Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses

Covid-19 Killed the Era of 'Big' Flying (engadget.com) 106

Posted by msmash from the end-of-road dept.
COVID-19 has shattered the aviation industry, with nations closing their borders and banning all but essential travel. A world where people could hop from country to country is now one where empty planes travel to maintain contractual obligations. Major carriers, including American, IAG, Delta and Lufthansa have all asked for government bailouts. From a report: One airline that will receive a substantial amount of taxpayer cash is Air France-KLM, which will get around $17 billion worth of help. That figure comes with conditions, including that the Franco-Dutch conglomerate cuts its CO2 emissions and buys gear from the France-based Airbus. Airbus is, of course, one of the world's two major aircraft manufacturers, the other being the US-based Boeing. But, even now, it's not clear that any quantity of cash will be enough to see flying return to the levels seen in 2019. Whatever we were used to, in terms of cost, convenience and experience, it's not going to be the same for a while. Just last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said that only 45 percent of travelers asked intended to fly "within a few months of the pandemic subsiding."

Perhaps the biggest casualty of COVID-19 so far has been the Airbus A380 and the flying it represented. This "superjumbo" jet, competition for the Boeing 747, was designed to offer mass transit in the skies, to convey huge volumes of people around the world in its double-decker cabin and a potential capacity of more than 850. Work on the A380 began in the early '90s, with the first vessel entering service in 2007, and it's instantly recognizable. Less a plane and more like a bus, it hauls people between major hub airports, where they get a single-aisle craft to their destination. The idea of air travel, back at the A380's genesis, was that you'd fly to, say, JFK, and then get an A380 to Cape Town, Paris or Shanghai. A number of carriers have A380s, but it's become synonymous with Emirates, which has a staggering 115 of the craft in its fleet. But despite the plane's relative youth, launching just over a decade ago, the virus has hastened the A380's demise. Airbus announced last year it would stop manufacturing the plane, and according to Bloomberg, even Emirates, its biggest booster, no longer wants its remaining deliveries.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Covid-19 Killed the Era of 'Big' Flying More

Covid-19 Killed the Era of 'Big' Flying

Comments Filter:
  • Most data points to a 4 to 5 year recovery of consumer confidence and flight levels seen in 2019.

  • More Covid hype (Score:4, Informative)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @07:55PM (#60232760) Homepage Journal

    COVID killed the A380? IT LITERALLY SAYS IN THE SUMMARY: "Airbus announced last year it would stop manufacturing the plane"
     
    Jesus Christ. Everyone has gone nuts over this virus.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 )
      The link to Covid is tenuous as the A380 was on it’s way out long before.

      • Whats more relevant than the A380s demise is the tenuous position that Boeing is in with the 777X - one of its few major customers for the type just told both Airbus and Boeing it wouldnt be accepting any deliveries for at least the next 2 years, which puts 777X early airframes in a very precarious position.

        Emirates is also rethinking its 777X buy, which could kill the type altogether before its first delivery.

      • The link to Covid is tenuous as the A380 was on itâ(TM)s way out long before.

        I agree. Even TFS agrees, when it says Airbus announced they'd stop building the planes LAST YEAR. You remember last year, right? Before covid-19 was an issue?

    • Re:More Covid hype (Score:5, Informative)

      by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @08:24PM (#60232846)

      Yeah, the A380 had been a dead man walking practically since its introduction. COVID-19 had nothing to do with the fact that no one wanted to buy the damn thing (Emirates represented half the total production sales), and that Airbus had begun losing money on every A380 sold. Then on top of that, they back-burnered the freighter variant, which might actually have been an aircraft that would sell.

      Airbus severely misjudged the market for the A380 long before the first one flew 15 years ago. Unless we've got some time-traveling viruses, I don't see how that had anything to do with it.

      • About all the A380 was good for was an all economy configuration for Hajj flights, which is why it was popular with Middle Eastern carriers

        • No, it was regionally popular because it had above-first-class suites where they could bring their whole families and slaves and everything and have privacy.

        • I disagree - Dubai to Sydney or Auckland is a fantastic experience on an A380, while on a 777 its much less enjoyable. Emirates A380s have possibly the best Business Class offering on Europe-Australasia routes out of all their competitors.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dfm3 ( 830843 )

            ...Sydney or Auckland is a fantastic experience on an A380....Business Class

            That's the catch. For the rest of us who for financial reasons have to fly coach/economy, they're not very fun for those 16+ hour flights. For example, if you're not first off the plane, the 380 can cause huge backups at customs when 500+ passengers show up simultaneously.

            Granted, I'll give you that they're a major step up from the noisy (but iconic) 747 and the old DC-10. And still a little more roomy than the 787 for long haul flights, which have a more narrow fuselage... but on which carriers still (aga

            • Yeah business class is more like executive class. In 35 years of business travel I have yet to have authorization for even economy+.

              Iâ(TM)m curious how long an A380 takes to load and unload, assuming that as with other models everyone has to go through a single door.

        • About all the A380 was good for was an all economy configuration for Hajj flights, which is why it was popular with Middle Eastern carriers

          That is not factually true. 1) Middle Eastern carriers have first class and business class for the A380. Emirates Air [emirates.com] First class had access to a shower. Etihad Airways offered a 3-room suite the called The Residence [iflya380.com] Qatar Airways [qatarairways.com] has a lounge for first and business class passengers on the A380.

          2) The reason it was popular with Middle Eastern countries is that those countries still follow the hub-and-spoke model for which the A380 was designed. If you are flying to these countries, you have to fly to the hu

      • Re:More Covid hype (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kurkosdr ( 2378710 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @10:26PM (#60233140)
        In all fairness, this is the kind of industry where you have to predict where the market will be 15 years from now. The A380 project existed as a concept since 1989 or so, back when the phrase "flag carrier airline" didn't even sound quaint. Airbus simply couldn't predict the age of deregulation, the rise of all these low-cost airlines offering point-to-point connections and the hub-and-spoke model (that the A380 was designed to serve) lessening in importance. If Airbus could predict that, they would never start the A380 project and instead add more A320/321 manufacturing capacity (currently these types have an order book stretching 9 years into the future). Boeing failed to predict the market change too, otherwise they 'd have started on a complete redo of the 737 instead of hastily adding new engines to the old frame and stretching it one more time and calling it the 737MAX. So yeah, Airbus severely misjudged the market but so did anyone not in the possession of a crystal ball. The decision for deregulation was a political decision (a positive one IMO) that nobody could predict.

        • Re:More Covid hype (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@worf.ERDOSnet minus math_god> on Saturday June 27, 2020 @07:07AM (#60233996)

          Airbus and Boeing are competitors. Airbus did the A380 assuming, as you said, that people would do the hub-and-spoke model. Boeing instead went with the 777/787 model thinking the Low Cost Carrier was going to be king, and not the 747.

          The Low Cost Carrier model predicts that you'd have more flights going to odder and odder places, like Norwegian going from I think New Jersey to England via a smaller airport (which are cheaper to fly in and out of, to have counters and other things there etc). In fact, many smaller airports near the big ones are pretty much dominated by the LCCs and there was a fear that the LCC exerts a bit too much control over them.

          Of course, the hub and spoke model worked, but that assumed you'd have people willing to fly to a hub first then connect with the A380 then connect again with their final flight to a destination. Except, it turns out, people really hate that flying from whereever to New York, catching the A380 to London Heathrow, then another flight to somewhere else in Europe. It works, but it's tedious and anyone knows the more connections, the more chances of your luggage getting lost, the chances of missing your connection, and other things. So you either have to have generous time spent waiting at the airport for connections (say, 6-12 hours or more), risk missing your connection (under 3 hours is generally risky - an hour delay plus security checkpoints can make it so you're running from gate to gate), or now your trip takes 18+ hours to complete.

          Emirates became the only provider because most of the space was not used for carrying passengers - it was used for first and business class travel. And it was only because of the high rollers that it was possible for this - you'll note the big A380 airlines were all in the middle east where there was the affluence to do so. The only other routes were when the A380 was used to provide capacity on routes that were very popular, but this was very small and only a few flights took advantage of it.

          Face it - the A380 didn't even take on something where the 747 was unusually popular - short haul flights. Notably, Japan flies very short (half hour to 2 hours or so) flights using the 747. This is done because of the sheer number of people and Boeing actually has special 747 flight manuals on how to efficiently fly the 747 short haul. This is ripe territory for the A380 where the sheer number of people it can carry would've be advantageous (the flight is short, it can be 100% economy packed tightly)

      • BTW the A380F (the freighter variant) always existed more in the space of myth than reality, because once you consider the average density of air cargo and once you calculate the internal space offered by the A380 and lifting capacity of the A380, you will soon find out that a fully-loaded A380F would reach its lifting capacity before the internal space was filled, which means the operator would be paying to carry around extra fuselage they cannot use, compared to the 747-8F which is lighter when empty and

      • Yeah, the A380 had been a dead man walking practically since its introduction.

        Not at all, it turned a profit and it sold well. The A380 was a dead man walking when the industry changed to low cost airline structure and the moved away from the hub-spoke model. The A380 was the perfect plane to design at the time for an industry that had been set up in a specific way, and a way that had been stable for the best part of 50 years.

        Hindsight is always 20/20 but to claim that Airbus misjudged the market is just silly. The plane turned a profit years ago, and it's single biggest flaw was the

    • Re:More Covid hype (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26, 2020 @08:44PM (#60232900)

      All back to normal on April 1st - 110010001000
      https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

      3+ months? Things will be back to normal on April 1st. China and SK already have a declining number of cases. Sorry kids, your dreams of Fallout won't happen. Back to ordinary life.

      110010001000 - 15th March 2020

      Lucky we all listened to your predictions.

    • OK, here's a more meaningful question, how many weeks, months, or years will it be until the global air miles traveled in 2019 is surpassed?

      The winner can make a ton of money betting on airline stocks (one way or the other).

      I'll start the bidding at 2024.

    • Everyone has gone nuts over this virus.

      Naah, it's going to be the universal dog-ate-my-homework for anything for the next year or two. Cancelling the A380? Covid19. Shutting down an inherently unprofitable business? Covid19. Emptying the bank account and leaving town? Covid19. Sleeping with the neighbour's wife? Covid19.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      We all need Jesus Christ! ;)

    • Tell me about it.

      Everywhere is the same story.

      I read of a person that died of a heart attack, created by his weight (700 + lbs.).

      Even the autopsy said that much.

      What the local news said? Yeap, COVID....

    • COVID killed the A380? IT LITERALLY SAYS IN THE SUMMARY: "Airbus announced last year it would stop manufacturing the plane"

      Without the virus, the existing planes would've kept flying for years. Now it looks like most major carriers that have A380s in their fleet will retire them immediately.

    • Passengers love jumbo jets, while airlines want planes that are smaller, slower and less comfortable than before. This trend has been going on for years. Eventually we'll be making trans-Pacific flights in the 737 Ultra Infra Max.

    • While Airbus did indeed announce last year that they would cease manufacturing after all outstanding orders had been fulfilled, what COVID-19 has done is taken the A388 out of the fleets of the airlines flying them. Air France has retired their A388s, Qantas has placed theirs in long-term storage and doesn't foresee using them again until 2023 (if at all), and there's undoubtedly other airlines that are doing similar that I can't remember off the top of my head right now. In my opinion, that's the point t

  • This is like Fukayama declaring "the end of history".
    As if the fact that there's one more trivial little germ out there is going to materially change the way the world works.

    You might be HOPING it does, but no, the inertia of how things have been done will continue.

  • As soon as people stopped wearing suits to fly and started schlepping around in sweats.

    Most air travel has only one thing in it's favor over taking a bus, the length of time it takes to arrive at a destination.

    • Re:The Era of big flying died decades ago (Score:4, Insightful)

      by john.r.strohm ( 586791 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @08:32PM (#60232880)

      Part of it is that flying got cheap enough that the general public could afford it, and standards of behavior slipped.

      Part of it is that the US domestic airlines do not bother to explain to their flight attendants that this IS a customer service job.

      And part of it is that the US domestic airlines are engaged in a race to the bottom, to see who can get away with packing in the most passengers and giving the worst in-flight service. That last is why I booked my birthday trip this year as codeshare flights on Japan Airlines metal, instead of riding American Airlines across the Pacific. JAL understands who pays their salaries, unlike some airlines I could name. (I suspect that part of it is Japanese culture: the Japanese figured out, a long, long time ago, that the only way they would be able to live in such crowded conditions was by being POLITE to each other.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

        JAL understands who pays their salaries, unlike some airlines I could name.

        couple years ago I was talking to someone that flew JAL first class, he said was an incredible experience. What he described sounded like what airlines were in general 60 years ago.

        • Air travel has been degenerating and moving orthogonal to what I value.

          It could have been "cheap, nice, fast: choose 2" but no, it's been going for cheap only and tending to the plebes.

          I'm kind of chuckling at the present mess. They got what they deserved from cheaply vectoring disease vectors all over the globe.

      • Part of it is that the US domestic airlines do not bother to explain to their flight attendants that this IS a customer service job.

        I fly a lot, and I've never had a problem with rude flight attendants. I can't imagine what your problem is.

        • I've had some good ones, some rude ones, some competent, some incompetent. Like every other service-type job. The bigger problem is the managerial-types who want to cram so many seats in there that you have to coordinate breathing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by alantus ( 882150 )
        If you think JAL is so good, you should try ANA.

      • Part of it is that the US domestic airlines do not bother to explain to their flight attendants that this IS a customer service job.

        Customer service costs money. Thanks but I'd rather just get to my destination for the cost of a dinner for 2 rather than be pampered by some customer service representative for a few hours.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfm3 ( 830843 )
        This! I long ago learned that you NEVER want to fly a US carrier overseas if you have the option; depending on the destination country the "local" national airline is almost always a better bet.

        If there's an issue at the destination airport, you can usually be assured of getting better customer service, too. Have trouble with baggage or need help rescheduling a flight? Delta or United probably just have a small office buried somewhere in the airport with a handful of employees, while you'll have a much bet

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Perhaps the era of flying wearing a wife-beater, shorts and flip-flops is over. The riff-raff should just stay home. What this may do is to shrink the air travel industry to one that caters to the elite traveler. And that means, among other things, supersonic flight. Not a Concorde or B2707 with from 100 to 300 seats. But supersonic business charters for 20 or 30 people. That leave from private airports when customers want to fly with no standing in TSA lines.

    • An exercise in pride (Score:4, Informative)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @11:22PM (#60233224) Journal

      As soon as people stopped wearing suits to fly and started schlepping around in sweats.

      Most air travel has only one thing in it's favor over taking a bus, the length of time it takes to arrive at a destination.

      True. Flying used to be glamourous adventure, but it was also expensive. From the glory of airship travel (basically, luxury cruise ships in the sky) to the 707 introducing the term "jetsetting", flying was something that only the well off could afford. Which is why the early 747 prototypes had that swanky bar in the upper deck. Deregulation was a double-edged sword: it made travel affordable for anyone, but killed off the luxury and glamour forever. Airbus hadn't learned that when they designed the A380. It was all about pride, and beating Boeing's 747, when Boeing had that market locked up.

      • Deregulation was a double-edged sword: it made travel affordable for anyone, but killed off the luxury and glamour forever. Airbus hadn't learned that when they designed the A380

        Well... the deregulation hadn't happened when they started thee design.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by multi io ( 640409 )

        Deregulation was a double-edged sword: it made travel affordable for anyone, but killed off the luxury and glamour forever.

        Just book first class, and you'll receive a similar level of luxury as you did when flying in the 50s (arguably more because the engines are quieter and the in-flight entertainment systems are better), at a similar price tag. Not sure how the fact that other passengers in another part of the plane, well out of sight, get to take the same flight at a much lower price and level of comfort, constitutes a "double-edged sword".

    • As soon as people stopped wearing suits to fly and started schlepping around in sweats.

      I don't think you know what big flying means. Air travel is far larger and more profitable today than it was back when every stiff wore a suit, and even then that reality was only born out of companies, business travelers, and rich pompous pricks being the only people who could afford a ticket.

      Big flying started with budget low cost airlines. The fact that you don't want to pay for a first class ticket to sit with the aforementioned stiffs is your problem, not that of your chosen mode of transport.

  • It is such a waste of resources, we have better technology now to have conferences and sales meetings. If you have to 'fly in a specialist', perhaps you need more specialists.

    Plus a world economy is just waiting for trouble.

    And a world society doesn't work, too many people have too many differing and unwavering opinions.

    -Fences make good neighbors.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      conferences and sales meetings.

      It will be interesting to see how current events that spiked online meetings. For me I find video meetings actually work pretty good, most people are able to work with MS Teams and Zoom. Yes there are problems that occur which most of time someone doesn't mute their mic and doing paper shuffling or chewing their food. I am impressed bandwidth works reasonably well, at least for me. Most of the time now I don't bring up the camera (no need to). 10 years ago I would have not considered online meetings, even

  • Boo hoo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @08:53PM (#60232938)

    Those poor poor airlines, running out of money they got from overchaging as many people as possible.

    Don't give them shit, a company that wants a bailout should be forced to fire its entire executive branch and slash the salaries of management to a minimum.

    • Those poor poor airlines, running out of money they got from overchaging as many people as possible.

      Who was overcharged? I mean just looking in TFS the last time I took a KLM flight it cost me 35EUR (the cost of a meal) to fly across the continent. I have to ask you, just how the fuck do you think flying could be any cheaper? Airlines literally provide the cheapest method of transportation over a couple of hundred km at historically cheapest prices even if you ignore inflation for the last 30 years.

      WTF do you expect, a free flight and a blowjob on the way?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

        last flight I took on delta was 500 some odd dollars for a 3 hour flight, 150 for my bag, add on some nondescript fees it was close to 800$ in a 6 foot wide tube fully packed rattle box 5 people in a row, had to keep my laptop bag under the seat ... i think at one point I was offered a half a can of soda, well worth it

        • last flight I took on delta was 500 some odd dollars for a 3 hour flight, 150 for my bag, add on some nondescript fees it was close to 800$ in a 6 foot wide tube fully packed rattle box 5 people in a row, had to keep my laptop bag under the seat ... i think at one point I was offered a half a can of soda, well worth it

          You are leaving out a lot of important details. I wouldn't pay over $350 for a transcontinental flight in the US WITH Comfort+ / Economy Plus. THough that is because the airlines upgrade me for free. So did you book last minute? And what did you bring in your bag that cost you $150? I get free checked bags but I believe the price is only $30 per bag so if you paid $150 to check a bag then you must have been seriously over the weight of some 20-25kg. You are clearly being disingenuous with your response.

      • European domestic flying is ultra-cheap because it has competition from a passenger rail system that runs everywhere. In the US we have outlawed "cabotage," which is airlinese for foreign competition. If it were not for the cabotage law, in about a week all of our domestic flying would be on Emirates.

    • There wasn't really that much overcharging; the race to the bottom has been good for prices, if bad for comfort.

      The real problem is that as individuals, we are told that we need to be prudent with our money, save up for a rainy day, and not expend handouts when times are tough, but most corporations don't have to live by those rules. They can play it fast and loose with their finances, and any bump in the road costs me tax dollars. But the reaping of these poorly run businesses with no foresight is a key pa

  • Could we see a mandated maximum seating? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sl149q ( 1537343 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @10:37PM (#60233154)

    It is possible that we could see a mandated maximum seating (or minimum spacing) that would make flying a lot more comfortable than it was.

    This would eliminate the tendency to keep downsizing seats to get more people on each plane to be competitive. If all airlines have the same restrictions that behaviour stops.

    This would move fares up, but possibly that would just return them to where they were a decade or so back. Not to the outrageous (by today's standards) levels of many decades back.

    From the airline's perspective, this also lets them keep more planes busy (which they already own and need to keep busy to pay for) as the passengers per plane go down but revenue per flight stays constant.

    • That is not the solution ...

      The problem is this:
      World Population Growth [wikipedia.org]
      World Population Growth Graph [wikipedia.org]

      World Population Growth Projection [wikipedia.org]
      World Population Growth Projection Graph [wikipedia.org]

      The more people on this planet - the less sustainable this all becomes.

      Stop fuckin' like rabbits. Stop fuckin' tourism. Money will not get y'all out of this mess. Fewer seats in airplanes and shit like that does not help.

      Like I've said many times in different contexts - it's the numbers ...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Muslim population growth is the population growth of Muslims worldwide. In 2010-2015, the expected Muslim growth rate was 1.8%.[1] This compares with average world population growth rate of 1.2% per year for the referenced period.[2] As of 2015, it was predicted that the world's Muslim population would grow twice as fast as the overall global population in the following decades.[1] Young median age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups are significant factors behind Islam's population growth;[3][4] As of 2015, the Muslim fertility rate for all 49 Muslim-majority countries is 2.9â"well above the global rateâ"but down from 4.3 in 1990-1995.

      This is the r

      • Based on previous trends, population is going to stabilize in time. It reflects economic development - raising education requirements, improved healthcare and social security, and full equality for women all act to push the birth rate down, in some countries even below replacement levels. Even for the Muslim population that seems to be especially concerning for you - look up any of those countries of high fertility rate, then look at the graph over time - invariably it is falling, and falling rapidly.

        Unfort

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DanDD ( 1857066 )

        So by your reasoning above, the Amish [nytimes.com] should start planting IEDs and committing terrorist attacks any day now...

        I disagree with your premise that fucking like rabbits is the problem. Lets put this all in some entertaining and highly abbreviated perspective:

        The Elamites destroyed the Sumerian city state of Ur. Unsustainable agricultural practices in the face of global climate change didn't help the Sumerians any.

        The Persians destroyed Babylon, along with some rather advanced Sumerian/Babylonian math and sc

    • If all airlines have the same restrictions that behaviour stops.

      Oh I really hope not. Look if you want to spend double the money on a ticket because you can't stand a couple of hours of discomfort then just buy an upgraded seat. Don't force your expensive desires on everyone else.

    • Good luck. All the airlines (at least in the US) virtue-signalling that they value passengers' safety during COVID-19, yet still packing flights full to the rafters.
      Source : Flights just last week to/from NYC
    • The issue is that due to the low cost competition, there has been a run toward the common lowest denominator. This is already an industry with huge investment and very low profitability. If you add pressure, sure the price go even lower but then money has to come somewhere and the economy service quality went into the crapper. I personally pay a little more to get business, but a lot of people do not and usually I am in a quasi empty business with an eco packed to the rafter. And THAT eco compartment is hig

  • A380 not casualty of COVID (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Friday June 26, 2020 @11:42PM (#60233272)

    The end of A380 production was announced a year ago when Airbus did not get as many orders as was originally expected.

    • This. The A380 died with the industry change from hub-and-spoke model of flying to direct flights. Smaller planes with bigger engines are the king of the modern skies.

    • It is not about the production but about the usage. Thanks to the coronavirus the airlines started retiring the A380 much earlier than anticipated. Same goes for the 777, though.

  • Solution for Airline Woes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Canberra1 ( 3475749 ) on Saturday June 27, 2020 @05:06AM (#60233790)
    Airlines could be flying back up tomorrow if 9/11 restrictions are sort of rolled back - and just as profitable. 9/11 banned standby tickets, and also stopped 'transferrable airline tickets' so airlines could charge new fees for changes. Then airports got into the act adding new fees, slots, airside services, taxes, you name it. The govts decided on X number of flights per day at schedued times. This makes sense when the skys were FULL and airport at capacity. Privacy was also invaded, so everyone who flies, has already been ID checked very well indeed for most countries. Instead of changing the rules, airlines have their paws out for free money and subsidies WE - us the paying customers need this flexibility restored. WE don't need a particular day and time, they could just sell tickets and when they got 90% loadfactor text everyone 'it is on, and sell 'standbys' to preregistered pax. Some hotels are 90% empty at resorts. How about selling quarantine rooms real cheap? No - they would rather stay empty? So much for all this in together. I see most want the same prices as before covid. Dream on. Top price for 'walk ins' . On preregistration. People can do an online risk score, and the plane packed differently, mostly by age group. Suddenly big planes have an advantage. What we have seen to date is zero flexibility for air and land components, and no one working on making it easy and cheap for cabin fever passengers. They want rules, ticket conditions, change penalties, and negligible discounting. And handouts when their business model 'fails' to fill empty rooms and seats. So far, only Ryan Air is willing to call out subsidies to prop up BAU models. Plus Ryan Air is good at negotiation, and dropping routes when the other end gets too greedy.

    • 9/11 wasn't responsible for banning these features; it was the airlines, using 9/11 as an excuse. Wait until you see what they impose on us using Covid-19 as an excuse.

      We could have used this spring's $50 billion airline bailout as leverage to get humane treatment back by imposing service and density stipulations. Will we blow the opportunity again this fall, when they will be asking for the next bailout?

  • Commercial aviation had become a race to the bottom - in essence, companies were vying to see who could offer the worst service while still staying in business. Many of us had already made the conscious decision to take as few commercial flights as possible, on the grounds that the flying experience was becoming more and more intolerable with every passing year. Thanks to COVID-19, many businesses have realized that numerous business trips are not necessary any longer - pretty much the same goals can be ach
  • Maybe we weren't meant to travel between continents so quickly, and especially so quick as to get people into the idea that they don't need a quarantine on one end.

  • Airline economics is centered around stuffing the most possible people onto the fewest possible flights at the highest cumulative price possible. Unfortunately, I don't think this model will survive COVID at least in some markets.

    What's really going to hit airlines hard isn't the huge surge of vacationers who get on planes the second the pandemic slows down...it's the probable dearth of business travelers. Airlines don't make money on vacationers who book their flights 6 months out and go for bargain baseme

  • Never happened, due to another problem with the A380: its wingspan. It was far greater than anything else, and required airports to have to construct new gates and widen taxiways etc. in order to accommodate it. In Cape Town's case, this is impossible without relocating the airport's runway due to its proximity to the aprons and terminal buildings. Incidentally, construction on this was due to kick off later this year, but more because this would also allow for future terminal expansion, though I'm quite

  • Shortly, I believe. Why? Because Astrazenica is shepherding the Oxford vaccine thru trials while simultaneously manufacturing 2 billion, with a 'b', doses to be ready when / if the trials complete in their predicted September timeframe. 2 billion is 1/4 of the world's population, and there's 137 other companies working on vaccines too.

    I choose to believe it simply because it makes me feel better and I am sick of this crap, that's why. The gov't has our military on standby to fly the vaccine into the

  • First off, it was already dead.
    Secondly, it is very likely that heavies are going to play a very important part of the future. Why? Because business/FC will likely be on small 737s, or even RJs for the next couple of years, followed by moving to supersonic like Boom, and/or Rockets like Starship.
    OTOH, a heavy with a single class, in which the seats are less like today's coach and more like today's FC on say a 737 domestic is likely to happen.
  • Nothing is so constant in life as change. People love to travel and the covid19 situation will only change that temporarily. And, the A-380 was dead pretty shortly after arrival because it was too big to make a decent return on the investment.

  • Who writes this junk ?

    "Perhaps the biggest casualty of COVID-19 so far has been the Airbus A380 and the flying it represented" - Er nooo - the writing was on the wall for the A380 well over a year ago - production stopped no more orders. Everyone is flocking to the 787's and extended range 777 etc.

    And Air-France/KLM has been a financial basket case for a long time. Air-France is an instrument of French National pride and therefore must stay alive at all costs.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close