Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

A380 officially cancelled.

24

Comments

  • #32
    davepatr07
    Registered Users Posts: 294 ✭✭davepatr07


    Shame it’s being finished, it is ugly to look at compared to the elegant Queen of the Skies B747 however as a passenger it’s luxury even for economy.

    Along with Qatar and Lufthansa the best experience was Emirates the few times between ME and Oz, for 13-14 hrs it was worth it.

    Even though I never flew Premium Economy, Business or First on it there was the one time I flew on the upper deck at the back where Lufthansa have a small economy section, that was luxury in itself.


  • #33
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭john boye


    Nijmegen wrote: »
    In pax config there are currently 425 x 777's on order and 1,258 in service and 700 x 787's on order and 445 in service. 773 x A350 on order and 36 in service, and 327 x A330 on order and 1,183 in service. 1,100 Airbus orders to 1,125 Boeing between the 4 twin types; and 1,703 Boeing in service to 1,219 Airbus. It actually looks pretty evenly matched on orders.

    195 x A380 in service and now a much reduced order book. 32 x 747-8I in service and 9 on order. Quads are dead forever for pax, and even in the freight market (where there'll always be a volume capacity requirement) there's only been 67 x 747-8F deliveries and 8 orders on the books.

    I agree with the point you're making but those orders/deliveries numbers sound about 2 years out of date.


  • #34
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    kilburn wrote: »
    I imagine the second hand market would be limited enough considering tbe costs involved with a new fit out

    It is interesting how similar the trends in the airline industry can be similar to the bus/coach market.

    Bus Eireann can't sell their big tri-axle double decker coaches. Simply no second hand market for it. Too big for the normal school bus use and too old, big, thirsty and bus like for the touring/coach market.


  • #35
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,782 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    bk wrote:
    Bus Eireann can't sell their big tri-axle double decker coaches. Simply no second hand market for it. Too big for the normal school bus use and too old, big, thirsty and bus like for the touring/coach market.


    More expensive to run to I'd imagine


  • #36
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭sk8board


    arubex wrote: »
    Yes, but Boeing was wrong too. Point-to-point between secondary airports is still rare and the 787 didn't change that. The vast majority of them replaced 767s and some older 777s on trunk runs from hubs like New York / Chicago / Heathrow / Schiphol / Dublin etc. It's amusing & disappointing to look at FR24 and see a line of 787s behind A380s on final to some mega-airport.

    The day I can board a 787 in Belfast and fly to Macau is the day they win that prediction.

    As an example, you can fly the Dreamliner from dublin to Addis (ethiopian), Providence (NAS) and from this June to Calgary (Westjet - I’m taking the family on it June 27th for the summer hols, can’t wait).
    All are pretty secondary airports in an a380 context.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    More expensive to run to I'd imagine

    Yep, just like the A380 I'd guess. Require more fuel then a normal coach. Ok on a per passenger basis, but only if you fill all 100 seats. Much easier to fill 50 seats on a regular coach, then a 100 on one of these. Not many routes with that demand. Just like the A380...

    Also big size means you can't fit them down narrow roads. Tourist places like Ring of Kerry, etc. Not a hope. Again like the infrastructure issue (airports) that the A380 face.

    The one unique issue if that the lower deck is low floor, which makes the entire lower deck unsuitable for passengers on tourist coaches. They normally want a high view to see the countryside, so kills it for tourist use.

    Interestingly what has been more successful are something called overdeckers. Basically a single decker coach, where they slightly increase the roof, but not as much as a double decker, so you can put seats above the driver. Almost looks like a normal single deck coach, but adds an extra 20 seats or so and works perfectly as a tourist coach so in high demand in that market.

    The overdeckers kind of remind me of how the airline manufacturers have stretched their dual engine widebodies to fit in more passengers and add more range. An easier to sell product.

    Sorry for the OT, I just thought it is an interesting parallel.


  • #38
    no.8
    Registered Users Posts: 778 ✭✭✭no.8


    . Personally never liked the look of it, never matched up to the 747, which itself is also on it’s lap for passenger ops. The days of 4 engines for long haul are unfortunately coming to an end. Too costly.[/quote]


    While the 747 is the queen of the skies in my eyes, to say that it never matched up to the 747 is a lie, it more than exceeds the jumbo in basically all facets of operations. The industry model has changed. Having said that Singapore airlines 380's (for example) were configured with far too few seats


  • #39
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭john boye


    sk8board wrote: »
    As an example, you can fly the Dreamliner from dublin to Addis (ethiopian), Providence (NAS) and from this June to Calgary (Westjet - I’m taking the family on it June 27th for the summer hols, can’t wait).
    All are pretty secondary airports in an a380 context.

    In fairness, AB didn't get it completely wrong. Their prediction was that hub airports were reaching capacity and were going to be increasing slot-restricted so airlines would need to consolidate flights on VLAs. I think a look at the business now would tell you they pretty much got the first part right but the second part was a much tougher nut to crack.


  • #40
    BlackandGreen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭BlackandGreen


    Flew on an air france one. It wasn't very comfortable, or at least no more comfortable than other wide body jets.

    I had a far more comfortable experience in a 1980's 747 with KLM.



    It pretty much boils down to the airline imo, with only a small portion of it being the aircraft itself.



    As far as airbusses go the most comfortable one I've flown on is the A330 by a mile with several different airlines.


    Lovely aircraft to see though, and certainly an impressive feat of engineering. I presume we'll see these continue to fly for at least another 10-20 years.


  • #41
    pistolpetes11
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 7,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭pistolpetes11


    I was on one on route to Hong Kong back in October 17 , I remember getting up to take stroll to stretch the legs and heard one of the lads I was travelling with call my name .

    There he was parked up at A full spirit and champagne bar they had the back of the plane , never seen the likes of it before in my life and may not again but it was some flight :)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Creamy Goodness
    Registered Users Posts: 26,556 ✭✭✭✭Creamy Goodness


    lucky enough to have flown on one of these (both Emirates and Etihad). Etihad has the better seat, but Emirates has the better bar, the bar is something else. Really passes the time in style.


  • #43
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    TeaBagMania wrote: »
    Leave it to Scarebus to come up with such a stupid concept
    Boeing was already ramping down 747 production
    Yeah lets build a bigger jet, great idea

    I do wonder how much they benefited elsewhere from the technology innovations required to make the a380 happen.


  • #44
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,086 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    How long will EK keep the A380 in its fleet for?
    Also will be interesting to see what’s next for Airbus


  • #45
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭sk8board


    did the 380s require two take off slots also?

    Was on an Emirates 380 one time Melbourne to Auckland and the captain announced that as the reason for a small taxi delay, before he gave it the berries.


  • #46
    donkey balls
    Registered Users Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭donkey balls


    A company I use to work for was going be the launch customer for the freighter version, They reckoned it be able to carry nearly twice the payload of the MD11/DC10 at the time.
    I remember at the time of the production of the 380 we upgraded a lot of the hubs so they could accommodate the aircraft, One thing that we wondered about was how would the ULD on the upper deck be off loaded would they have an internal loader (Adding to the MTOW) or build newer main deck loaders.
    The company ended up cancelling the order but have options for other aircraft possibly the A330 F, I have only seen one from a distance in LHR and MAN what really stuck out was the tail the size of it a friend of mine travels to China a lot and told me it is really comfortable compared to the 777.


  • #47
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    TeaBagMania wrote: »
    Ah i see how it work, you don't like someones comment so you call them a troll.
    Ok Troll


    In fairness, you did refer to Airbus as Scarebus......


  • #48
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,120 ✭✭✭plodder


    no.8 wrote: »
    . Personally never liked the look of it, never matched up to the 747, which itself is also on it’s lap for passenger ops. The days of 4 engines for long haul are unfortunately coming to an end. Too costly.


    While the 747 is the queen of the skies in my eyes, to say that it never matched up to the 747 is a lie, it more than exceeds the jumbo in basically all facets of operations. The industry model has changed. Having said that Singapore airlines 380's (for example) were configured with far too few seats
    Actually, I was surprised to read (on wikipedia) today that the 747-8, which is still in production, is more fuel efficient per seat than the A380 on sector lengths up to 13,000 km.

    Have seen them up close but haven't flown on one yet. The one thing that puts me off, is the idea of flying with up to 800 people never appealed that much.


  • #49
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,825 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BlackandGreen wrote: »
    As far as airbusses go the most comfortable one I've flown on is the A330 by a mile with several different airlines.

    340 was so much quieter inside the cabin than the 330 but its economics are dire.

    Hopefully we'll still see passenger 380s in the skies for a couple of decades to come, although it's possible that within ten years most will be converted to freighters, or parted out and scrapped :(

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #50
    donkey balls
    Registered Users Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭donkey balls


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    340 was so much quieter inside the cabin than the 330 but its economics are dire.

    Hopefully we'll still see passenger 380s in the skies for a couple of decades to come, although it's possible that within ten years most will be converted to freighters, or parted out and scrapped :(

    Cannot see them getting the freighter conversion when the likes of FEDEX &UPS cancelled the original orders for them, Saying that if they were too I wonder could the nose be reworked that it opens like the 747F.
    The nose door is what really separates the 747F from other freighters as it can take long/abnormal loads.


  • #51
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭OU812


    Serious question(s):

    Is there any reason Boeing couldn't re-work the 747 airframe into a long haul with two engines? If so, why have they not done it?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    shanec1928
    Registered Users Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭shanec1928


    sk8board wrote: »
    As an example, you can fly the Dreamliner from dublin to Addis (ethiopian), Providence (NAS) and from this June to Calgary (Westjet - I’m taking the family on it June 27th for the summer hols, can’t wait).
    All are pretty secondary airports in an a380 context.
    That route stopped in December unless they have started it back again


  • #53
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    OU812 wrote: »
    Serious question(s):

    Is there any reason Boeing couldn't re-work the 747 airframe into a long haul with two engines? If so, why have they not done it?

    Because they already have the 777. It would be an extremely expensive effort which would just cannibalise their own product


  • #54
    thedarksh1te
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭thedarksh1te


    An awful pity I've flown on A380's a fair bit and lucky to fly on Qatar's this year too. Wonderful aircraft and so comfortable - turbulence is a breeze. Passengers love it but the 777 is just so good it undermined both A380 and its bigger 747 brother.


  • #55
    irishrover99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    thedarksh1te wrote: »
    An awful pity I've flown on A380's a fair bit and lucky to fly on Qatar's this year too. Wonderful aircraft and so comfortable - turbulence is a breeze. Passengers love it but the 777 is just so good it undermined both A380 and its bigger 747 brother.

    The problem with the 777 is that Airlines rammed it with 10 seats per aisle making the seats very narrow for long haul flights.


  • #56
    ozzy jr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭ozzy jr


    It's a shame really. I've flown on it a few times. I want to see bigger and faster planes, it's a very impressive site seeing one take off or land.


  • #57
    Blut2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭Blut2


    A shame, but it was coming a long time. Too expensive and limited in function to survive, the hub and spoke model was the wrong bet. They are really lovely to fly on as a passenger though. A big step up from anything that came before them.

    I've always thought it should have done better than it did in Heathrow especially, with the slot constraints. Even if B.A. fell in love with it the way Emirates did it probably would have only prolonged production another year or so though I guess.


  • #58
    duskyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭duskyjoe


    OU812 wrote: »
    Serious question(s):

    Is there any reason Boeing couldn't re-work the 747 airframe into a long haul with two engines? If so, why have they not done it?

    No. Go read up on the 777x . That and the 350 1000 LR have serious grunt re savage out of the box ETOPS approval and are monster in their own right yet fuel efficient. The bottom line especially with the a380 is you have to literally fill it to get any type of a financial return.


  • #59
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,233 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    irishrover99 wrote: »
    The problem with the 777 is that Airlines rammed it with 10 seats per aisle making the seats very narrow for long haul flights.

    Absolutely, had the misfortune of travelling on a Etihad 777 today , they’ve taking the A350 off the Irish route and replaced it with an 777 and reduced frequency to maintain capacity


  • #60
    Brennus335
    Registered Users Posts: 168 ✭✭Brennus335


    ted1 wrote: »
    Absolutely, had the misfortune of travelling on a Etihad 777 today , they’ve taking the A350 off the Irish route and replaced it with an 777 and reduced frequency to maintain capacity

    Etihad don't have any A350's yet.
    They have operated the 330 and 777 on the Dublin route. The 787 will start it in June.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭sk8board


    sk8board wrote: »
    did the 380s require two take off slots also?

    Was on an Emirates 380 one time Melbourne to Auckland and the captain announced that as the reason for a small taxi delay, before he gave it the berries.

    apol's for floating my question back up - anyone know if the 380 required 2 slots for take-off?


Advertisement