Last A380 Leaves Assembly Hall
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To think the A380 created such an excitement worldwide. Here Airbus flew one into Taipei to drum up sales and yet China Airlines and EVA didn’t buy any. Even though they could have used them on the Taiwan /US runs where for example EVA has as much as three daily to and from SFO and LAX from TPE with their triple 7
i guess the A380 wasn’t of much use to them on their other routes while the triple 7 fits in perfectly
and this may have been the same for many airlines
It simply was too narrowly focused an aircraft
The 747 just managed to be not too big on many routes while being just about perfect on others
172driver
It's not enough to be full, it has to be full with a decent yield. The airlines have not managed to square that particular circle.
If the experience of the merchant marine is any guide, we will eventually have two or three global carriers, along with a passel of 'tramp steamer' equivalent budget options.
Now would be a perfect time to make that change, because all the airlines are currently wards of their respective governments.
Unfortunately, airlines are such a small part of the global economy that they do not get much serious government thought.
It's not enough to be full, it has to be full with a decent yield. The airlines have not managed to square that particular circle.
If the experience of the merchant marine is any guide, we will eventually have two or three global carriers, along with a passel of 'tramp steamer' equivalent budget options.
Now would be a perfect time to make that change, because all the airlines are currently wards of their respective governments.
Unfortunately, airlines are such a small part of the global economy that they do not get much serious government thought.
I liked the aircraft to fly on but it was pretty uneconomic, driven mostly by the facts that it weighed as much as two 777s when empty and four engines vs. two is only going to have one winner. That and the inability to take much freight with all the passenger luggage filling up the holds and the long turnarounds unless you could put multiple jetties on it.
The people I know that operated it all thought it was great, with good performance (and low reference speeds), an excellent cockpit, nice crew rest and in my airline, decent routes. I never really wanted to fly it though as you got about half the fun things, like takeoff and landing, as there was a lot of heavy crewing, but you got twice the problems, with a cabin crew of 20+ to get through security, immigration, check in, transport, hotel, etc. and all those pax who were going to generate more issues.
They will live on in some shape or form but it did seem to be a gigantic vanity project from the word go. The 747-800 never really went anywhere either so Boeing were probably pretty relieved they didn’t try and build something of equal or greater size...
The people I know that operated it all thought it was great, with good performance (and low reference speeds), an excellent cockpit, nice crew rest and in my airline, decent routes. I never really wanted to fly it though as you got about half the fun things, like takeoff and landing, as there was a lot of heavy crewing, but you got twice the problems, with a cabin crew of 20+ to get through security, immigration, check in, transport, hotel, etc. and all those pax who were going to generate more issues.
They will live on in some shape or form but it did seem to be a gigantic vanity project from the word go. The 747-800 never really went anywhere either so Boeing were probably pretty relieved they didn’t try and build something of equal or greater size...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that has been lost in this discussion (other than someone mentioning the 2-4-2 seating in the 787) is the 777, once upon a time was a 3-3-3 config in Y (even saw 2-5-2 in early MH birds). Most operators have gone to the horrid 3-4-3 that was once standard on the 747. I will always book according to comfort rather than price.
Wise traveler, but unfortunately most people flying are bereft of your knowledge. The airlines won't tell you and the travel agents rarely if ever go beyond the arrival and departure times.
The ongoing effort to make air travel cheaper by packing in more people may have been arrested temporarily by the virus, but otherwise remains in effect.
Sadly, any prospects for a less demeaning air travel experience are further constrained by the various 'security' and 'health monitoring' systems, enormously ineffectual and expensive kabuki make work systems that only serve to make travel deeply unpleasant.
The ongoing effort to make air travel cheaper by packing in more people may have been arrested temporarily by the virus, but otherwise remains in effect.
Sadly, any prospects for a less demeaning air travel experience are further constrained by the various 'security' and 'health monitoring' systems, enormously ineffectual and expensive kabuki make work systems that only serve to make travel deeply unpleasant.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AN2 Driver
Also I think the main reason the A380 is totally gone now
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172driver
So many passengers and so many bags and not much room for cargo which is a massive money spinner.
Thats why the price of cargo has gone up recently because there are less passenger flights therefore less cargo capacity worldwide.
So many passengers and so many bags and not much room for cargo which is a massive money spinner.
Thats why the price of cargo has gone up recently because there are less passenger flights therefore less cargo capacity worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
armchairpilot94116
I think this hits the nail on the head. Just like Concorde there were only a finite number of routes that made economic sense, and just not enough of those to make it a commercial success.
I think this hits the nail on the head. Just like Concorde there were only a finite number of routes that made economic sense, and just not enough of those to make it a commercial success.
Many, many moons ago a younger Tartare in journalist disguise was told by the then head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes on a visit to Orstraya that they didn't believe in the hub and spoke model.
Thought he was nuts at the time - but I guess he was right.
Thought he was nuts at the time - but I guess he was right.
Something that has been lost in this discussion (other than someone mentioning the 2-4-2 seating in the 787) is the 777, once upon a time was a 3-3-3 config in Y (even saw 2-5-2 in early MH birds). Most operators have gone to the horrid 3-4-3 that was once standard on the 747. I will always book according to comfort rather than price.
The 767 was designed for seven across seating but was provisioned for eight across - thankfully very few airlines went with the eight across (many years ago I did a flight test on 767 configured for eight across - I barely fit in the seats and I'm not a large person, not to mention over 60 lbs. lighter back then). The 777 was designed for nine across, provisioned for ten - and for a long time most 777s were configured for nine across until the race to the bottom dictated ten across. Similarly the 787 was designed for eight across, provisioned for nine - but because of the race to the bottom few 787s were ever configured with eight across.
The A380 got the showers, lounges, and suites because the operators couldn't routinely fill the aircraft if they packed them in like sardines - so instead they treated the A380 as a premium product with lots of room and amenities. If anyone had ever operated the A380 with it's advertised 800+ passengers, the passenger experience would have been at least as miserable as any 777 and 787.
The A380 got the showers, lounges, and suites because the operators couldn't routinely fill the aircraft if they packed them in like sardines - so instead they treated the A380 as a premium product with lots of room and amenities. If anyone had ever operated the A380 with it's advertised 800+ passengers, the passenger experience would have been at least as miserable as any 777 and 787.
But A380 versus 777 on 3-4-3 is incomparable. For one thing I can eat on an A380 as I can shift my legs slightly to the side and so get the tray table down ... I can't do this on a 777 without putting my knees under the neighbouring seat's tray table, When travelling alone this means 15/16 hours with no food or sleep - doable, but by no means enjoyable! And I enjoy the A380 - even in the depths of economy!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under a Rock
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparisons
Interiors are down to the operator and not the airframer! You are more comparing airlines than the aircraft themselves. You can make a 777 quieter if you pay for extra insulation.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True , but how come all 380 from all operators I flew with ( quite a few) are very quiet and I have yet to have flown a quiet 777 .. But I did not fly all the airlines operating them . You know one with quiet 777s ? But it is not only the noise level, it is also the space inside and the air circulation .
But A380 versus 777 on 3-4-3 is incomparable. For one thing I can eat on an A380 as I can shift my legs slightly to the side and so get the tray table down ... I can't do this on a 777 without putting my knees under the neighbouring seat's tray table, When travelling alone this means 15/16 hours with no food or sleep - doable, but by no means enjoyable! And I enjoy the A380 - even in the depths of economy!
If anyone configured an A380 for it's advertised 800+ passenger limit, you'd find the seats to be just as uncomfortable - perhaps worse.
Yes, the A380 is quieter - but I spend 90% of the flight wearing my noise cancelling headphones regardless...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 did have a USP in that it was a full length double decker. Well it was a USP to me as I wanted to fly on it from the day if it’s launch, I have flown the bird many times and the both up and down cabins feel huge and airy compared to a 77/787. I flew 737max from New York to EDi and never again. It is interesting that civil aviation has always moved forward to bigger and faster planes since the first days of flight but now twice in the space of the last two decades we are moving backwards to smaller and slower aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MichaelOLearyGenius
The square cube law really hurts larger aircraft when it comes to empty weight per seat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law
From that perspective, the A321 Neo (/LR/XLR) basically nails it.
The square cube law really hurts larger aircraft when it comes to empty weight per seat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law
From that perspective, the A321 Neo (/LR/XLR) basically nails it.
tdracer
I do not know your sources of information, but Boeing and Airbus do not seem to have same numbers. From the public Boeing and Airbus documents, as well as IAI for the 773P2F, all below, the freighters summary is:
Maximum volume / Maximum Payload
747-400ERF 738 cu.m / 123 t
747-8F 874 cu.m / 133 t
773P2F 819 cu.m / 101 t
380F (Cancelled) 938 cu.m / 151 t
I do not know your sources of information, but Boeing and Airbus do not seem to have same numbers. From the public Boeing and Airbus documents, as well as IAI for the 773P2F, all below, the freighters summary is:
Maximum volume / Maximum Payload
747-400ERF 738 cu.m / 123 t
747-8F 874 cu.m / 133 t
773P2F 819 cu.m / 101 t
380F (Cancelled) 938 cu.m / 151 t
