Airbus Is Giving Up On the A380 (cnn.com) 206
"It's the end of the line for the biggest passenger jet ever built: the A380 is going to cease production," writes Slashdot reader Required Snark, citing a report from CNN. From the report: The European plane maker said Thursday that it will stop delivering A380s in 2021 after its key customer, Dubai-based airline Emirates, slashed its orders for the huge jetliner. "We have no substantial A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production, despite all our sales efforts with other airlines in recent years," Airbus CEO Tom Enders said in a company statement. The company has delivered 234 of the superjumbos to date, less than a quarter of the 1,200 it predicted it would sell when it first introduced the double-decker aircraft. Its plans were undermined by airlines shifting their interest to lighter, more fuel efficient passenger jets that have reduced the need to ferry passengers between the big hubs. "Passengers all over the world love to fly on this great aircraft. Hence today's announcement is painful for us and the A380 communities worldwide," Enders said. "But keep in mind that A380s will still roam the skies for many years to come and Airbus will of course continue to fully support the A380 operators."
There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.
The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it [flightglobal.com] than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that due to the extreme size and weight of the aircraft most airports required rework to even handle them, so only the biggest/busiest airports dropped the millions and millions of dollars to be able to handle them.
Bottom line is that Airbus bet on the A380, and Boeing bet on the 787. Boeing won the bet...
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Airbus made the same bet with A350. It competes for the same segment as 787.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Thank you for sharing with us that you think that modern passenger aircraft can be developed in a couple of years.
In real world on the other hand, this process requires well over decade in development. Meaning that a350 was in development cycle long before any meaningful information on orders on 787 were available.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Informative)
At least read the Wikipedia entry before accusing us of talking shit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The funniest thing about it is that some of these airlines changed their minds about that and did ask for a modernised A330 after all. Cue the A330neo that now cannibalises a part of the A350 sales.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It must be an absolute nightmare to have such a long, expensive development cycle and supply chain, along with heart-stopping capital costs.
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.
Well the A350, more than the 787 since Boeing made a lot of customers nervous by completely messing up the development of the 787 and also the running of the Charleston assembly line which has led some customers to stipulate they'll only accept aircraft made in Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the 777 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes
Fixed that for you. The 777 was the first ETOPS-180 plane certified as such at launch.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Four engines were initially required for power, then required for collective reliability/failure tolerance for long-haul over water flights. However, four engine pods create substantial additional drag and double your maintenance issues. As power and, especially, reliability have improved, the trend has been toward two very large engines for long haul over water flights. That is a principal reason for the shift from the Boeing 747 to the Boeing 777, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
link [wikipedia.org].
The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB [wikipedia.org] not so much.
That's kind of what I was saying.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally said that the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew and one landing slot had "more efficiency" than four engines with two crews and two landing slots.
That has no relation whatsoever to fuel per mile per passenger seat.
Re: (Score:2)
The A380 doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
The issue for carriers operating the A380 was that the plane needed to fill all the seats to be economical and most flights were operating below capacity (most flights were only half filled). UAE is the biggest customer for the A380. Dubai is the world 3rd busiest airport and still UAE had a hell of a time filling all the seats on their A380s without offering discounted tickets. So what is the point of operating the A380 if, on average, it will be ferrying no more passengers than the A330 or Boeing 777? Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The wings are too heavy, but not just because of the fuel tanks.
They were sized for the stretched A380-900, an aircraft with an almost 100 tons higher maximum take off weight, so they are too sturdy for the A380-800.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. It's okay at London Heathrow or Dubai, where half a dozen of the monsters can be fitted together as they take off and land, but for everywhere else the wake turbulence is an issue that reduces the number of aircraft movements and hence the number of passengers that can be accommodated.
It would be easier in a theoretical world for all the smaller jets (737s and A320s) to use one runway for both takeoffs and landings, and the larger planes to use the other runway, but in the real world that's even more d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is also a move away from direct flights. Direct is faster but more expensive, the cheapest option is usually to have a stop over somewhere.
Luxury carriers like Emirates are more able to handle the higher costs, but the cheaper ones seem to have found that people are willing to add time to their journey to save money.
Unfortunately this has further polarized the market. It used to be that you could save maybe 100-150 Euro by adding an extra hour or two to your long distance 12 hour flight, but now it's
Who says direct is more expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Direct is faster but more expensive.
Obligatory Wendover Productions video. [youtube.com]
And if you don't have 10 minutes to kill, here's the moral of the story: When airplanes are full, direct is always cheaper. You pay for less fuel, less labor, less airplane flight time (maintenance), less airport fees, etc. But the challenge has always been filling seats for low-demand routes. Airport logistics aside, you can't fly an A380 between Raleigh, NC, and Dublin, Ireland, because there's not that much demand. And smaller planes couldn't fly over the Atlantic. Hence the need for the hub-and-spoke model of flying: small planes to and from hubs, and large airplanes between hubs.
But now small airplanes -can- fly over the Atlantic. What Airbus loses in the A380, it gains in the Airbus A220, a.k.a. the Bombardier C-Series. (Another obligatory Wendover Productions video [youtube.com].) Now here's a narrow-body airplane that seats 100-130 passengers that -can- fly across the Atlantic, making direct flights between small markets possible. And as December 2018, Airbus has over 500 orders for the airplane [wikipedia.org], with demand for the airplane continuing to grow. Best yet: Boeing has no competitor to this class of airplane. Airbus has a monopoly on this class of airplane, and it's going to make them rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that was very informative.
Re: Who says direct is more expensive? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There exist non-stop transatlantic flights by A32xLR
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but St. John's NFLD -> LHR is a shorter distance then NYC -> LAX
Re: (Score:2)
https://thepointsguy.com/2018/... [thepointsguy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Best yet: Boeing has no competitor to this class of airplane. Airbus has a monopoly on this class of airplane, and it's going to make them rich.
You're joking right? If you are so knowledgeable about aircraft then you have to know the 737 Max exists. Not only is it the direct competitor to the A220 but the original 737 invented the segment. It also has 10x the number of orders placed. 500 orders isn't bad but it doesn't compare to 5000 orders. Boeing has also delivered more even though it started making the Max later than the A220.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate flying on a 737. Love the design, but hate flying on one. It seems like every time I got on one they had run test models to see how far up my ass they could get the persons feet behind me. The 757 wasn't much better. The best plane I think I have been on was the 767. They has so much room even the airlines hadn't figured out how to fuck it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everywhere - in Australia/Asia, "direct" means no stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to do London to Tokyo via Helsinki, which only added an extra hour or so. But now if you want to pay the kind of prices I could go direct for a decade ago you have to go via South Korea or Hong Kong or Poland. A 12 hour flight became 13 hours via Finland and now 22 hours via SK in the best case.
Oh, and you have to change airports in SK, and the train ticket machine doesn't take credit cards, as I discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there are similar problems in Thailand, BKK.
Two airports and connecting flights, especially domestic ones are on the other one, and via bus etc. it takes abut 1h (good traffic) to +2h (bad traffic).
Oh, and you have to change airports in SK, and the train ticket machine doesn't take credit cards, as I discovered.
That is why I don't change back my local money - unless it is in the range of $50 or more - I keep it for the next trip
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Carry some cash. Got it. I'm about to start doing some work for a company. I'll be flying out of Sanfran to Tokyo a few times a year and a couple of times to SK. I'll be flying out on U.S. based airlines so I'm kind of not looking forward to the hell involved. My flights will be on the company dime and the way that usually works out they would ship my ass baggage class if that was an option.
I'm dreading these flights so much I'm actually thinking about looking my ex-wife and seeing if I can
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. I'll look into that when it starts happening.
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The problem is that it has got four engines. Two modern twin engined planes can carry more passengers with better fuel economy to more airports with more flexibility. The Boeing 747-8 has also bombed, at least in the passenger carrying market and for the same reason: nobody wants four engined aircraft anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
The fuel economy is incorrect, but the flexibility is quite on point. The A380 certainly has better fuel economy than 2x twin engine aircraft. The sheer size of the A380's engines is one of the things driving this, larger engines (physically with higher air bypass on the turbo fan) are more fuel efficient up to a certain point (which has yet to be reached).
But your flexibility thing is key. The point is not to carry more passengers to the same destination. For that the A380 is the undisputed king in cost an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is a market for huge planes, in theory (Score:5, Interesting)
The design of the Airbus A380 started, when oil was comparatively cheap, at the end of the 1990ies. At this time, cost for the flight crew and the landing slots were more important, causing the flight operators to look for the largest capacity possible to haul as much passengers with as few planes as possible. This was the heyday of the hub-and-spoke approach, where as many passengers as possible were carried to a few but large airports, which were connected to each other with very large vessels. In this environment, the A380 totally made sense, as the big plane to fly the backbone routes of the international flight network.
More fuel efficient planes made it economical to connect medium sized airports directly without going through a large hub. And here, you don't need the large capacities, slot prices are lower, so you can offset the higher crew cost of operating more planes. For those relations, the A380 is simply too large and not fuel efficient enough, and its demands on the airport infrastructure are too high. So the number of relation it can operate economically is shrinking. And higher oil prices caused the cost of fuel per seat to increase, and the more efficient planes are flying cheaper even when you need more crew for more planes. And with their lower operating costs on ground for service, they even compete successfully on the few remaining large capacity relations the A380 was designed for.
The cost analysis (Score:3)
Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.
There is FAR more to the cost equation than capacity constraints for takeoffs/landings at a handful of airports.
The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane.
The article you linked to is from 2005. That might be a problem with the A380 but it's not even near the top of the list of the reasons why it is struggling economically. The A380 is designed for long flights between big hubs. Smaller more fuel efficient planes, low cost point-to-point airlines, minimal number of economically viable routes for such a big aircraft, cost of airport modifications
Re: (Score:2)
Not an impossible or even difficult logistical problem, especially considering any airport that services an A380 has plenty other heavy category planes that aren't as impacted. It's what airports do. And extra minute, and that's all it is for say a 777, to wait to get another 400+ people off the ground is something the airports would take all day long.
The problem is there really isn't a market for this plane. You can't justify the costs of the plane and infrastructure when a percentage of your flights legs
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.
The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it [flightglobal.com] than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.
Only for airports that are congested, sadly this is London Heathrow with only two parallel runways and is the 7th busiest airport int he world.
The Wake Turbulence Class (WTC) of the A380 isn't the biggest issue however, the A380 was designed for flights between hubs that could handle it. The problem is that an A380 cant fit inside a normal airport gate (the bit with the boarding jetway) so this limited the number of airports it could land at more than its WTC.
The A380 is a fantastic aircraft to fly, m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The A380 makes no business sense. Smaller aircraft are fuel efficient. Airlines do not like the mega craft because they want to also adjust the capacity for different routes. With A380, they are stuck with this huge plane they cannot fill and they cannot adjust to the changing market conditions. The idea that launching a single A380 rather than several smaller planes would be appealing proved wrong. It makes things more inefficient for the consumer who has to wait longer for a flight and cannot schedul
Re: (Score:2)
While that might be a problem, I don’t think that’s the main reason the a380 isn’t a success. One main reason I can see that most airports today can’t handle the landing or boarding requirements thus restricting which routes it can be flown. The second one is that the 4 engines are not as fuel efficient as 2 engine planes thus airlines are limited in scheduling in order to make a profit. The last problem is that Airbus is ever made a freight variant and can’t sell to freight co
Re: (Score:2)
changing topic here, some years ago Aviation Week had a four page foldout ad for the 380. It showed how it will have showers and a shopping mall like they have on cruise ships. It reminded me of how 747 was first visioned as the top floor would be a bar with a live band (some of those early flights had these, and passengers required to seventies polyester fashions). I saved that magazine because though only illustrations (380 was still in design/development) it would be humorous years from now of "what were
Re: (Score:2)
Having witnessed an airport that went from almost exclusively B737 / A320s to a 50/50 mix of those and B777 / A330s, I hate to tell you that airport capacity is much more than the number of planes the runway and gates can handle. Airports also need to upgrade their parking, check-in counters, restaurants, security scanners, immigration desks (if international) and seating areas inside the terminal if they are going to handle more passengers. It ends up being just as easy to build another terminal and per
Good news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news. The hub-and-spoke model needs to die a quick death. If that means taking impressive planes like the A380 with it, so be it. You haven't known anxiety unless you have been subjected to the experience of running around the airport with your handbag trying to catch the second leg of your flight (after the first leg has been delayed) because the flight after the one you are about to miss is scheduled for tomorrow at 6:30AM.
Sorry, but that's not going to happen. While in some unusual circumstances you might see something like a Des Moines to Reno flight come out of nowhere, you aren't realistically going to see Des Moines suddenly get flights to places the hubs service like, say, Santa Fe, New Mexico. This will have almost no impact on the hub system. International travel and smaller, less popular US destinations will still have to use the hub and spoke model. And by the way, under the old system some of the flights were
Re: (Score:2)
Don't take the last flight of the day.
Also, we need more high speed trains to get people to and from the hubs, so if you miss a local flight due to a delay or weather grounding the flight, you can take the train instead. This may kill the shorter flights (in turn killing the hub-and-spoke model), but those are the flights the airlines don't much care for [sfexaminer.com] anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Happened to me once, and it wasn't poor planning on my part.
Flying from DC (DCA) to Los Angeles (LAX) via Atlanta (thanks, Delta!).
Plane was 2 hours late arriving at DCA, making it obviously 2 hours late in ATL. And of course, the connection was at the other end of the terminal. I was running through the airport and missed the flight by five minutes. Fortunately, the gate agent at DCA had booked me a backup reservation on the next ATL-LAX flight. Turns out she bumped me up to first class in the proc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hub-and-spoke seems mostly dead to me already in Europe.
High-speed rail to get to / from an international airport, direct flight between airports in between.
Domestic airports (unless kept alive via heavy subsidies by local politicians than can't stand the loss of "their" airport) have reverted back into airfields for hobby pilots. In 2024, new EU regulation comes into effect, placing limits on subsidies given to airports (subsidies will only be allowed for investments then, but no longer for operating costs
Less than a third? That's generous! (Score:3)
Those of us who are better at math know that 234 is slightly less than a FIFTH of 1200. Airbus, 19.5% is way below the "passing" threshold.
Passengers may love it (Score:2)
But passengers do not love to fly the routes that the A380 is economical to fly on.
Not to mention that passengers are NOT the customers for this plane, airlines are.
Re: (Score:2)
Small Regional Airports from 1980s Deregulation (Score:2)
Aviation technology seems to be regressing (Score:2)
To me personally the golden age of air travel was the early Seventies. Everyday passengers could enjoy the mass comfort of three competing widebodies, while wealthy early adopters could go supersonic on the Concorde. Now both the widebody and supersonic options are gone, and seats keep getting smaller. Even the speed of the average large commercial craft has declined from 600 mph to 500-550.
The plane the airlines really like now is the 737. Although it was designed for short domestic flights by carriers lik
Re: (Score:2)
... drop tanks on the wings, and room for perhaps 50 passengers ...
Do you mean this room for extra 50 passengers would be on the wings? Well, would not be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
To me personally the golden age of air travel was the early Seventies. Everyday passengers could enjoy the mass comfort of three competing widebodies, while wealthy early adopters could go supersonic on the Concorde.
You mean back in the 1970's when the government mandated that flights costs three to five times more in inflation adjusted dollars. [theatlantic.com] You can still get that service, just fly first class which provides those same amenities at those 1970's prices. Also, those supersonic flights weren't really that comfortable [cnn.com] - the seats were cramped, and it was super noisy - the only redeeming grace was that you saved an hour or two on your flight, and you could brag that you had the money to blow on such a "luxury."
Re: (Score:2)
The A380, frankly, is designed for a time when airline reservations were still handled with punch cards.
And a good part of your trip schedule wasn't taken up by standing in TSA lines.
Same reason the Concorde will never be re-borne (in anything like its present configuration). Pay big bucks to shave a couple hours off a flight. And then spend them getting strip-searched. And it's not always about getting there faster. It's about getting there NOW. Which is more important to the wealthy and business people most likely to foot the bill for the expensive ticket. One flight per day just isn't going to cut it. If
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna get somewhere now? Then teleconference.
I know people who think nothing of jumping on a plane to Paris to do some shopping over a weekend.
And then there's high level business execs who believe in showing up in person to make deals. Warren Buffet famously resisted owning a business jet, preferring to fly commercial. Until time and business pressure forced him to buy one (which he originally named "The Indefensible", having criticized other's private jets).
No business spends the money
Quite often, its the owners of businesses that make the decision to charter a flight. Or own
The Industry is doing Great!! (Score:3)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30... [cnn.com]
Too big & limited (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-1 Try again.
Hint: stick to one point per sentence, and avoid hyperbole.
Re:So the industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Unintended consequences.
Efficienty and being green is just hot air.
Forget fuel costs, A380 is not that different. Landing fees are the profit killer, especially where there are no near alternatives in curfew zones.
Airports first raised landing fees for A380, as fewer landings was not what was wanted, and lowered fees elsewhere. Ouch.
Interest rates dropped to record lows - so more aircraft became affordable.
Then seat packing and extra rows in the smaller places were accepted by stupid flyers.
Then new airports were built or expanded, keeping the lid on per pax fees, worked against A380.
Airport security also killed 380's too - imagine if standby flights could come back? Peak screening times rose.
It seems blockbuster longhaul A380 is king - The Haj, CNY and Christmas peak periods when all airport slots are full (and airport wishing more 380's).
When A380's stop being made, watch greedy airport monoplies hike two engine jet landing fees again - because they can.
Doesn't matter anyway (Score:3)
We will all be taking High Speed rail everywhere in the next 10 years, even across the Atlantic.
Airliners will be a relic of the past. /s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Occasional-Cortex, are you on slashdot now?
Re: (Score:2)
"/s"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.
However I have found it to be the most comfortable ride when crossing the Pacific. Upstairs in business class. It's very quiet, spacious and smooth.
Re: (Score:3)
Carpool in a car, yes - but not necessarily to carpool in a car to the nearest carpool hub - over an hour away, where you then board a carpool bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing vindicated (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, Boeing guessed correctly and explicitly stated that their forecast for the entire global market for super jumbos like the A380 to be around 250 planes in total IIRC. So their forecast proved to be spot on. The market wasn't worth competing for, and they let Airbus have it, knowing that it wasn't worth the investment.
Airbus isn't interested so much in profit as it is in being a european jobs program.
Re: (Score:2)
So Boeing guessed correctly
Boeing by and large designs the market. And convinces airline execs and airport operators of what it is that they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I like the E-jets a lot - far nicer to fly on than 737s. I hope Boeing doesn't screw them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not just looking at it. Boeing designed the 747-8 which was a total failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't even deny that you are right on these examples. I'm coming to realize that even the way you build framed houses can be... less poverish feeling?... if it is done correctly.
As always in life, things go to hell when too many corners are cut.
Re: (Score:2)
We have clean diesel technology since 30 or even 40 years. ... you inject water into the burning chamber and reduce fuel usage by 50% and emissions (obviously except CO2 and some NOx) by 95%.
But the vendors don't want to shift. It is called "water injection"
We have some ships on the river Rhine doing it since ages, but as fuel is to cheap to bother, there is no pressure on the vendors to change. It would even work in a small car.
See this one: https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]
There are plenty of other system
Re: (Score:2)
But when it comes to political correctness, your truck is miles behind a Prius. Go and cry on the naughty step!
Re: (Score:2)
But, when I consider riding behind that "clean diesel" truck, I'd prefer that it be shoved up your rear. I have yet to see one of the smaller diesels over a couple years old that don't spew half-burnt kerosene out the back whenever the temperature drops below freezing. And don't give us the noise about how clean and well maintained YOUR vehicle is unless you have the exhaust piped to exit in front of you while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
When you consider wall-to-wall environmental impact between my diesel truck and a prius, there is no comparison. My truck wins hands down.
Only for the first ~3 years.
Drive them longer than that, and the Prius wins.
Re: Another European white elephant.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that the 747 was designed to be a primarily a freighter. Boeing thought that at the time passenger flights were all going to go supersonic in a few years, and the passenger version of the 747 would be a short-lived variant and after that it would be all freighter sales. That's also why they never went through with creating a full double-decker version of the 747 since they figured the development effort would be wasted because supersonic was right around the corner anyway and a double-decker fr
There's more...please take note... (Score:2)
Boeing with its longer range smaller plane nullified the advantage without incurring the disadvantages of the huge size.
Boeings military contracts help a lot. [washingtonexaminer.com]
At least $60 Billion expected according to that link. If it were not for these, Boeing would be in trouble too.
Re: (Score:2)
The 4-engined airliners definitely need more separation. The 747 and A380 need more separation than the 777. Relaxed ETOPS allowing more efficient twin-engined airliners to fly across the pacific is what really killed the A380 (and the A340, and the 747-8 for that matter).