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

A380 officially cancelled.

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    sk8board wrote: »
    apol's for floating my question back up - anyone know if the 380 required 2 slots for take-off?

    No. ATC would however be mindful of a heavy departing and would adjust seperation accordingly.


  • Options
    #63
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    It pissed airports off because it needed a much greater seperation between approaching and departing aircraft, when the current mantra is all about getting aircraft closer together to save time and money. Also, many airports spent huge monies on upgrading their runways, taxyways, airbridges, terminals and so on, to be able to cope with the size of the A380. The old habit of shunting larger aircraft off to remote stands and unloading them there is not acceptable to today's time conscious traveller. There is a notion out there among passengers that it takes no more than about 15 minutes for an airline to unload any bag from any aircraft from anywhere on an airport and get it to the punter's feet, right off the carousel. That's doable in relatively small airports but not so in the mega airports of today.


  • Options
    #64
    theguzman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    Like the Concorde it was legendary aircraft and hopefully we will still see it flying in 20 years times. Having flown it a few times by different carriers I must say it is by far the best economy seat you'll get, except Air France, (their A380's are ****e). I crossed the pacific with Qantas on the A380 9 years ago and those 16-17 hours were very manageable on the A380. Comparing to a 777-300 in 10 across economy is painful, the A380 is king. The 747-400 and 747-800 is far ahead of the 777-300.


  • Options
    #65
    ozzy jr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭ozzy jr


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Also, many airports spent huge monies on upgrading their runways, taxyways, airbridges, terminals and so on, to be able to cope with the size of the A380.

    The plane will still be flying for a few years yet, so airports will get their money's worth out of the upgrades.


  • Options
    #66
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭sk8board


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    It pissed airports off because it needed a much greater seperation between approaching and departing aircraft, when the current mantra is all about getting aircraft closer together to save time and money.

    Yep that makes sense - you could see we were next in line, but didn’t move for a few mins and the captain gave that excuse.

    As for shunting heavies to the far aprons, it reminds me of schiphol - just after 9/11 I worked in south/Central America a fair bit, avoiding Heathrow connections like the plague, getting klm 747s to Mexico City usually. the taxi was sooo long it felt like we were driving all the way there :D
    25-30 mins was the norm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,731 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    sk8board wrote: »
    ...................

    As for shunting heavies to the far aprons, it reminds me of schiphol................................
    The taxi was sooo long it felt like we were driving all the way there :D
    25-30 mins was the norm
    Still is. They have a remote runway. Easily visible on google maps.


  • Options
    #68
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    I have just deleted a significant number of off topic and trolling posts. This thread is about the A380, and NOT all the other issues that were being thrown into the thread. I do not expect to see any repeat posts in this thread from the people involved, and if there are more off topic posts, they will incur infractions

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #69
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭sk8board


    Do any of the 16 clients run a 380 in economy-only 800 pax format?


  • Options
    #70
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    sk8board wrote: »
    Do any of the 16 clients run a 380 in economy-only 800 pax format?

    Nobody has gone for that option, even the one LCC that was to take them - Skymark - weren't going to. Even Malaysian's plans to do a pilgrimage charter wasn't going to go quite that dense.


  • Options
    #71
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    sk8board wrote: »
    Do any of the 16 clients run a 380 in economy-only 800 pax format?

    Given the economics of the airline business where basically economy passengers are there to make up the numbers and the profit is made up the front, it would be suicide on a plane like the A380 with its requirement to be full to make any money.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Correct; the individual flight's cost is paid for by business class seats and what's in the hold and maybe a few rows of the dearer seats in economy. I had a load supervisor tell me that a full belly of cargo pallets on an A330 paid for the flight, the business class revenue was pure profit and economy was icing on the cake. That's why airlines will fly a short haul aircraft an average of eight hours a day, on four, five or six rotations because they know that that amount will enable the aircraft to pay it's way, make a profit and use it's airframe and engine life at a rate that will give it about 30 years of useful service before it costs more to keep it flying than it's worth. Airlines have this down to a fine art.


  • Options
    #73
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    That's why airlines will fly a short haul aircraft an average of eight hours a day, on four, five or six rotations because they know that that amount will enable the aircraft to pay it's way, make a profit and use it's airframe and engine life at a rate that will give it about 30 years of useful service before it costs more to keep it flying than it's worth. Airlines have this down to a fine art.

    That's one business model, another one and a much more successful one is the Southwest/Ryanair model of buy the newest and most efficient aircraft, fly them as many hours in the day as physically possible, and sell them on before the major maintenance issues crop up.

    Flying eight hours a day is a criminal underuse of an asset, no matter how cheaply you bought it.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #74
    irishrover99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    The thing I love about the A380 is when you walk in the plane to the toilet and you don’t get that sensation of walking on air as the plane just isn’t shaking and the floor feels so sturdy,
    I can remember the wife asking me had we taken off yet and we were already at about 400ft.
    She knows nothing about planes but she was extremely impressed with this plane.


  • Options
    #75
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭john boye


    sk8board wrote: »
    Do any of the 16 clients run a 380 in economy-only 800 pax format?

    Think Emirates have some in a 2 class config with 615 seats.


  • Options
    #76
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    I don't know too much about the technical advances that have been made in aircraft design and construction and the economics of it all, but I can't help thinking that, (with the exception of the failed Concorde project), there has been no radical new type of passenger aircraft since the 1950s. The most modern passenger aircraft look almost identical to the Boeing 707. Even the A380 just looked like a 707 on steroids.
    OK, I know that planes are built using different materials and the engines are bigger and more powerful,(thereby needing only two instead of four), but the fundamental design and shape is exactly the same and the average person could not distinguish a Boeing from an Airbus, even when they are on board.
    Have we reached some sort of optimum design where every plane looks the same as every other and we will never see anything different. All we will see is different sizes of the same thing.
    Just wondering..........!


  • Options
    #77
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    I don't know too much about the technical advances that have been made in aircraft design and construction and the economics of it all, but I can't help thinking that, (with the exception of the failed Concorde project), there has been no radical new type of passenger aircraft since the 1950s. The most modern passenger aircraft look almost identical to the Boeing 707. Even the A380 just looked like a 707 on steroids.
    OK, I know that planes are built using different materials and the engines are bigger and more powerful,(thereby needing only two instead of four), but the fundamental design and shape is exactly the same and the average person could not distinguish a Boeing from an Airbus, even when they are on board.
    Have we reached some sort of optimum design where every plane looks the same as every other and we will never see anything different. All we will see is different sizes of the same thing.
    Just wondering..........!

    Aerodynamics doesn’t change. Take a look at the ME-262 (worlds first jet fighter to enter operational service in 1944) and it basically looks like a mini 737-100


  • Options
    #78
    Turbulent Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Turbulent Bill


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    Have we reached some sort of optimum design where every plane looks the same as every other and we will never see anything different. All we will see is different sizes of the same thing.
    Just wondering..........!

    Yes, at least for mainstream airliners. Overall price/performance of a twin is better than anything else, and the technology is mature.

    The only caveat is if a step-change in technology occurred, say battery rather than jet power.


  • Options
    #79
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,663 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    irishrover99 wrote: »
    Really disappointing news.
    Best airplane ever to fly on as a passenger and pisses all over the 747, at least in my opinion.

    I've flown on both, and always found the 747 to be noisier, less comfortable, rougher flight, and just not as nice.


  • Options
    #80
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That's one business model, another one and a much more successful one is the Southwest/Ryanair model of buy the newest and most efficient aircraft, fly them as many hours in the day as physically possible, and sell them on before the major maintenance issues crop up.

    Flying eight hours a day is a criminal underuse of an asset, no matter how cheaply you bought it.
    read it again...I said it was an average. It's all about hours and cycles. Airlines that thrash their aircraft find that they have to overhaul them sooner and replace them sooner. One well-known low cost carrier thought that they'd operate by thrashing the aircraft and then sell them on just before the C check. Unfortunately, this bit them on the ass because the market soon found itself with a glut of 737s needing C checks and the LCC soon found itself having to keep the tatty 737s and carry out the C check (engine changes, APU changes, landing gear changes, skin repairs....all the expensive mechanical stuff that puts a real hit on the year's profit.). This had the net effect of slowing down their fleet replenishment plans and it led to a very testy relationship with their sole airframe supplier.


  • Options
    #81
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    I wonder what this will mean for the hangar currently under construction in Shannon


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    irishrover99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    McGaggs wrote: »
    I've flown on both, and always found the 747 to be noisier, less comfortable, rougher flight, and just not as nice.

    I agree. I’ve flown a few 747s and what I always remember is the rattling noise the plane made during take off and even in flight, especially from the over head luggage compartment.
    I’ve been on the A340-600 with Qatar about 10 years ago and I enjoyed that more than the 747.


  • Options
    #83
    duskyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭duskyjoe


    When your paying for the gas at full whack then the economies of scale really hit. Incredible aircraft but can’t compete with the big twins of 777x /350 1000 LR that are coming in stream that give serious bang for buck and don’t need to be full to glean a profit . The hard reality is many airlines are going wallop on the side lines and no one wants an a380 on their books unless your printing money


  • Options
    #84
    random_banter
    Registered Users Posts: 614 ✭✭✭random_banter


    I think it's a shame from the passenger POV. A380 without a doubt the most comfortable aircraft I've ever experienced. But cost is cost, you can't argue with the demand for point to point travel that exists now.

    That said, I've flown on Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Air France and British Airways A380's over the last decade and once the airlines got greedy the comfort was lost - this was the case with Air France when I travelled on them. Pretty awful and a general lack of comfort (plus poor service). I can't quite remember if they had upped the seat numbers across but whatever it was, it was less of a comfortable journey. After that it becomes just another cattle class in economy anyway. SIA and BA were the business though.


  • Options
    #85
    EdgeCase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    These things come and go. If there's a major change in aviation fuel prices or a radically more efficient engine design, maybe the A380 airframe could make a comeback in at some stage in the future.

    At present, the business model doesn't fit the design. It was a fairly serious marketing miscalculation by Airbus though which is a bit worrying.

    There were a lot of material science and fundamental R&D that will carry from A380 to other aircraft though. It's not entirely lost and it's not like they just shred the design. You ban be sure it will have had influenced a lot of other projects.


  • Options
    #86
    BlackandGreen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭BlackandGreen


    random_banter wrote: »
    I think it's a shame from the passenger POV. A380 without a doubt the most comfortable aircraft I've ever experienced. But cost is cost, you can't argue with the demand for point to point travel that exists now.

    That said, I've flown on Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Air France and British Airways A380's over the last decade and once the airlines got greedy the comfort was lost - this was the case with Air France when I travelled on them. Pretty awful and a general lack of comfort (plus poor service). I can't quite remember if they had upped the seat numbers across but whatever it was, it was less of a comfortable journey. After that it becomes just another cattle class in economy anyway. SIA and BA were the business though.


    Yep, can second this for Air France. Their A380 cabin is just cramped and uncomfortable and their cabin service is poor and infrequent.


  • Options
    #87
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭sk8board


    BlackandGreen wrote: »
    Yep, can second this for Air France. Their A380 cabin is just cramped and uncomfortable and their cabin service is poor and infrequent.

    My first a380 trip was on a shiny new AF from Paris to Singapore on hols, a flight I took because it was the 380, and at the time it was simply the most amazing trip I’d ever been on (and I was traveling 50-60 flights annually back then). I still remember it well, the silliness of an escalator to the ‘upper deck’ in CDG, or the Media lounge onboard - 100% money well spent


  • Options
    #88
    arubex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭arubex


    random_banter wrote: »
    I think it's a shame from the passenger POV. A380 without a doubt the most comfortable aircraft I've ever experienced. But cost is cost, you can't argue with the demand for point to point travel that exists now.

    The little genuine long-distance point-to-point that exists is being flown by 737 / 757 / A321, which were never competing against the A380.

    The 787 is famously flying Perth to Heathrow which is ... point to hub i.e. old-school spoke route. Not much different than Auckland - Dubai on an A380.

    Frankly long-haul P2P just doesn't seem lucrative, regardless of number of engines. One end needs banks of connections to make it worthwhile.


  • Options
    #89
    Third_Echelon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,889 ✭✭✭Third_Echelon


    donkey balls wrote: »
    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.

    The freighter version was cancelled as they were running into design issues and were behind on the passenger design/delivery, so concentrated on that. The tentative orders were scrapped.

    One main issue with the A380 being is that the cockpit is halfway up the front of the fuselage, unlike the 747, which is completely on the top deck. You wouldn't be able to easily create a front opening on the A380 like you can with the 747F. I also remember reading somewhere that fully loaded with freight, the A380 top and bottom deck could not take off due to weight issues - you'd have to have an empty upper deck, which would be essentially costing you money flying empty. Might as well convert a single decker for a freighter.

    So freighter conversion post pax-life is probably a no-go I would say.

    Having flown on the BA A380 on multiple occasions, it was definitely the best aircraft i've flown on for comfort. Within a few months I had flown both economy and business on both the A380 and 787-8 with BA and for both products the A380 was far superior. So quiet in the cabin. Whatever way BA had their 787 in economy laid out (think it was 3-3-3), it was very cramped and pretty much every seat seemed to have the power box for the in flight entertainment blocking one of your legs from stretching out. My knee was in bits after that flight to Montreal from LHR.

    The A380 will still be around for a long time to come. Like someone else previously mentioned, I think it will find a second life down the like just like the 757.


  • Options
    #90
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The going over weight before the running out of cubic capacity is less of an issue for box shifters like UPS who often have a lot of empty air inside packages. They can run out of cubic capacity a long time before MTOW and those would have been the target customers for a freighter


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,139 ✭✭✭plodder


    [HTML][/HTML]
    L1011 wrote: »
    The going over weight before the running out of cubic capacity is less of an issue for box shifters like UPS who often have a lot of empty air inside packages. They can run out of cubic capacity a long time before MTOW and those would have been the target customers for a freighter
    I wouldn't have thought the inability to open the nose would be a deal breaker either, as that is really only needed for very bulky cargo, eg in military applications. Additional cargo doors on the underneath would help, but I'd imagine that is hard to add, unless the possibility had been allowed for beforehand. I remember the head designer saying the interior of the A380 is basically a big barn, which can be configured any way you want.


Advertisement