flight. There are other issues that may reduce the advantage of an A380 over smaller aircraft, like taxiway width limitation and runway weight limitations.

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

#62

Post by protomyth »

mikece wrote: post #48
Someone1234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 af…

Has Boeing stopped making 747-8F (freighter)? It was my understanding that a slower build rate of 747-8F would continue. Back in 2012 Boeing touted that half of all air freight was being moved by 747s [1]; I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Airbus would make a freighter version of the A380 to exploit it's greater lift capacity. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121011082258/http://www.boeing...

For cargo, the 747 variants are doing ok. The A380 has some problems with being a cargo plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJrg7j8Uag

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

#63

Post by cameldrv »

Xixi wrote: post #44
akfanta wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Lower cost/passenger, called CASM (Cost Per Available Seat Mile) only gets you so far without taking into account the other side of the equation: RASM (Revenue Per Available Seat Mile). Empty seats and heavily discounted tickets are not good for business. The more seats, the lower CASM, but also the lower RASM. Double deckers are very efficient by design, but the newest airliners are nearly as efficient as (or even m…

This is ultimately the equation. There are not very many routes that you can fill up an A380 on without cutting ticket prices enough to get people to change their schedule. Add to that:

1. It takes a long time to load that many people, so it only makes sense on long routes.

2. You need special facilities at the airport: bigger taxiways, special gates, large waiting areas, extra customs officials. This cuts into the profits.

3. Since there are so few routes, you won't have many 380s, but you still need a set of pilots trained on them, plus a reserve in case people get sick, can't make it to the airport, etc. That reserve crew isn't shared with your other smaller aircraft, so it's an additional expense. The same thing goes for maintenance.

4. Much of the theoretical fuel and maintenance economies of scale you get from flying a larger aircraft are lost with four engines instead of two.

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

#64

Post by dingaling »

mikece wrote: post #39
stanski wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Airships couldn't fly great-circle routes of shortest distance, so the actual distance would be much longer. They did pressure-flying, skirting around weather formations like a helicopter flying through mountains. Sometimes they could get a slingshot by riding a wind as it flowed from a high.

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

#65

Post by dingaling »

FigBug wrote: post #31
akfanta wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not particularly; most growth is still at hubs

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

#66

Post by mixmastamyk »

sxates wrote: post #59
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,…

Is there an issue with congestion into major airports like New York and London with more smaller planes instead of fewer larger planes? An A380 type plane holds about 3x the number of people as the mid-sized ones right? Fewer takeoffs and landings would be another benefit.

NYC to London presumably could still support the larger plane.

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

#67

Post by jpatokal »

mikeash wrote: post #46
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…

The 777 is still doing pretty well, isn’t it? I’ve never been in an A380, but I’ve flown the 747 and 787 and there was no real difference in the experience.

I'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights.

Also, most airlines are now buying 787s and A350s instead of 777s.

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

#68

Post by radicalbyte »

0xffff2 wrote: post #54
bdamm wrote: post #13

The A380 and 747 are both remarkable aircraft, but I love my direct flights to all major cities within 1000 miles, and many beyond that. Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to, until it takes 30 minutes to fly instead of 3 hours to drive. And with so many airports linking up mass transi…

>Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to (All) electric airliners are unlikely to exist commercially without a fundamental breakthrough in energy storage technology. Even hybrid-electric systems are only barely viable as a research area right now, and they are decades away from commercia…

Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen) going to be viable for flying within a reasonable timeframe?

Whilst I expect that short-haul flights will be replaced by high-speed trains we're still going to need planes for intercontinental travel.

EasyJet are hoping to have electric planes covering the London-Amsterdam route in 2030: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-ea....

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

#69

Post by Xixi »

cameldrv wrote: post #63
Xixi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower cost/passenger, called CASM (Cost Per Available Seat Mile) only gets you so far without taking into account the other side of the equation: RASM (Revenue Per Available Seat Mile). Empty seats and heavily discounted tickets are not good for business. The more seats, the lower CASM, but also the lower RASM. Double deckers are very efficient by design, but the newest airliners are nearly as efficient as (or even m…

This is ultimately the equation. There are not very many routes that you can fill up an A380 on without cutting ticket prices enough to get people to change their schedule. Add to that: 1. It takes a long time to load that many people, so it only makes sense on long routes. 2. You need special facilities at the airport: bigger taxiways, special gates, large waiting areas, extra customs officials. This cuts into the p…

On point 4: four engines have some disadvantages, but in terms of fuel consumption the difference is within 1% or 2% of two engines. The issue has more to do with maintenance, and reliability: with two extra engines, you are that much more likely to have one going tech and be grounded.

EDIT: interesting link, that contradicts some of what I say above: https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...

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

#70

Post by bluGill »

sxates wrote: post #59
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,…

Is there an issue with congestion into major airports like New York and London with more smaller planes instead of fewer larger planes? An A380 type plane holds about 3x the number of people as the mid-sized ones right? Fewer takeoffs and landings would be another benefit.

I would guess that the congestion advantage goes to more smaller planes. Those from NC no longer go to NYC as a stop over when they can take a direct flight, that means the plane from NC to NYC doesn't need to be scheduled to arrive and unload in time for everyone to get the the large plane, and reload as soon as everyone from the large plane gets to the small one. Instead the only people on that plane from NC want to be in NYC and so the plane can arrive anytime so you can schedule them to arrive at different times.

That is the hub and spoke model requires the airport to have bursts of busy times as everyone tries to reach their plane at once. With smaller planes you can spread thing out more.

Post reply on HN