A380 - the best is yet to come
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to believe I know, but seriously, I was sat at the back of the Dash 8 and it was smooth as silk. Business class in the 777 was very noisy and juddery in comparison, it wasn't turbulence either.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the big advantage of the 777 vis a vis cargo space. There is no body gear. With the exception of the centerwing structure, the entire lower lobe is available for cargo. No gear retracting into the body.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The charter market for the A380 is limited by the airports that can support it. That is why Boeing is going to fold the wings on the 777. It’s not fun to sit burning fuel for 10 extra minutes waiting for a A380 coming the other way on a parallel taxiway and that’s at JFK! The fact they seem to taxi at 5 knots does not help.
Lets see the business progress of HIFLY, in the charter and ACMI market.
Of course it is more thirsty, it is bigger.
If fully loaded and on the mission it is designed for, the a380 burns less fuel per passenger than the 777. 787/A350 are newer design with newer technology, so they do indeed burn less per passenger.
It is not the number of engines, and if exceeding a certain size, there is no other option than having 4 engines.
If fully loaded and on the mission it is designed for, the a380 burns less fuel per passenger than the 777. 787/A350 are newer design with newer technology, so they do indeed burn less per passenger.
It is not the number of engines, and if exceeding a certain size, there is no other option than having 4 engines.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see if the 2nd hand market for A380 attracts a charter operator who utilises the full 800+ capacity. That might make quite a difference. One A380 instead of 4 x B737/A320. It isn't unusual to see 3 or 4 operators operating the same route at a similar time. Could one operator of an A380 take the prize?
Malaysia Airlines was unable to offload six aircrafts
It made plans for a charter business of their own, that went nowhere.
Thai Airways disputably was trying to sell six frames could not find buyers for its six A380's
The first two retired Singapore Airlines A380's are being scrapped, after just 10 years of service
Searching for buyers failed, active negotiations included British Airways, Iran Air and Hi Fly (charter)
There were reports that Hi Fly would lease the two frames (Apr 2018), but later (June 2018) Dr. Peters (owners) confirmed the plan to scrap.
What a second hand market that is!
Eidolon
They were the earliest A380s much heavier and with all of the custom wiring rework. In comparison Boeing were unable to find a buyer for No. 4 and No. 5 787s and wrote off the aircraft in 2016 for $1.235 billion as a development expense. They also were heavier with lots of rework. The earlier 787s were placed in museums.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come again? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bTPq6qNTs
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep seeing this claim that the A380 reduces congestion at major hubs. i seriously question that. This is ONLY true if every passenger on board an A380 has as their home point or final destination the major hub. Those passengers that either live farther away from the hub or whose destination is farther from the hub need to be fed to and from the hub on smaller aircraft. So every A380 flight may require two, three, or more feeder flights both into and out of BOTH hubs by smaller feeder aircraft. That INcreases congestion. Smaller long range aircraft (like A350 and 787) truly reduce congestion at the hubs by enabling a direct flight from the feeder airport to another feeder airport, entirely eliminating the need to stop at the congested hub. A380 only makes sense in a hub and spoke system and planes like the A350 and 787 are disrupting the hub and spoke system.
So when someone asks: "Would you rather fly an A380 or a 787/A350" the real question should be "would you rather fly in a 737/A320 then an A380 and then a 737/A320 or just fly direct in an A350/787?" The answer should be obvious.
So when someone asks: "Would you rather fly an A380 or a 787/A350" the real question should be "would you rather fly in a 737/A320 then an A380 and then a 737/A320 or just fly direct in an A350/787?" The answer should be obvious.
It would be interesting to see just how many 787/A350 routes don't have a hub at either one end or the other, which is what the above implies.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You missed my point. A380 pretty much MUST operate out of major hubs. 787/A350 MAY operate out of major hubs, but also MAY operate out of much smaller airports. What's that mean? The A380 is restricted to a market niche and must compete against 747/777/787/A350 in that niche. 787/A350 operate in a much larger market and for a good portion of that market do not have to compete against the A380 at all.
And you in turn have missed mine.
You are implying that the alternative to a point-to-point direct flight on a 787/A350 would necessitate a 3-leg itinerary from the origin to Hub A, then onward to Hub B, and finally to the destination.
I'm suggesting that there are relatively few city pairs that currently require 3 legs to get between but which would nevertheless be capable (traffic-wise) of supporting a direct service. So it's not really a valid comparison.
And yes, I'm aware of the difference between the markets that the A380 is targeted at and those for the 787/A350.
You are implying that the alternative to a point-to-point direct flight on a 787/A350 would necessitate a 3-leg itinerary from the origin to Hub A, then onward to Hub B, and finally to the destination.
I'm suggesting that there are relatively few city pairs that currently require 3 legs to get between but which would nevertheless be capable (traffic-wise) of supporting a direct service. So it's not really a valid comparison.
And yes, I'm aware of the difference between the markets that the A380 is targeted at and those for the 787/A350.
As several have pointed out here, the market and the punters have spoken. My first flight from EWR to the UK, to get to Belfast, was on a 747 to London 30 years ago . Right now there are many non stops to the UK and Ireland from NYC area. All on twins. Belfast, Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Cork !! , have a least one non stop. You can call NYC a hub, but most of the destinations outside of London are not.
Another factor is not only what a twin can do , but the old treaties forced airlines to funnel through a national hub. That is no more. Who would have imagined flying from Cork to New York on a 737 even 10 years ago? Another factor no one has mentioned here is landing fees and costs. The more connections, the more someone has to pay. Which is interesting as the non stops are sometimes more expensive than a connecting flight. That tells me airlines can get a premium by saving people time.
The A380 may be a great plane, but it was the wrong bet. One item I read years back was Boeing figured the weight penalty of the second floor with the drag of the bigger fuselage (function of the area, the square of the tube diameter) and the 4 engines was always going to make the double decker an non starter.
Lucky or good, Boeing got it right.
20driver
Another factor is not only what a twin can do , but the old treaties forced airlines to funnel through a national hub. That is no more. Who would have imagined flying from Cork to New York on a 737 even 10 years ago? Another factor no one has mentioned here is landing fees and costs. The more connections, the more someone has to pay. Which is interesting as the non stops are sometimes more expensive than a connecting flight. That tells me airlines can get a premium by saving people time.
The A380 may be a great plane, but it was the wrong bet. One item I read years back was Boeing figured the weight penalty of the second floor with the drag of the bigger fuselage (function of the area, the square of the tube diameter) and the 4 engines was always going to make the double decker an non starter.
Lucky or good, Boeing got it right.
20driver
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were the earliest A380s much heavier and with all of the custom wiring rework. In comparison Boeing were unable to find a buyer for No. 4 and No. 5 787s and wrote off the aircraft in 2016 for $1.235 billion as a development expense. They also were heavier with lots of rework. The earlier 787s were placed in museums.
Add Amedeo Leasing which will be sitting on twelve A380's due to be back in a few years.
It has actively been campaigning for replacement leases, but to avail.
So bad it is planning its own "rent a seat" all A380 airline.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is so special about an A380 reducing congestion at major hubs? A 787 or A330 will also reduce congestion. If the 737s/A320s are replaced with 787s/A330s the congestion is being reduced. The only situation where this situation is unique to the A380 is if the hub is already full of 777s/A350s.
Paxing All Over The World
I do not think that ANY global industry truly listens to it's customers. Look at the tech companies who supply computers, tablets and mobile (cell) phones.
End of rant.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is so special about an A380 reducing congestion at major hubs? A 787 or A330 will also reduce congestion. If the 737s/A320s are replaced with 787s/A330s the congestion is being reduced. The only situation where this situation is unique to the A380 is if the hub is already full of 777s/A350s.
It has near to twice as many 777's on order than it does.380's.
That, to me, paints a picture about fleet expansion, especially since orders for smaller Boeing's (77X/787) outpaced A380 about 9:1 in the past four years.
Emirates currently has near 50% more 777's than 380's in the fleet
It has near to twice as many 777's on order than it does.380's.
That, to me, paints a picture about fleet expansion, especially since orders for smaller Boeing's (77X/787) outpaced A380 about 9:1 in the past four years.
It has near to twice as many 777's on order than it does.380's.
That, to me, paints a picture about fleet expansion, especially since orders for smaller Boeing's (77X/787) outpaced A380 about 9:1 in the past four years.
You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?
EK operate up to a couple of services a day to MRU, BHX, MAN, LGW, NCE, PRG, VIE with a 380 .A couple of those destinations are with a 2 class aeroplane with over 600 pax seats .So I am thinking the argument stating it can only operate to major hubs is not a valid one.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The folding wing design on the 777X is exceptionally simple.
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi)
In Boeing aircraft "a conventional environmental control arrangement" puts the system in the wing to body fairings OUTside of the fuselage,
The dreamlifter is mostly non pressurized, so not applicable.
Not talking area ruling and trassonic drag...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to the design of some aircraft carrier operated military aircraft or some folding wing motorgliders I do not think so.
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi)
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi)
I was more thinking about aerodynamics and weight. Extending the conventional pressurized 747 upper deck all the way back to the tail would have been relatively easy (they partially did it on the -300 EUD and the -400, they could have streched it even further), but would have created the same issues the A380 has (as you correctly identified): lack of cargo space per passenger and lack of cargo weight capacity.
Not talking area ruling and trassonic drag...
Not talking area ruling and trassonic drag...
