A380: The Next Generation
Thread Starter
A380: The Next Generation
Imagine stepping onto a Qantas flight in Sydney or Melbourne and going straight through to New York or London.
At around 20 hours non-stop it’d be the longest of the world’s long haul routes – and according to Airbus, such flights are “the holy grail we’re always chasing”.
Airbus executive vice president Tom Williams cites Singapore Airlines’ non-stop flights from Singapore to New York and Los Angeles — taking around 18 hours to ply the 15,000km trek on an ultralong-range version Airbus A340 — as examples of what can already be done today, and says “we continue to work on improving range.”
But, as he tells Australian Business Traveller, “it all comes back to economics.”
“Singapore Airlines do those flights with an all business class cabin” he explains, and airlines also need to carry enough freight down below. "A lot of the airline business model today is driven not only by passengers but what’s in the belly of the aircraft. They’ll typically say we need to find 20 tonnes of useful freight in order for that mission to make good economic sense.”
That said, Airbus sees an evolution of the A380 as helping to unlock the payload puzzle.
“We’re working on things like weight improvements and trying to squeeze more power out of the engine” Williams says of the second-gen superjumbo, which will add an extra 190km in range – in theory, enough to make a direct Sydney-New York flight possible.
The enhanced A380 will debut in 2013, with British Airways and Emirates as first customers, with Qantas to follow later in the decade.
Williams quotes the same rule of economics when it comes to the A380-900, a stretched version of the today’s standard A380-800, which remains on the drawing board at Airbus HQ.
“I lead the team that designed the wings of the A380, and (when she first saw the models) even my good lady wife was quick to point out that the wings are very big in comparison to the fuselage” he recalls.
“The wings are in fact designed for a much larger airplane, so we have the capability of going to a bigger fuselage – we can stretch the fuselage very easily.”
“And we have airlines today who tell us they love the A380 but it’s too small! Now it’s not an engineering issue, we can make it bigger, it’s more a question of what would be a good business case and where the market for this is. I don’t want to develop that airplane for a niche, if we’re only going to sell 20 airplanes to only two customers it’s not worth doing."
At around 20 hours non-stop it’d be the longest of the world’s long haul routes – and according to Airbus, such flights are “the holy grail we’re always chasing”.
Airbus executive vice president Tom Williams cites Singapore Airlines’ non-stop flights from Singapore to New York and Los Angeles — taking around 18 hours to ply the 15,000km trek on an ultralong-range version Airbus A340 — as examples of what can already be done today, and says “we continue to work on improving range.”
But, as he tells Australian Business Traveller, “it all comes back to economics.”
“Singapore Airlines do those flights with an all business class cabin” he explains, and airlines also need to carry enough freight down below. "A lot of the airline business model today is driven not only by passengers but what’s in the belly of the aircraft. They’ll typically say we need to find 20 tonnes of useful freight in order for that mission to make good economic sense.”
That said, Airbus sees an evolution of the A380 as helping to unlock the payload puzzle.
“We’re working on things like weight improvements and trying to squeeze more power out of the engine” Williams says of the second-gen superjumbo, which will add an extra 190km in range – in theory, enough to make a direct Sydney-New York flight possible.
The enhanced A380 will debut in 2013, with British Airways and Emirates as first customers, with Qantas to follow later in the decade.
Williams quotes the same rule of economics when it comes to the A380-900, a stretched version of the today’s standard A380-800, which remains on the drawing board at Airbus HQ.
“I lead the team that designed the wings of the A380, and (when she first saw the models) even my good lady wife was quick to point out that the wings are very big in comparison to the fuselage” he recalls.
“The wings are in fact designed for a much larger airplane, so we have the capability of going to a bigger fuselage – we can stretch the fuselage very easily.”
“And we have airlines today who tell us they love the A380 but it’s too small! Now it’s not an engineering issue, we can make it bigger, it’s more a question of what would be a good business case and where the market for this is. I don’t want to develop that airplane for a niche, if we’re only going to sell 20 airplanes to only two customers it’s not worth doing."
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The wings are in fact designed for a much larger airplane, so we have the capability of going to a bigger fuselage – we can stretch the fuselage very easily.”
I know people that have done Singapore to NY on the SQ non-stop and even as seasoned travelers, they said it was pretty tough going. I go back to Europe reasonably often and 12 - 13 hours is enough for me.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know people that have done Singapore to NY on the SQ non-stop and even as seasoned travelers, they said it was pretty tough going. I go back to Europe reasonably often and 12 - 13 hours is enough for me.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An A340-500 has proven to be a failure despite it tech capabilities. There are very few routes in the world where airlines managed to make it work. Like Concorde some time ago. Same fate is awaiting ultra long range A380.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the usual 'make up a story to keep us in the news' marketing department exercise to me.
Seriously - I can't see the economic rationale for that type of flight. For starters, the future lies in Asia, so why would you want to forgo all that traffic and overfly it? Most city pairs in and out of Asia are within the 10-12 hour range, and I doubt the few that aren't (i.e. NY, DC) would warrant a new airplane.
I don't know the premium cabin volume between Oz/Nz and London, but to make this flight bearable it'll have to be an F/C/premium Y config. Otherwise you'll probably run into serious cabin rage issues. Crewing would also be challenging - where do you put all these people?
In any case - other than in an F suite I don't think I'd like to be on that one
Seriously - I can't see the economic rationale for that type of flight. For starters, the future lies in Asia, so why would you want to forgo all that traffic and overfly it? Most city pairs in and out of Asia are within the 10-12 hour range, and I doubt the few that aren't (i.e. NY, DC) would warrant a new airplane.
I don't know the premium cabin volume between Oz/Nz and London, but to make this flight bearable it'll have to be an F/C/premium Y config. Otherwise you'll probably run into serious cabin rage issues. Crewing would also be challenging - where do you put all these people?
In any case - other than in an F suite I don't think I'd like to be on that one
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly long haul constantly and I can tell you one thing: I always go as direct as possible. Stopovers, transfers, hubs etc are just a PITA with all the bulls**t that airline travel has become. Hub thinking is antiquated thinking. The future lies in direct routings, no matter how long. I did LAX-Dubai recently and that was 16,5hrs. Not fun in economy, but when you're dealing with forward thinking airlines like Emirates, it's no worse than a crap LA-NY run on any of the US carriers should-have-been-scrapped-years-ago-757's.
Let me give you an example of just how painful airline travel is these days. I was going back from Buenos Aires to LA. Had to transfer in Miami (mistake 1). US TSA doesn't allow any incoming luggage to carry through, even when on the same airline, so now you're stuck in a 2 hr immigration queue thats straight out of hell, and then when you're finally through, you have to pickup your luggage, go through customs again, re-check it again, go through security again. If the transfer time is less than 3hrs, you're not going to make your flight and if customs decide to screen you, you're looking at 4. I'd say that close to 50% miss their connections at Miami or any of the big US hubs. Now, this Kafka-esque process is time you can not spend relaxing or doing something else, so might as well have been sitting on a bl**dy plane. So if London or NY to Sydney direct ever becomes an option, I'll be the first in line on such a flight when a need arises. Anything to avoid having to transfer. Anything.
Direct is always better.
Let me give you an example of just how painful airline travel is these days. I was going back from Buenos Aires to LA. Had to transfer in Miami (mistake 1). US TSA doesn't allow any incoming luggage to carry through, even when on the same airline, so now you're stuck in a 2 hr immigration queue thats straight out of hell, and then when you're finally through, you have to pickup your luggage, go through customs again, re-check it again, go through security again. If the transfer time is less than 3hrs, you're not going to make your flight and if customs decide to screen you, you're looking at 4. I'd say that close to 50% miss their connections at Miami or any of the big US hubs. Now, this Kafka-esque process is time you can not spend relaxing or doing something else, so might as well have been sitting on a bl**dy plane. So if London or NY to Sydney direct ever becomes an option, I'll be the first in line on such a flight when a need arises. Anything to avoid having to transfer. Anything.
Direct is always better.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 9th Oct 2011 at 01:56.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 on "Direct is always better".
I'm doing an 11 hr, coach, Dallas-Santiago on a 767 in a few weeks...and that's just the middle leg of my trip. The total trip is going to be ~24 hrs. No other options. Painful, even armed with a Kindle and iPod with noise-cancelling earplugs.
I'm doing an 11 hr, coach, Dallas-Santiago on a 767 in a few weeks...and that's just the middle leg of my trip. The total trip is going to be ~24 hrs. No other options. Painful, even armed with a Kindle and iPod with noise-cancelling earplugs.
