A380 - the best is yet to come
If the cargo carried makes more money than the extra 200 passengers carried by the 380, can I ask why airlines are increasing the passenger numbers on the 773 by going 10 across in econ rather than 9? CX and BA are changing to it, and EK has always had it. As the aircraft (777) is MTOW limited on longer flights this means the cargo it can carry starts to reduce at 11hrs of flight time and is zero at 14hrs .the 380 can carry full ZFW out to a bit over 16hrs (in the EK case that's 527 pax and 8t cargo). So with the extra pax and cargo load available the 4 holer wins on ULR flying using your metric . This would be supported when looking at the EK network where the 380 has taken the majority of ULR flying .
Last edited by donpizmeov; 30th Jul 2018 at 13:32.
Hmmmm. Tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that a landing gear failing to extend would be caught before landing. That gear is MUCH more complex, and the consequences of a failed gear MUCH more severe than a folding wingtip.
Similarly, tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that an assymetric flap extension would be caught and prevented before aircraft upset. The flap system is MUCH more complex and the consequences of a failed flap extension much more severe than a folding wingtip.
Similarly, tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that an assymetric flap extension would be caught and prevented before aircraft upset. The flap system is MUCH more complex and the consequences of a failed flap extension much more severe than a folding wingtip.
I suspect if crews forget anything, it'll be to fold them up after landing and end up whacking things in the gate area.
The reason there’s been a relative dearth in widebody orders in recent years is due cheap fuel it made more economic sense to extend the life of your 744/767/772/330 etc than to buy a 350/787/Neo etc, as the cost of financing the new aircraft outweighs the cost of the extra fuel burn. Cheap fuel was there for a number of reasons but a major one was that Iran can extract oil far more cheaply than Saudi, so were actively flooding the market to hurt the Saudi economy, and under Obama the US was encouraging this to put pressure on Putin.
With sanctions kicking in again on Iran in a matter of weeks, the price will climb again, so we may see new widebody orders as a result.
Now I see we have a current Boeing employee in KenV and a former in tdracer. Is the 778 signicatly heavier than the 77W to allow the extra range? And if so, wouldn’t that make the A35K more efficient up to something like 80% of the 778s range, which is a fairly niche market?
I mean combined number of 77L and A345 built was roughly 100 right?
With sanctions kicking in again on Iran in a matter of weeks, the price will climb again, so we may see new widebody orders as a result.
Now I see we have a current Boeing employee in KenV and a former in tdracer. Is the 778 signicatly heavier than the 77W to allow the extra range? And if so, wouldn’t that make the A35K more efficient up to something like 80% of the 778s range, which is a fairly niche market?
I mean combined number of 77L and A345 built was roughly 100 right?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends a lot on whether the airline can actually consistently sell the additional 200 seats. It's clear that they can sell a few more seats on the 777 by going 10 across, else they wouldn't do it. The other factor is range. It used to take a four engine aircraft to have a range over 7500nm. Now there are three twins (777-200LR, 787 and A350) that can do it routinely, and soon a fourth (777X). One of the A380's biggest selling points (range) is gone and all it has left is passenger capacity. The market for such a large passenger capacity is not only small, but currently limited to one airline. The market is gradually but surely squeezing out the A380. So like the Concorde, its a very impressive machine, but without a viable market.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope Boeing's wing fold config monitor is flawless.
I suspect if crews forget anything, it'll be to fold them up after landing and end up whacking things in the gate area.
There were lots of additional crew members, ground personnel, etc looking at plenty of other F’ ups as well.
If it it can be screwed up, it eventually will, saying otherwise ignores the fallible human and technology built by fallable humans. There likely won’t be just one reason but a compilation of them that will place the aircraft in an undesired state.
I’ve read your opinions and generally am in agreement (especially the political realm) but can’t agree with you that humans can be relied upon to the extent you think.
If it it can be screwed up, it eventually will, saying otherwise ignores the fallible human and technology built by fallable humans. There likely won’t be just one reason but a compilation of them that will place the aircraft in an undesired state.
I’ve read your opinions and generally am in agreement (especially the political realm) but can’t agree with you that humans can be relied upon to the extent you think.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is zero doubt that at some point there will be a foul up regarding the folding wingtips. I never argued otherwise. I have argued that the benefits are worth the risk, just as the benefits of retracting landing gear, retracting leading and trailing edge flaps, engine thrust reversers, speed brakes, landing spoilers, all moving tailplanes, hydraulically powered flight controls, and a bevy of other features that add complexity to the aircraft are worth the risk. Heavens, Concorde had a drooping nose which if it failed would have made the aircraft a real handful at best (impossible at worst) to safely land. Aviation has a long long history of mitigating and accepting the risks brought by increased complexity. The 777X's folding wingtips are no exception in that regard.
Now I see we have a current Boeing employee in KenV and a former in tdracer. Is the 778 signicatly heavier than the 77W to allow the extra range? And if so, wouldn’t that make the A35K more efficient up to something like 80% of the 778s range, which is a fairly niche market?
Thanks TD. Hope retirement is treating you well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I was thinking the same. There doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that is going to change the perception of the market towards the A380 in the foreseable. Even Airbus would kill it off if it were not for EK.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A350 is a lot quieter. Comfort and smoothness are hard to quantify, flown CX and SQ regularly on both in J,W & Y. All been comfortable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the A380, the seat pitch, cabin height and arms reach storage lockers, make for very little stuff around one's feet. Also the sheer size and weight of the A380 seems to facilitate absorption of a lot of turbulence through the wings. In this case, size does seem to matter.
IG.
IG.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not impressed with the noise levels in the B787 either.
Boeings fly slightly faster than Airbus, maybe that is a factor when it comes to noise?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: BKK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the A380, the seat pitch, cabin height and arms reach storage lockers, make for very little stuff around one's feet. Also the sheer size and weight of the A380 seems to facilitate absorption of a lot of turbulence through the wings. In this case, size does seem to matter.
IG.
IG.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 69
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little oh BTW: Boeing is developing a 777-300ER freighter conversion. This freighter is aimed at the volumetric freighter market vs the density freighter marker targeted by the 777F. How does this relate to A380? The big reason for developing the freighter conversion is so that current 777-300ER operators have a secondary market they can sell their used -300ERs to. That's one of the big problems faced by operators of the A380: no freighter version and thus no secondary market.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone done a study on an A380 Combi? Pax on the upper deck and cargo on the 2 lower decks? KLM still uses combi’s on certain routes if I am correct.
Might also be interesting as a “troopcarrier” for the armed forces?
Might also be interesting as a “troopcarrier” for the armed forces?
There have been changes in the regulations governing combi type aircraft after some cargo fire related accidents (e.g. SAA Helderberg). Never say never, but it would be very, very difficult to certify a new combi aircraft to those regulations (I believe all the combi's currently in operation were certified to the previous regulations).
