19 ms·

A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future

109 points by holografix 8y ago

olliej 8y ago
It is sad it seems to be dying - from a “wow that can fly” point of view - but at this point it looks like the a380 was the wrong bet :-/
- alistairSH 8y ago
  An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm walking to work. It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the sky.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - briandarvell 8y ago
    I've been fortunate to fly Emirates A380 numerous times. The most impressive flying experience I've ever had, both from Emirates customer service as well as the A380 experience.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - getalyft 8y ago
    I call it the Flytanic!
  - Theodores 8y ago
    With one flying over my house right now I don't believe they are heading for the boneyard any time soon. For London Heathrow there is no better plane for the operator with not that many slots. Nowadays there are budget airlines using budget airports with very long taxi rides to somewhere useful. You can't argue with price. Yet right now we are in an age of cheap oil that facilitates this. Had we not had the taps fully open and the fuel taxed then maybe the A380 would be king and it be hard to justify the budget flight model. Brexit really is not helping the A380 cause. The wings are made in a part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be obtained. In the post-Brexit world where nobody in power cares about jobs it is likely that Airbus rationalise production and give the formerly United Kingdom the heave-ho. They can make all the A380's the world really needs and call it a day in Blighty.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      > part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be obtained. Is that true? I see the border was last changed in 1972, but that's well before the EU and regional development funding was thought about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border
      - Theodores 8y ago
        I can't remember the Tory Brexiteer that signed it off, but it is essentially the Wirral, as in Merseyside, not Wales as we know it. Sadly I am out of touch with politics these days to have the recall of what went on as it was a while ago when I paid attention to these things. There was a fiddle there though and it wasn't way back in the 1970's.
      - youngtaff 8y ago
        I can't find any evidence to back the assertion that the border was moved - an the factory is a reasonable distance from it
  - Y_Y 8y ago
    I'd like to offer "dwarfs" as a spelling of this word.
    - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
      You are correct. Dwarves is plural dwarf noun. Dwarfs is the verb.
Someone1234 8y ago
I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Flying in a larger aircraft makes one feel less like cargo, in particularly for airlines that offer places to stretch your legs (e.g. "bar" seating, showers, staircases, etc). I was always kind of secretly hoping large blimps would return. And we'd get to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat-back of the person in front resting on your knees, or 24 hours on a slow blimp with a bed, the ability to walk around, and social areas. Kind of like a cruise ship in the sky. An A380 feels kind of like Concord in that it really touched the imagination. I still hope to have a shower at 40,000 feet before they're retired completely.
- thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  The A350 has staircases IIRC ?
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    I don't believe it does, at least not in a typical configuration. The only true double-deckers are the 747 and the A380. Some other wide-bodies have been configured with a galley below the passenger deck, so flight crew have stairs but not passengers. Maybe there's a variant with lavatories below deck? If so, it's not common.
    - djcapelis 8y ago
      The A340 in a few airlines (Lufthansa for sure, others probably too) has a set of lavatories below deck. So other than the 747 and A380 that’s the only other plane I can think of with stairs for passengers.
      - _ph_ 8y ago
        I flew on the Lufthansa A340 from MUC to SFO and very much liked their lavatory setup. Having 6 lavatories in one spot solved very much the logistics of selecting the right one and reduced the waiting time. Also, it is nice not to sit besides the constantly closing doors.
code4tee 8y ago
It’s an interesting aircraft and nice to fly in, but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. Boeing got some flack at the time when they canceled their own superjumbo plans but history now shows they were spot on shifting their focus to the 787 and getting a head start on the efficient midsize long range jet market.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    The 380 also can’t do cargo, which is still a popular use case for the 747 and why they are still being made.
  - code4tee 8y ago
    It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum when new designers were using composites. Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.
    - foldr 8y ago
      >For example aluminum when new designers were using composites The A380 makes pretty extensive use of composites. It's only conservative in this respect compared to the Dreamliner.
    - Xixi 8y ago
      That's not completely true: the A380 is using composite extensively, more so than any aircraft built before (A330/340 or Boeing 777), although less than either Boeing 787 or A350. The problem of the A380 really boils down to one thing: it's too big. Other than its size, the A380 is still surprisingly efficient despite engines that are largely outdated (compared to 787/A350 engines). But double deckers are very efficient by design, so maybe it's not that surprising. I think the only airliners more efficient currently flying (in terms of fuel per passenger, with normalized density/layout) are the A350-1000 and 787-10 (though one could argue the latter is more of a mid-range aircraft, so not directly comparable). The 777-9 will also beat it. Even more surprising when realizing that the A380 is in fact a shrink: there was supposed to be an even bigger (longer) version, so it's overbuilt (read: overweight) for its size. But empty seats (or seats sold at very high discount, or a low seat count because the airline knows it's not going to sell that many tickets to begin with) don't make it economically viable on most routes out there. Besides Emirates only British Airways seems very happy with them. Even the 777-9 is starting to feel like it's too big, with very few airlines ordering it. Even the smaller A350-1000 is not raking in orders...
diebeforei485 8y ago
In hindsight, it's telling that even the biggest A380 operator didn't actually buy the plane themselves - they leased it through various special-purpose vehicles which were then sliced into various investment portfolios. Goldman Sachs is one investment bank that set up some of the structures for this - https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/GS_AR12_Client_Stories.pdf https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/G...
- dboreham 8y ago
  Isn't this kind of financial engineering SOP for all sorts of large assets since decades?
  - diebeforei485 8y ago
    Except that the issuer of the security is the lessor in this case, not the airline. The airline can just give the plane back to Doric after the 12-year lease period (which ends in 2020-2021 for the first batch of aircraft), and let Doric deal with the investors. This is in contrast to, say, recent deals by United Airlines Inc, where the airline (or its related party, such as its parent holding company United Continental Holdings Inc) was the entity issuing the security.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Is it possible to short these securities?
- youngtaff 8y ago
  It's pretty common for airlines to lease planes rather than buy them themselves
bdamm 8y ago
The A380 and 747 are both remarkable aircraft, but I love my direct flights to all major cities within 1000 miles, and many beyond that. Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to, until it takes 30 minutes to fly instead of 3 hours to drive. And with so many airports linking up mass transit, the air travel network is almost an extension of public transit. If you're like me and fly with TSA-Pre, showing up at the airport 10 minutes ahead of gate call can become a regular and reliable thing. Good times ahead! For those of you in the Bay Area, this is like having a cheap ticket to fly to South Lake Tahoe, or commuting from Santa Rosa to San Jose. Operators like Surf Air might become commonplace. And the A380 and 747 had to die as airliners came to realize this is the future.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  >Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to (All) electric airliners are unlikely to exist commercially without a fundamental breakthrough in energy storage technology. Even hybrid-electric systems are only barely viable as a research area right now, and they are decades away from commercial production. I'm a researcher in this field, and I wish I could say otherwise, but the rosy picture you paint is unlikely to be reality at least within the next 3-4 decades.
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen) going to be viable for flying within a reasonable timeframe? Whilst I expect that short-haul flights will be replaced by high-speed trains we're still going to need planes for intercontinental travel. EasyJet are hoping to have electric planes covering the London-Amsterdam route in 2030: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-easyjet-electric-plane-london-amsterdam-2030 https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-ea....
    - ars 8y ago
woadwarrior01 8y ago
I got upgraded from business class to first class on an Emirates A380 flight from Dubai to London a couple of years ago. Showering mid-flight was an experience I'd never forget! Especially, the gauge in the shower which goes down while the water's running (Lasted about 8 minutes, IIRC) :)
- kirykl 8y ago
  That’d be a great smart appliance for homes with tank water heaters.
- mikejb 8y ago
  I had a similar fortune from Dubai to Munich. The shower was really the cherry on top of an incredible experience. My other favorite moment was when I got my starters and got asked "would you like some Vodka with your caviar?". The entire flight was just outrageously entertaining - unlike the following flight on economy class
- FabHK 8y ago
  There is (was?) a A380 flight with Emirates from Dubai via Bangkok to Hong Kong, and back, and you could buy tix for that last segment BKK–HKG for about 200 USD, or 300 USD business, or 400 USD first. Cheapest way to get a shower at 35k feet (without miles wizardry), I’d think! (And who doesn’t want to shower on a 2 hour flight... :-)
  - sitepodmatt 8y ago
    It always been (since 2015 anyway) at least 15k thb for business which is closer to $420rtn, I dont recall seeing first being that competitive either, looking at now when first is available it is over $1000usd nowadays. It's possible I've missed a megasale though although I used to check quite regularly. Showers in first are booked on other legs, you're given a choice of times, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't enabled for such a short leg.
  - mikejb 8y ago
    If you buy a First-class ticket, don't just enjoy the parts of the flight itself, but also the optimizations around it. With my first-class flight from Dubai to Munich it was impressively efficient: I got picked up at my Hotel in Dubai, in a car with WiFi where I could have worked, until the Driver dropped me at the first-class gate. No queues, friendly staff, dropped my luggage and went through security within 5 minutes of leaving the car. Went straight to the lounge, where I got drinks and could have worked some more, until I got picked up for boarding. First class is the last to board, to minimize waiting time in the airplane. Same idea goes on arrival: First class leaves first. I got straight to passport control before the 500 people from the lower deck were able to form a queue there. When I was done, my luggage was already waiting for me, picked it up and met my driver to get me home - again all within probably 5 minutes of leaving the plane. This first class flight really was designed to enable the traveler to be most efficient with their time. That the luggage was ready was most impressive to me. At least Emirates marked the luggage, and probably loaded it in a way that first&business luggage gets out first, and fast.
sxates 8y ago
My direct flight from San Francisco to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A380 (in premium economy) is a delight. I go out of my way to get that flight on that plane. Room to stretch out and walk around makes such a difference. But I don't know what the economics behind planes like this is - maybe it's not so great an experience for the airlines as it is for passengers.
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  I've done the opposite flight on Lufthansa in an A380 in cattle class, it's still a delight. The A380 is still exceedingly quiet and comfortable, and the Lufthansa product was exceptional (especially compared to United). That said there's probably a fair amount of pressure for the German flag carrier to fly the premier German plane.
- dk1138 8y ago
  I've had the luck of doing this flight in 1st class a few times. It is bar-none the best flying experience I've ever had. There is little to no sound pollution up that far. They have closets instead of overhead bins, so you have tall ceilings that really open up the space. The bathrooms are huge. No showers, but huge. It is the only flight experience where I've gotten off the plane feeling more rested than when I got on.
- andjd 8y ago
  Agreed. Even flying economy the A380 feels a lot less cramped than any other plane I've flown on and for long-haul flights, that's a big deal.
Animats 8y ago
"Is there a market" has always been a big question for very large aircraft. The C-5A flew in 1968, and there was talk of a civilian model. But nobody wanted a commercial aircraft that big.
- briandear 8y ago
  The problem is wingspan; those planes are difficult in the terminal area, the wingspan on a 380 is at the maximum limit for many airports. So unless airports get rebuilt, those large wingspan airplanes are going to be limited compared to the smaller options. It’s a 262 ft wingspan. The C5 Galaxy is 223 ft; a Galaxy would “fit” fine at most airports, but the 380 is cutting it very close. An Antonov has a 290ft wingspan which would make it impossible to use as a normal passenger plane (although they’re very popular in Houston for shipping oilfield equipment.) The 380 is a fun plane, but it’s of limited usefulness beyond passenger load.
protomyth 8y ago
I've found DJ's Aviation channel on YouTube to be a good source of information on this type of stuff. He has a new video on this subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s
_ph_ 8y ago
I am not giving up on the A380 yet! :) While it might be more profitable for the airlines to use the large 2-engined planes on more direct routes, air traffic is still increasing. Yet, most international airports already are operating at their capacity. So I wonder when the point is reached, where it is no longer possible to add more flights to increase the passenger count. Then, larger airplanes would be needed.
- avar 8y ago
  At that point the A380 will be a 30-40 year old design, and won't be competitive anymore.
  - wahern 8y ago
    Road transportation accounts for ~50% of oil consumption. In 20 years most cars may be electric. And if renewables continue growing such that oil consumption isn't simply shifted to power plants, the fuel inefficiency of the A380 may matter much less. Also, the shift to point-to-point can only grow so much before the fuel efficiencies of the 787 and A350 come into equilibrium with the density of the A380. Moreover, most of the world continues to flock to mega cities. As cities expand airport usage increases while simultaneously making it more costly to expand or build airports. But 20 years, let alone 40 years, is a long ways out; who knows what will transpire. That said, the 777 is 25 years old and still dominating. At 30 and 35 years it still may be dominating even as the 777X slowly replaces it. A 30-year-old A380 may still be no less relevant, if not more relevant, than today.
  - nexuist 8y ago
    I think aviation probably has a huge time-to-market compared to almost every other technology field; the B-52 first flew in 1952 and is scheduled to be decommissioned around 2050 (!) Aircraft bought today will be in service for at least several decades; it wouldn't be profitable for airlines to dump cash into them otherwise.
    - avar 8y ago
      A380 development started in earnest in 2000, it first flew in 2005. It seems reasonable that we could have a jumbo jet designed in 2035 fly in 2040. The B52 is still flying, but a bomber doesn't need to be economical to operate like an airliner has to. The US military can't be said to have a limited fuel budget. Sure, airliners operate for decades, but when they're bought they're state of the art. The A380 isn't economical to operate now.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
One of the less obvious concerns about the retiring of the A380 would be the write down of all the infrastructure that Airbus invested in to be able to build these planes. It does seem like the "future of flight" is efficient, smaller, twin jets rather than these 'super tankers' of the sky. One of the interesting tours you can go on in Everett WA is the Boeing 'Future of Flight' tour where you see the building where they are now building 777 and 787's but were originally building 747s. The adaptations to handle the smaller aircraft are pretty creative but the costs larger tooling is just written off. On a program that lived as long as the 747 has that isn't a big deal, but when you've only made 20% of the planes you expected to make? I would think that has to hurt your profitability.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  It took a long time for the 747 to reach break-even, but after that every one sold was a huge infusion of cash to Boeing. The 747 was an enormous bet-the-company gamble, and it paid off enormously.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    I think you sort of have to plan for it to be like that. If you tried to pay for all the tooling on the sales of the first 100 you would likely price yourself out of the market. So somewhere an analyst has to say, "Our lowest predicted lifetime volume is <a>, our expected volume is <b>, and our exceeds volume would be <c>." and then look at how much per plane to charge to pay off the tooling. It sounds from the press coverage that Airbus is coming in below even their lowest forecast lifetime volume, which my just be exaggeration on the press' part, but if true it means some write downs are in Airbus' future.
    - johnm1019 8y ago
      I would not suggest pricing things in this way. The analysts should look at what competing products cost, and where is ours unique and what advantage does it give the airline. Convert that advantage over competing products to a dollar amount. Add that to the price of the competing product. Subtract some so you always win when the customer does their own cost/benefit analysis. If you price your products based on your costs, you're either losing profit-margin or sales (sales, because you're making the wrong thing at the wrong price).
xnomad 8y ago
I can't help think ETOPS are going too far. One day a big twin will fly from Sydney to Santiago and develop double engine trouble and the 3-4 engine minimum will be mandated again.
ggm 8y ago
I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using otherwise available shells (I believe) QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, even if the economic decision was to walk. I am a frequent QANTAS passenger. I know from all my experiences and peers discussions, we prefer the 380 over almost any shell QANTAS flies. I flew the original QANTAS 747 longhauls. They were fine for their day. They are significantly behind the ball compared to the 380 experience. The 350 will be a fine plane. the 787 is a compromised experience in the air. (btw, it is QANTAS not Quantas: Its an Acronym)
- tricolon 8y ago
  (It doesn't seem like it's an acronym anymore: http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en)
  - ggm 8y ago
    Yea. Looks like you're right. they prefer the Qantas branding, so I'm in the junkheap of history. I'll try and learn to use Qantas not QANTAS.
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  It is not "QANTAS" and it isn't an acronym. In October 1947 QANTAS was bought out by the government and shutdown. The company that exists today is the descendent of Qantas Empire Airlines (notice the different capitalisation) which was founded in 1934 as a joint venture by QANTAS and BOAC (British Overseas Air Corporation). When the joint venture was founded the name chosen was not an acronym and was not all uppercase. That name was "inspired by" QANTAS Limited but is not QANTAS. https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1472377?c=people https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1472377?c=people
  - ggm 8y ago
taitems 8y ago
Not an aviation nerd, but had a local one explain a particular A380 issue to me. About once a month the main daily SYD/MEL to LAX routes had to turn around and it was pretty much always the Rolls Royce engine (one of two engine manufacturers for redundancy). And then it started happening on the other engine as well. Can't confirm the frequency, but when I was talking to a Qantas crew member about this over a year ago he nodded and said they won't be purchasing any new A380s. He said he felt they were bought for the marketing "me too" reason more than anything else. EDIT: That being said I loved the A380, I frequently flew premium economy intl. on it and even if you could wrangle the small (something like 20 row?) economy section upstairs it felt less like cattle class.
- jen729w 8y ago
  The front row — only 2 seats wide — of that upstairs economy section is a great little place to travel with a partner. The small cabin makes it feel much more premium.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  That doesn't sound right (well, Qantas did have RR engine trouble, as did all RR engined A380s) as all A380 fleets have four of the same type/manufacturer of engine (RR or GE, depending on the airline) and it will be common across all the planes in the fleet. It doesn't make sense to have to double up on maintenance costs, equipment and engineering staff with two types, plus the added risk of a GE bolt/whatever accidentally fitted to a RR engine causing an accident...
ulfw 8y ago
Very sad, having flown the A380 many times and it even once saved my life due to it’s masterfully engineered airframe and systems (uncontained engine explosion, the only accident A380 ever had). It seems we aren’t able to build anything great or unique anymore without it failing in the market (Concorde, A380). More cattle class mediocraty flying on 737s from the 60s and 3-3-3 seating 787s etc
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Boom and others are trying to re-enter the supersonic space with smaller jets. The main problem with Concorde was that it couldn't fill up seats at the ticket prices being charged, and transatlantic subsonic flights were both more comfortable at the equivalent ticket price, and at the flying time sweet spot of 6-8 hours, which is long enough to just sleep and wake up in the morning. Had SSTs come of age in the '80s and had a range closer to 6000nm, then they probably would've taken off for transpacific flights. 6000nm from HNL gets you to pretty much all of East Asia, Singapore, and the entirety of North America.
  - apapli 8y ago
    The accidents didn’t help either, right? I like the idea of Boom, but would much prefer the engineering from either Airbus or Boeing. I think all this talk “MVP” and startups so often in the same sentence over nearly a decade now makes me worried that Boom won’t have enough resources to achieve anything less than an exceptional job with regards to safety. And my life isn’t worth risking to save a few hours of travel time by putting it in the hands of a startup.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      The FAA doesn't hand out flight certifications like candy. I wouldn't be worried too much. Concorde's only fatal accident was a result of running over debris that punctured the fuel tank and burst a tire, so it wasn't necessarily any issue with the plane itself. Conveniently enough, this also happened near the EOL of the plane, right before a recession and 9/11.
- deleted 8y ago
drallison 8y ago
I flew on an Air France A380 from CDG to SFO a few months ago seated in premium economy. It was an outstanding flight, comfortable and pleasant. I would choose to fly on an A380 over most of the other long distance aircraft, given the choice.
tapland 8y ago
I have the pleasure of a nice view overlooking Copenhagen Airport. It's at a far enough distance that most airliners kind of disappear when doing their final approach, and an A380 showing up really puts the size differences on display. It looks like a huge whale or cruise ship floating over the landscape.
ggm 8y ago
How much of the problem is Rolls-Royce over promising and under delivering?
reacweb 8y ago
When you increase the size of an aircraft, you reduce the discomfort associated with weather conditions. If the occupancy rate is good, you also increase fuel efficiency. To have good occupancy rate, you need to organize and to have many airports supporting big aircrafts. This is only political and Boeing is a very strong political influencer to harm competition. Like for Concorde, when Boeing fails on technical, they use political tricks.
- akerl_ 8y ago
  “If the occupancy rate is good, you also increase fuel efficiency” is only true if all else is equal. In this case, it’s not: the hop from 2-engine to 4-engine hurts fuel efficiency and adds to cost/complexity of the aircraft.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  What are the political tricks that Boeing used to discourage Emirates and Qantas from buying Airbus?

109 points by holografix 8y ago

It is sad it seems to be dying - from a “wow that can fly” point of view - but at this point it looks like the a380 was the wrong bet :-/

alistairSH 8y ago
An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm walking to work. It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the sky.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- briandarvell 8y ago
  I've been fortunate to fly Emirates A380 numerous times. The most impressive flying experience I've ever had, both from Emirates customer service as well as the A380 experience.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- getalyft 8y ago
  I call it the Flytanic!
- Theodores 8y ago
  With one flying over my house right now I don't believe they are heading for the boneyard any time soon. For London Heathrow there is no better plane for the operator with not that many slots. Nowadays there are budget airlines using budget airports with very long taxi rides to somewhere useful. You can't argue with price. Yet right now we are in an age of cheap oil that facilitates this. Had we not had the taps fully open and the fuel taxed then maybe the A380 would be king and it be hard to justify the budget flight model. Brexit really is not helping the A380 cause. The wings are made in a part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be obtained. In the post-Brexit world where nobody in power cares about jobs it is likely that Airbus rationalise production and give the formerly United Kingdom the heave-ho. They can make all the A380's the world really needs and call it a day in Blighty.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    > part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be obtained. Is that true? I see the border was last changed in 1972, but that's well before the EU and regional development funding was thought about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border
    - Theodores 8y ago
      I can't remember the Tory Brexiteer that signed it off, but it is essentially the Wirral, as in Merseyside, not Wales as we know it. Sadly I am out of touch with politics these days to have the recall of what went on as it was a while ago when I paid attention to these things. There was a fiddle there though and it wasn't way back in the 1970's.
    - youngtaff 8y ago
      I can't find any evidence to back the assertion that the border was moved - an the factory is a reasonable distance from it
- Y_Y 8y ago
  I'd like to offer "dwarfs" as a spelling of this word.
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    You are correct. Dwarves is plural dwarf noun. Dwarfs is the verb.

Someone1234 8y ago

I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Flying in a larger aircraft makes one feel less like cargo, in particularly for airlines that offer places to stretch your legs (e.g. "bar" seating, showers, staircases, etc). I was always kind of secretly hoping large blimps would return. And we'd get to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat-back of the person in front resting on your knees, or 24 hours on a slow blimp with a bed, the ability to walk around, and social areas. Kind of like a cruise ship in the sky. An A380 feels kind of like Concord in that it really touched the imagination. I still hope to have a shower at 40,000 feet before they're retired completely.

thatfrenchguy 8y ago
The A350 has staircases IIRC ?
- alistairSH 8y ago
  I don't believe it does, at least not in a typical configuration. The only true double-deckers are the 747 and the A380. Some other wide-bodies have been configured with a galley below the passenger deck, so flight crew have stairs but not passengers. Maybe there's a variant with lavatories below deck? If so, it's not common.
  - djcapelis 8y ago
    The A340 in a few airlines (Lufthansa for sure, others probably too) has a set of lavatories below deck. So other than the 747 and A380 that’s the only other plane I can think of with stairs for passengers.
    - _ph_ 8y ago
      I flew on the Lufthansa A340 from MUC to SFO and very much liked their lavatory setup. Having 6 lavatories in one spot solved very much the logistics of selecting the right one and reduced the waiting time. Also, it is nice not to sit besides the constantly closing doors.

code4tee 8y ago

It’s an interesting aircraft and nice to fly in, but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. Boeing got some flack at the time when they canceled their own superjumbo plans but history now shows they were spot on shifting their focus to the 787 and getting a head start on the efficient midsize long range jet market.

macspoofing 8y ago
>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time. I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine jumbo-jets may make a comeback).
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  The 380 also can’t do cargo, which is still a popular use case for the 747 and why they are still being made.
- code4tee 8y ago
  It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum when new designers were using composites. Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >For example aluminum when new designers were using composites The A380 makes pretty extensive use of composites. It's only conservative in this respect compared to the Dreamliner.
  - Xixi 8y ago
    That's not completely true: the A380 is using composite extensively, more so than any aircraft built before (A330/340 or Boeing 777), although less than either Boeing 787 or A350. The problem of the A380 really boils down to one thing: it's too big. Other than its size, the A380 is still surprisingly efficient despite engines that are largely outdated (compared to 787/A350 engines). But double deckers are very efficient by design, so maybe it's not that surprising. I think the only airliners more efficient currently flying (in terms of fuel per passenger, with normalized density/layout) are the A350-1000 and 787-10 (though one could argue the latter is more of a mid-range aircraft, so not directly comparable). The 777-9 will also beat it. Even more surprising when realizing that the A380 is in fact a shrink: there was supposed to be an even bigger (longer) version, so it's overbuilt (read: overweight) for its size. But empty seats (or seats sold at very high discount, or a low seat count because the airline knows it's not going to sell that many tickets to begin with) don't make it economically viable on most routes out there. Besides Emirates only British Airways seems very happy with them. Even the 777-9 is starting to feel like it's too big, with very few airlines ordering it. Even the smaller A350-1000 is not raking in orders...

diebeforei485 8y ago

In hindsight, it's telling that even the biggest A380 operator didn't actually buy the plane themselves - they leased it through various special-purpose vehicles which were then sliced into various investment portfolios. Goldman Sachs is one investment bank that set up some of the structures for this - https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/GS_AR12_Client_Stories.pdf https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/G...

dboreham 8y ago
Isn't this kind of financial engineering SOP for all sorts of large assets since decades?
- diebeforei485 8y ago
  Except that the issuer of the security is the lessor in this case, not the airline. The airline can just give the plane back to Doric after the 12-year lease period (which ends in 2020-2021 for the first batch of aircraft), and let Doric deal with the investors. This is in contrast to, say, recent deals by United Airlines Inc, where the airline (or its related party, such as its parent holding company United Continental Holdings Inc) was the entity issuing the security.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Is it possible to short these securities?
youngtaff 8y ago
It's pretty common for airlines to lease planes rather than buy them themselves

bdamm 8y ago

The A380 and 747 are both remarkable aircraft, but I love my direct flights to all major cities within 1000 miles, and many beyond that. Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to, until it takes 30 minutes to fly instead of 3 hours to drive. And with so many airports linking up mass transit, the air travel network is almost an extension of public transit. If you're like me and fly with TSA-Pre, showing up at the airport 10 minutes ahead of gate call can become a regular and reliable thing. Good times ahead! For those of you in the Bay Area, this is like having a cheap ticket to fly to South Lake Tahoe, or commuting from Santa Rosa to San Jose. Operators like Surf Air might become commonplace. And the A380 and 747 had to die as airliners came to realize this is the future.

0xffff2 8y ago
>Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to (All) electric airliners are unlikely to exist commercially without a fundamental breakthrough in energy storage technology. Even hybrid-electric systems are only barely viable as a research area right now, and they are decades away from commercial production. I'm a researcher in this field, and I wish I could say otherwise, but the rosy picture you paint is unlikely to be reality at least within the next 3-4 decades.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen) going to be viable for flying within a reasonable timeframe? Whilst I expect that short-haul flights will be replaced by high-speed trains we're still going to need planes for intercontinental travel. EasyJet are hoping to have electric planes covering the London-Amsterdam route in 2030: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-easyjet-electric-plane-london-amsterdam-2030 https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-ea....
  - ars 8y ago

woadwarrior01 8y ago

I got upgraded from business class to first class on an Emirates A380 flight from Dubai to London a couple of years ago. Showering mid-flight was an experience I'd never forget! Especially, the gauge in the shower which goes down while the water's running (Lasted about 8 minutes, IIRC) :)

kirykl 8y ago
That’d be a great smart appliance for homes with tank water heaters.
mikejb 8y ago
I had a similar fortune from Dubai to Munich. The shower was really the cherry on top of an incredible experience. My other favorite moment was when I got my starters and got asked "would you like some Vodka with your caviar?". The entire flight was just outrageously entertaining - unlike the following flight on economy class
FabHK 8y ago
There is (was?) a A380 flight with Emirates from Dubai via Bangkok to Hong Kong, and back, and you could buy tix for that last segment BKK–HKG for about 200 USD, or 300 USD business, or 400 USD first. Cheapest way to get a shower at 35k feet (without miles wizardry), I’d think! (And who doesn’t want to shower on a 2 hour flight... :-)
- sitepodmatt 8y ago
  It always been (since 2015 anyway) at least 15k thb for business which is closer to $420rtn, I dont recall seeing first being that competitive either, looking at now when first is available it is over $1000usd nowadays. It's possible I've missed a megasale though although I used to check quite regularly. Showers in first are booked on other legs, you're given a choice of times, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't enabled for such a short leg.
- mikejb 8y ago
  If you buy a First-class ticket, don't just enjoy the parts of the flight itself, but also the optimizations around it. With my first-class flight from Dubai to Munich it was impressively efficient: I got picked up at my Hotel in Dubai, in a car with WiFi where I could have worked, until the Driver dropped me at the first-class gate. No queues, friendly staff, dropped my luggage and went through security within 5 minutes of leaving the car. Went straight to the lounge, where I got drinks and could have worked some more, until I got picked up for boarding. First class is the last to board, to minimize waiting time in the airplane. Same idea goes on arrival: First class leaves first. I got straight to passport control before the 500 people from the lower deck were able to form a queue there. When I was done, my luggage was already waiting for me, picked it up and met my driver to get me home - again all within probably 5 minutes of leaving the plane. This first class flight really was designed to enable the traveler to be most efficient with their time. That the luggage was ready was most impressive to me. At least Emirates marked the luggage, and probably loaded it in a way that first&business luggage gets out first, and fast.

sxates 8y ago

My direct flight from San Francisco to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A380 (in premium economy) is a delight. I go out of my way to get that flight on that plane. Room to stretch out and walk around makes such a difference. But I don't know what the economics behind planes like this is - maybe it's not so great an experience for the airlines as it is for passengers.

inferiorhuman 8y ago
I've done the opposite flight on Lufthansa in an A380 in cattle class, it's still a delight. The A380 is still exceedingly quiet and comfortable, and the Lufthansa product was exceptional (especially compared to United). That said there's probably a fair amount of pressure for the German flag carrier to fly the premier German plane.
dk1138 8y ago
I've had the luck of doing this flight in 1st class a few times. It is bar-none the best flying experience I've ever had. There is little to no sound pollution up that far. They have closets instead of overhead bins, so you have tall ceilings that really open up the space. The bathrooms are huge. No showers, but huge. It is the only flight experience where I've gotten off the plane feeling more rested than when I got on.
andjd 8y ago
Agreed. Even flying economy the A380 feels a lot less cramped than any other plane I've flown on and for long-haul flights, that's a big deal.

Animats 8y ago

"Is there a market" has always been a big question for very large aircraft. The C-5A flew in 1968, and there was talk of a civilian model. But nobody wanted a commercial aircraft that big.

briandear 8y ago
The problem is wingspan; those planes are difficult in the terminal area, the wingspan on a 380 is at the maximum limit for many airports. So unless airports get rebuilt, those large wingspan airplanes are going to be limited compared to the smaller options. It’s a 262 ft wingspan. The C5 Galaxy is 223 ft; a Galaxy would “fit” fine at most airports, but the 380 is cutting it very close. An Antonov has a 290ft wingspan which would make it impossible to use as a normal passenger plane (although they’re very popular in Houston for shipping oilfield equipment.) The 380 is a fun plane, but it’s of limited usefulness beyond passenger load.

protomyth 8y ago

I've found DJ's Aviation channel on YouTube to be a good source of information on this type of stuff. He has a new video on this subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s

_ph_ 8y ago

I am not giving up on the A380 yet! :) While it might be more profitable for the airlines to use the large 2-engined planes on more direct routes, air traffic is still increasing. Yet, most international airports already are operating at their capacity. So I wonder when the point is reached, where it is no longer possible to add more flights to increase the passenger count. Then, larger airplanes would be needed.

avar 8y ago
At that point the A380 will be a 30-40 year old design, and won't be competitive anymore.
- wahern 8y ago
  Road transportation accounts for ~50% of oil consumption. In 20 years most cars may be electric. And if renewables continue growing such that oil consumption isn't simply shifted to power plants, the fuel inefficiency of the A380 may matter much less. Also, the shift to point-to-point can only grow so much before the fuel efficiencies of the 787 and A350 come into equilibrium with the density of the A380. Moreover, most of the world continues to flock to mega cities. As cities expand airport usage increases while simultaneously making it more costly to expand or build airports. But 20 years, let alone 40 years, is a long ways out; who knows what will transpire. That said, the 777 is 25 years old and still dominating. At 30 and 35 years it still may be dominating even as the 777X slowly replaces it. A 30-year-old A380 may still be no less relevant, if not more relevant, than today.
- nexuist 8y ago
  I think aviation probably has a huge time-to-market compared to almost every other technology field; the B-52 first flew in 1952 and is scheduled to be decommissioned around 2050 (!) Aircraft bought today will be in service for at least several decades; it wouldn't be profitable for airlines to dump cash into them otherwise.
  - avar 8y ago
    A380 development started in earnest in 2000, it first flew in 2005. It seems reasonable that we could have a jumbo jet designed in 2035 fly in 2040. The B52 is still flying, but a bomber doesn't need to be economical to operate like an airliner has to. The US military can't be said to have a limited fuel budget. Sure, airliners operate for decades, but when they're bought they're state of the art. The A380 isn't economical to operate now.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

One of the less obvious concerns about the retiring of the A380 would be the write down of all the infrastructure that Airbus invested in to be able to build these planes. It does seem like the "future of flight" is efficient, smaller, twin jets rather than these 'super tankers' of the sky. One of the interesting tours you can go on in Everett WA is the Boeing 'Future of Flight' tour where you see the building where they are now building 777 and 787's but were originally building 747s. The adaptations to handle the smaller aircraft are pretty creative but the costs larger tooling is just written off. On a program that lived as long as the 747 has that isn't a big deal, but when you've only made 20% of the planes you expected to make? I would think that has to hurt your profitability.

WalterBright 8y ago
It took a long time for the 747 to reach break-even, but after that every one sold was a huge infusion of cash to Boeing. The 747 was an enormous bet-the-company gamble, and it paid off enormously.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  I think you sort of have to plan for it to be like that. If you tried to pay for all the tooling on the sales of the first 100 you would likely price yourself out of the market. So somewhere an analyst has to say, "Our lowest predicted lifetime volume is <a>, our expected volume is <b>, and our exceeds volume would be <c>." and then look at how much per plane to charge to pay off the tooling. It sounds from the press coverage that Airbus is coming in below even their lowest forecast lifetime volume, which my just be exaggeration on the press' part, but if true it means some write downs are in Airbus' future.
  - johnm1019 8y ago
    I would not suggest pricing things in this way. The analysts should look at what competing products cost, and where is ours unique and what advantage does it give the airline. Convert that advantage over competing products to a dollar amount. Add that to the price of the competing product. Subtract some so you always win when the customer does their own cost/benefit analysis. If you price your products based on your costs, you're either losing profit-margin or sales (sales, because you're making the wrong thing at the wrong price).

xnomad 8y ago

I can't help think ETOPS are going too far. One day a big twin will fly from Sydney to Santiago and develop double engine trouble and the 3-4 engine minimum will be mandated again.

ggm 8y ago

I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using otherwise available shells (I believe) QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, even if the economic decision was to walk. I am a frequent QANTAS passenger. I know from all my experiences and peers discussions, we prefer the 380 over almost any shell QANTAS flies. I flew the original QANTAS 747 longhauls. They were fine for their day. They are significantly behind the ball compared to the 380 experience. The 350 will be a fine plane. the 787 is a compromised experience in the air. (btw, it is QANTAS not Quantas: Its an Acronym)

tricolon 8y ago
(It doesn't seem like it's an acronym anymore: http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en)
- ggm 8y ago
  Yea. Looks like you're right. they prefer the Qantas branding, so I'm in the junkheap of history. I'll try and learn to use Qantas not QANTAS.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
It is not "QANTAS" and it isn't an acronym. In October 1947 QANTAS was bought out by the government and shutdown. The company that exists today is the descendent of Qantas Empire Airlines (notice the different capitalisation) which was founded in 1934 as a joint venture by QANTAS and BOAC (British Overseas Air Corporation). When the joint venture was founded the name chosen was not an acronym and was not all uppercase. That name was "inspired by" QANTAS Limited but is not QANTAS. https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1472377?c=people https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1472377?c=people
- ggm 8y ago

taitems 8y ago

Not an aviation nerd, but had a local one explain a particular A380 issue to me. About once a month the main daily SYD/MEL to LAX routes had to turn around and it was pretty much always the Rolls Royce engine (one of two engine manufacturers for redundancy). And then it started happening on the other engine as well. Can't confirm the frequency, but when I was talking to a Qantas crew member about this over a year ago he nodded and said they won't be purchasing any new A380s. He said he felt they were bought for the marketing "me too" reason more than anything else. EDIT: That being said I loved the A380, I frequently flew premium economy intl. on it and even if you could wrangle the small (something like 20 row?) economy section upstairs it felt less like cattle class.

jen729w 8y ago
The front row — only 2 seats wide — of that upstairs economy section is a great little place to travel with a partner. The small cabin makes it feel much more premium.
grkvlt 8y ago
That doesn't sound right (well, Qantas did have RR engine trouble, as did all RR engined A380s) as all A380 fleets have four of the same type/manufacturer of engine (RR or GE, depending on the airline) and it will be common across all the planes in the fleet. It doesn't make sense to have to double up on maintenance costs, equipment and engineering staff with two types, plus the added risk of a GE bolt/whatever accidentally fitted to a RR engine causing an accident...

ulfw 8y ago

Very sad, having flown the A380 many times and it even once saved my life due to it’s masterfully engineered airframe and systems (uncontained engine explosion, the only accident A380 ever had). It seems we aren’t able to build anything great or unique anymore without it failing in the market (Concorde, A380). More cattle class mediocraty flying on 737s from the 60s and 3-3-3 seating 787s etc

bobthepanda 8y ago
Boom and others are trying to re-enter the supersonic space with smaller jets. The main problem with Concorde was that it couldn't fill up seats at the ticket prices being charged, and transatlantic subsonic flights were both more comfortable at the equivalent ticket price, and at the flying time sweet spot of 6-8 hours, which is long enough to just sleep and wake up in the morning. Had SSTs come of age in the '80s and had a range closer to 6000nm, then they probably would've taken off for transpacific flights. 6000nm from HNL gets you to pretty much all of East Asia, Singapore, and the entirety of North America.
- apapli 8y ago
  The accidents didn’t help either, right? I like the idea of Boom, but would much prefer the engineering from either Airbus or Boeing. I think all this talk “MVP” and startups so often in the same sentence over nearly a decade now makes me worried that Boom won’t have enough resources to achieve anything less than an exceptional job with regards to safety. And my life isn’t worth risking to save a few hours of travel time by putting it in the hands of a startup.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    The FAA doesn't hand out flight certifications like candy. I wouldn't be worried too much. Concorde's only fatal accident was a result of running over debris that punctured the fuel tank and burst a tire, so it wasn't necessarily any issue with the plane itself. Conveniently enough, this also happened near the EOL of the plane, right before a recession and 9/11.
deleted 8y ago

drallison 8y ago

I flew on an Air France A380 from CDG to SFO a few months ago seated in premium economy. It was an outstanding flight, comfortable and pleasant. I would choose to fly on an A380 over most of the other long distance aircraft, given the choice.

tapland 8y ago

I have the pleasure of a nice view overlooking Copenhagen Airport. It's at a far enough distance that most airliners kind of disappear when doing their final approach, and an A380 showing up really puts the size differences on display. It looks like a huge whale or cruise ship floating over the landscape.

ggm 8y ago

How much of the problem is Rolls-Royce over promising and under delivering?

reacweb 8y ago

When you increase the size of an aircraft, you reduce the discomfort associated with weather conditions. If the occupancy rate is good, you also increase fuel efficiency. To have good occupancy rate, you need to organize and to have many airports supporting big aircrafts. This is only political and Boeing is a very strong political influencer to harm competition. Like for Concorde, when Boeing fails on technical, they use political tricks.

akerl_ 8y ago
“If the occupancy rate is good, you also increase fuel efficiency” is only true if all else is equal. In this case, it’s not: the hop from 2-engine to 4-engine hurts fuel efficiency and adds to cost/complexity of the aircraft.
jessriedel 8y ago
What are the political tricks that Boeing used to discourage Emirates and Qantas from buying Airbus?