4 ms·

> where are the relatively short domestic route (2-3 hours) where a 500+ person 747 would make sense SE Asia and Japan, mostly. The 747 was never intended for

> where are the relatively short domestic route (2-3 hours) where a 500+ person 747 would make sense SE Asia and Japan, mostly. The 747 was never intended for domestic US routes - Pan Am, the launch customer, only had international routes.

jpatokal 8y ago
On a related tangent, there was a general expectation that the A380 superjumbo would find a lot of customers on core domestic routes between Chinese and Indian megacities like Beijing-Shanghai, Mumbai-Delhi, etc. Aside from the odd filler hop between long-haul flights, this has entirely failed to materialize: there's tons of traffic between these cities but the vast majority is single-aisle 737/A320.
- dx034 8y ago
  It's similar to NYC-LAX or NYC-SFO. Airlines realised that passengers prefer 10 flights a day with a small plane rather than 4 a day with a large plane. Boarding/deboarding is faster on single-aisle planes and it gives more flexibility on travel times. Operating costs for large planes are also not lower, as long as you can get landing rights. So apart from a few overcongested airports (e.g. London Heathrow), there's really no reason to use a large plane if you can use a small one instead.
  - tesseract 8y ago
    Plus, more flights on smaller planes gives finer granularity in tuning the number of seats flown per day to match the demand for that route.
    - ra 8y ago
      plus if you provide a more frequent service, more people will use it.
  - cylinder 8y ago
    But the amount of gates is pretty much fixed. As Asia becomes richer you can see large populations now demanding seats. Perhaps the A380 was built a few decades too soon...
    - volkl48 8y ago
      Maybe in a lot of US/European airports that originally date from the first half of the 1900s, they're too close to the city center and don't have enough land to expand. Even then, they seem to be regularly able to find ways to get more gates in renovations (ex: Newark/EWR's Terminal A replacement is going to have the ability to be expanded for 12 more gates). I'm sure there's an upper limit, but plenty of those older airports can find space for more gates in modern redesigns. Most of the big modern airports were built with massive expansion in mind. Well outside the city centers and with large land areas that they already own (and so won't be developed).
    - dx034 8y ago
      You can turn-around a A320/B738 in ~20 minutes (low cost carriers do that frequently), a A380 is really challenging to turn around in less than 1 hour. Furthermore, the A380 will need space of ~2 A320/B738. So per given space and time during peak hours, small planes can actually get you more capacity than large planes. You could change that (boarding A380 through 7 doors, probably faster refuelling) but planes like the A380/B747/B777 were never designed for quick turnarounds.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Airlines realised that passengers prefer 10 flights a day with a small plane rather than 4 a day with a large plane. That isn't relevant or news regarding the A380. The A380 was designed to connect hubs in a hub and spoke model. Thus they were designed expecting to operate under the 10 flights a day scenario. Yet, if airlines bet on point-to-point services that have a limited demand then there goes the demand for higher-capacity planes.
    - dx034 8y ago
      Even with hub and spoke, more flights are better. If you have enough runways/gate capacity, you can increase frequency and keep connection times lower than with few A380 connections. The A380 was a bet on missing capacity but so far, only DXB and LHR really have this problem.
  - czep 8y ago
    > Boarding/deboarding is faster on single-aisle planes No, the complete opposite is true. Boarding and deplaning are far more efficient with twin aisles. The other features you mention are correct, however. Lower operating expense, more flexibility of routes, are why smaller twins are more successful while the VLA are being relegated to the cargo market.
    - dx034 8y ago
      Theoretically it should be faster on twin-aisle. However, you tend to get more passengers/door on twin-aisle planes. A A320 with max 180 passengers is boarded through 1-2 doors, a A380 with up to 600 passengers through 2-3 doors. They could use 7 doors for the A380 but no-one is doing that (refuelling and cargo unloading also takes longer). Other long-haul planes are often boarded through only one door (or the second one for <20 premium passengers). That can lead to boarding times of 30 minutes for a long-haul plane, compared to ~10 minutes for A320/B738 through one door (values from experience).
  - magduf 8y ago
    Boarding/deboarding is such a frustrating experience in planes: people are just too damn slow. Many people are fine: they can stand up, grab their bag out of the bin, and start walking within 2 seconds, but other people are just ridiculous. There should be a test and certification for plane passengers, where people who can demonstrate proficiency in boarding/deboarding are given priority over everyone else, so they don't have to wait for the slow people.
    - praneshp 8y ago
      > There should be a test and certification for plane passengers, This already exists, it's called ability to pay for business/first class. Increasingly, at least in America, seats near the front are getting more expensive too.
      - magduf 8y ago
        People in first class are generally rich, which means they're likely to be older, which means they're probably going to be slow too. The main advantage is that there's fewer of them since the first class section has far fewer seats than coach. I'm thinking of a system where people who have demonstrated an ability to very quickly stow a suitcase in the overhead compartment and get in their seat and out of the aisle, and then stand up, grab their suitcase, and start walking down the aisle, and do this in formation, are given special status and put in a special part of the plane as a reward for their efficiency. This would probably improve the process overall, as well as encourage people to stop screwing around so times improve overall. Maybe they should even have training classes for this. This reminds me of the difference between car drivers: some of them can jump in the driver's seat and pull out in a few seconds, and others take 5 minutes doing--I have no clue what--before they can start driving (and I don't mean people plotting directions with GPS either, I saw plenty of this behavior long before people had smartphones or GPS). That latter group is probably the same group of people who make airplane boarding/deboarding so agonizingly slow.
        praneshp 8y ago
        People in business class are typically business travelers, who tend to be frequent travelers, which means they're probably going to be fast.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    Look at Sydney <> Melbourne. One of the busiest routes in the world (second by number of flights) - Qantas itself operates 60 flights a day between the two - flown almost exclusively on B373s and A320s.
- oasisbob 8y ago
  It may qualify as an "odd filler hop" as you call it, but I was really surprised to board an A380 for a short Chennai to Sri Lanka flight last year. (The half-dozen other Indian flights were all 737/A320s)
robin_reala 8y ago
Japan actually got a specialised short range model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747SR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747SR

jpatokal 8y ago

On a related tangent, there was a general expectation that the A380 superjumbo would find a lot of customers on core domestic routes between Chinese and Indian megacities like Beijing-Shanghai, Mumbai-Delhi, etc. Aside from the odd filler hop between long-haul flights, this has entirely failed to materialize: there's tons of traffic between these cities but the vast majority is single-aisle 737/A320.

dx034 8y ago
It's similar to NYC-LAX or NYC-SFO. Airlines realised that passengers prefer 10 flights a day with a small plane rather than 4 a day with a large plane. Boarding/deboarding is faster on single-aisle planes and it gives more flexibility on travel times. Operating costs for large planes are also not lower, as long as you can get landing rights. So apart from a few overcongested airports (e.g. London Heathrow), there's really no reason to use a large plane if you can use a small one instead.
- tesseract 8y ago
  Plus, more flights on smaller planes gives finer granularity in tuning the number of seats flown per day to match the demand for that route.
  - ra 8y ago
    plus if you provide a more frequent service, more people will use it.
- cylinder 8y ago
  But the amount of gates is pretty much fixed. As Asia becomes richer you can see large populations now demanding seats. Perhaps the A380 was built a few decades too soon...
  - volkl48 8y ago
    Maybe in a lot of US/European airports that originally date from the first half of the 1900s, they're too close to the city center and don't have enough land to expand. Even then, they seem to be regularly able to find ways to get more gates in renovations (ex: Newark/EWR's Terminal A replacement is going to have the ability to be expanded for 12 more gates). I'm sure there's an upper limit, but plenty of those older airports can find space for more gates in modern redesigns. Most of the big modern airports were built with massive expansion in mind. Well outside the city centers and with large land areas that they already own (and so won't be developed).
  - dx034 8y ago
    You can turn-around a A320/B738 in ~20 minutes (low cost carriers do that frequently), a A380 is really challenging to turn around in less than 1 hour. Furthermore, the A380 will need space of ~2 A320/B738. So per given space and time during peak hours, small planes can actually get you more capacity than large planes. You could change that (boarding A380 through 7 doors, probably faster refuelling) but planes like the A380/B747/B777 were never designed for quick turnarounds.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Airlines realised that passengers prefer 10 flights a day with a small plane rather than 4 a day with a large plane. That isn't relevant or news regarding the A380. The A380 was designed to connect hubs in a hub and spoke model. Thus they were designed expecting to operate under the 10 flights a day scenario. Yet, if airlines bet on point-to-point services that have a limited demand then there goes the demand for higher-capacity planes.
  - dx034 8y ago
    Even with hub and spoke, more flights are better. If you have enough runways/gate capacity, you can increase frequency and keep connection times lower than with few A380 connections. The A380 was a bet on missing capacity but so far, only DXB and LHR really have this problem.
- czep 8y ago
  > Boarding/deboarding is faster on single-aisle planes No, the complete opposite is true. Boarding and deplaning are far more efficient with twin aisles. The other features you mention are correct, however. Lower operating expense, more flexibility of routes, are why smaller twins are more successful while the VLA are being relegated to the cargo market.
  - dx034 8y ago
    Theoretically it should be faster on twin-aisle. However, you tend to get more passengers/door on twin-aisle planes. A A320 with max 180 passengers is boarded through 1-2 doors, a A380 with up to 600 passengers through 2-3 doors. They could use 7 doors for the A380 but no-one is doing that (refuelling and cargo unloading also takes longer). Other long-haul planes are often boarded through only one door (or the second one for <20 premium passengers). That can lead to boarding times of 30 minutes for a long-haul plane, compared to ~10 minutes for A320/B738 through one door (values from experience).
- magduf 8y ago
  Boarding/deboarding is such a frustrating experience in planes: people are just too damn slow. Many people are fine: they can stand up, grab their bag out of the bin, and start walking within 2 seconds, but other people are just ridiculous. There should be a test and certification for plane passengers, where people who can demonstrate proficiency in boarding/deboarding are given priority over everyone else, so they don't have to wait for the slow people.
  - praneshp 8y ago
    > There should be a test and certification for plane passengers, This already exists, it's called ability to pay for business/first class. Increasingly, at least in America, seats near the front are getting more expensive too.
    - magduf 8y ago
      People in first class are generally rich, which means they're likely to be older, which means they're probably going to be slow too. The main advantage is that there's fewer of them since the first class section has far fewer seats than coach. I'm thinking of a system where people who have demonstrated an ability to very quickly stow a suitcase in the overhead compartment and get in their seat and out of the aisle, and then stand up, grab their suitcase, and start walking down the aisle, and do this in formation, are given special status and put in a special part of the plane as a reward for their efficiency. This would probably improve the process overall, as well as encourage people to stop screwing around so times improve overall. Maybe they should even have training classes for this. This reminds me of the difference between car drivers: some of them can jump in the driver's seat and pull out in a few seconds, and others take 5 minutes doing--I have no clue what--before they can start driving (and I don't mean people plotting directions with GPS either, I saw plenty of this behavior long before people had smartphones or GPS). That latter group is probably the same group of people who make airplane boarding/deboarding so agonizingly slow.
      - praneshp 8y ago
        People in business class are typically business travelers, who tend to be frequent travelers, which means they're probably going to be fast.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  Look at Sydney <> Melbourne. One of the busiest routes in the world (second by number of flights) - Qantas itself operates 60 flights a day between the two - flown almost exclusively on B373s and A320s.
oasisbob 8y ago
It may qualify as an "odd filler hop" as you call it, but I was really surprised to board an A380 for a short Chennai to Sri Lanka flight last year. (The half-dozen other Indian flights were all 737/A320s)

robin_reala 8y ago

Japan actually got a specialised short range model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747SR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#747SR