17 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe A350 has staircases IIRC ?
- alistairSH 8y agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.
- FabHK 8y agoWhat’s interesting is the extra security measures: lots of handles to hold onto and oxygen masks for the pax down there waiting for the toilets.
- thatfrenchguy 8y agoAh correct, that's the one for the crew, not passengers. My bad.
- Xixi 8y agoIt doesn't currently, although some airlines looking at the A350-900ULR are considering adding some amenities in the cargo haul, which would be accessed via a staircase similar to what some A340-600 operators did. The A350-900ULR is used by Singapore Airlines on the Singapore - New York flight that clocks 18 hours and a half. To be able to fly that far it needs to be light on payload: few passengers, no cargo. So there's some empty space in there...
- akfanta 8y ago> I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing commercially but I will miss them. Just curious, why do you think they are disappearing? I thought they still have lower cost/passenger, especially for long haul?
- FigBug 8y agoHub and spoke model is getting replaced by point to point model.
- dingaling 8y agoNot particularly; most growth is still at hubs
- bluGill 8y agoHubs are all very big cities. very big cities are growing faster than small ones in general. Big cities not quite big /lucky enough to be a hub are getting point to point routes that are farther away than just hubs. Small cities still have flights only to hubs. Of course this depends on the destination. Even tiny airports often have point to point trips to Las Vegas on dirt cheap airlines because that is a popular destination.
- wenc 8y agoI’m not sure that is true, though you do hear people say it from time to time. I believe that the ratio of hub and spoke routes vs point to point routes will dynamically shift in response to demand and to external factors like laws, fuel prices, aircraft efficiency, etc. The hub and spoke model is usually the more compelling economic model to serve many low demand cities by pooling passengers as well as for routing flexibility. Hub and spoke will never truly be replaced. Whereas point to point is more efficient for high demand city pairs. Modern composite material ( fuel efficient ) aircraft also make it feasible to fly segments with lower load factors, up to a point, so you don’t need to fill up a plane to make a route viable, making it possible to bypass hubs. Even then you would never fly point to point from say Des Moines to Asheville NC. You might fly to a non hub airport like RDU, but if enough flights end up at RDU it becomes a de facto regional hub like CLT. Depending on the demand patterns of flight routes, airlines can reconfigure routes to fly to hubs or point to point or a mix of both, whichever maximizes profit, so it’s not an either-or.
- stanski 8y agoTo be fair, the time difference between a jet airline and blimp would be a lot bigger than 3 times or so. 7 hour in a metal tube vs 5 days in a blimp sounds more realistic.
- Someone1234 8y agoI'm not sure there's value in debating that. It is a hypothetical blimp that doesn't exist.
- cryptonector 8y agoBlimps can't go all that fast.
- mikece 8y agoCruising speed in an A380: 560 mph (900 km/h) [1] Cruising speed of the Hindenburg: 76 mph (125 km/h) [2] That's a multiplier of 7.2, though the shorter the flight the more pronounced an airship's time to reach cruising speed and come back down from cruising speed will factor into the overall ratio. And this assumes we can't make airships go faster than the Hindenburg (is 155mph/300km/h unreasonable?). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Specifications [2] https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/size-speed/ https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/size-speed/
- dingaling 8y agoAirships couldn't fly great-circle routes of shortest distance, so the actual distance would be much longer. They did pressure-flying, skirting around weather formations like a helicopter flying through mountains. Sometimes they could get a slingshot by riding a wind as it flowed from a high.
- zepearl 8y agoMaybe for airships/blimps the approach would have to be different than for airplanes, meaning more intermediate stops? (maybe their "landing/takeoff"-cycle is more efficient than the ones of airplanes?) Kind of bus/tram vs. trains? Or maybe just complementary? E.g. long routes handled by airplanes, "medium" routes handled by airships/blimps, and the rest handled by trains/bus/whatever?
- sandworm101 8y agoBlimps were never like that. The modern understanding of blimp travel is based on a handful of hollywood movies, the filming of which came nowhere near any real blimp. The amount of helium/hydrogen necessary to lift a small apartment is immense. Then, if you are going to spend day in the air, all the water. It would almost certainly easier/cheaper/cleaner to provide a similar service inside a jet for a few hours than inside a blimp for a few days. So if you cannot afford the jet today, you wouldn't afford the blimp either.
- tracker1 8y agoI would suggest that trains would probably be the better alternative, with similar features.
- bluGill 8y agoSame problem - because of the time spent on the train the airplane is still cheaper, even before you account for people willing to spend extra for the faster flight.
- xvilka 8y agoWell, if you take countries like Japan or China with their high speed railways, it takes also less time to check-in, board, the most basic security checks; moreover, often train stations are located in the city, as opposed to airports outside. So it is not a clear cut.
- Johnny555 8y agoEven for fairly long distances, the train can be time competitive. A couple months ago I took a train from Tokyo to Fukuoka (around 600 miles driving distance). The train took 5 hours station to station -- I was staying near Shinagawa station so walked into the station 15 minutes before departure, and walked out of Hakata station in downtown Fukuoka 5 hours after departure. If I flew from Haneda, it would have been a 2 hour flight, plus 45 minutes to get to the airport 45 minutes before the flight and 30 minutes from Fukuoka airport to Hakata, or about 4 hours total. Add about 45 minutes if flying out of Narita since it's farther from downtown. But the train is around twice as expensive.
- mikeash 8y agoThe 777 is still doing pretty well, isn’t it? I’ve never been in an A380, but I’ve flown the 747 and 787 and there was no real difference in the experience.
- jpatokal 8y agoI'm surprised to hear you say that, since I find the two very different. 747s are much noisier (unless you're up top) and have less humidity & cabin pressure, making them materially less comfortable on long flights. Also, most airlines are now buying 787s and A350s instead of 777s.
- mikeash 8y agoI guess I’m too busy trying to cope with squeezing into the seats and finding something to stave off boredom to notice humidity. How does increased cabin pressure make for increased comfort? Once your ears equalize, the only difference should be less oxygen available, which I’d think would make you feel better (albeit stupider).
- Pharmakon 8y agoYou don’t experience hypoxic euphoria until you’re really struggling. Before that you feel sluggish, some people will experience headaches, and most people will feel a general sort of low-grade malaise. All told, not fun. More critically it also increases the risk of stroke.
- mikeash 8y agoThanks for explaining. I guess my struggles with space and entertainment overshadow these things as well, and thankfully I haven’t had a stroke yet.
- Pharmakon 8y agoPersonally I feel the same way as you. I’d rather be a bit low on O2 and not have to chew on my own knees for 8 hours, than enjoy deep breaths in a tiny tin can.
- ak217 8y agoI won't miss the A380. I will miss the 747 because of how uniquely majestic it looks. https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Airlines/Boeing-747-409/1055782/L https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Airlines/Boeing-747-40...
- FabHK 8y agoThe A380 is not quite the beauty from the outside, but I found the pax comfort unparalleled, and that matters more to me than how it looks, frankly.
- ggm 8y agoThis. I, and almost every regular longhaul international flyer I see on comments/forums online say its the favourite experience inside the shell. The 350 and the 777x may rank alongside. The 787 is only good in superior classes. The 380 is by far the smoothest, quietest experience in the air for >10h flights.
- inopinatus 8y agoI’ve loved the ride in the 380 since it first took to the skies, but the A350-900 more recently took my #1 spot for overall passenger comfort, particularly atmospheric (and therefore sleep) quality. 350 > 380 > 787 > 747 imo
- arnon 8y agoI don't like the PaxEx in the 787. It feels narrower and more cramped. A380 -> A330/A340 (on account of the 2-4-2 arrangement) -> 767 -> 777 for me.
- Reason077 8y agoI used to think the A380 was quiet... until I flew on an A350. I've been on both the -900 and -1000 variants, and they are just amazingly quiet.
- joezydeco 8y agoYou need to visit the Lufthansa 747-200 that's on display at the Technik Museum in Speyer, Germany: http://www.rodbearden.com/Av13/Speyer/Boeing%20747-200%20D-ABYM%2009.html http://www.rodbearden.com/Av13/Speyer/Boeing%20747-200%20D-A...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago> 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. The big differentiator is what you want to pay for. Even on a 787, 777, A350 if you choose first or business class, you can really be comfortable. On the other hand, I would bet that even with large blimps, the blimp companies would try to cram as many people as possible into it and would quickly approach the cramped experience you currently have in airplanes.
- ghaff 8y ago747s used to have a First Class Loungue in the upper deck before that got almost universally converted to more business class searing. As you say, comfort is pretty much just a function of you and a critical mass of others willing to pay a sufficient premium. Obviously you’re still in a somewhat space constrained metal tube up in the air but air travel can be made pretty comfortable if money isn’t a big deal.
- agumonkey 8y agoairlander 10 for you
- danepowell 8y agoI love the A380 as an aerospace enthusiast, but absolutely despise it as a passenger. In my experience (with Lufthansa), the boarding process is chaotic and takes forever, the seat pitch is minimal in economy, and never have I felt more like cattle than when sharing the situation with 700 other passengers. I'm curious how your experience as a passenger sounds so different from mine.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jesterson 8y agoSeats are arranged by the carrier, not the AirBus itself. Seat pitch in Singapore Airlines and Emirates is quite comfy
- SkyMarshal 8y agoI've only flown the A380 twice, once in business and once in Lufthansa's economy. Had the same experience as you in economy, never felt more like cattle. I'll take the 787 any day.
- the_duke 8y agoConsidering the parent mentioned showers and bars, he/she probably flies first class from time to time. Some carriers (Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airlines) have very impressive FC setups on the A380, with other aircraft having a stripped down/smaller version.
- chrisper 8y agoFor long hauls I'd always recommend to upgrade to Premium Economy. It's not quite first class, but it's much better than regular economy imho.
- owenversteeg 8y agoReally? I've flown both Premium Economy and Economy (>10 flights each I believe) for Delta, as well as both on a few other carriers, and I've never noticed a difference that was worth more than $20 in my mind. (Most of these were long-haul.) If it's free or very cheap, then sure, but it's such a small benefit that I've been on flights where I didn't even notice I was in Premium Economy until I stood up at the end of the flight.
- chrischen 8y agoBlimps were large overall, but pretty sure the actual passenger area was still tiny.
- gdpgreg 8y agoThey were very mass limited, you only get 1kg of lifting ability per cube of gas.
- jahewson 8y agoThey were much bigger than it seems, with cabins inside the main structure of the airship itself: https://www.airships.net/lz-130-graf-zeppelin/ https://www.airships.net/lz-130-graf-zeppelin/
- ams6110 8y agoI don't see anyway blimps ever return for passenger travel. Too slow and too inefficient. For luxury travel with beds and showers and fine dining, trains would be far more practical.
- Johnny555 8y agoI 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. At the price you'd have to pay for day or two blimp ride, you'd probably be able to fly first or business class. Would you rather sit in a 500mph plane for 7 hours in a business class seat (which folds out into a bed), or ride in a 100mph blimp for 35 hours, even if you can walk around? The Hindenburg carried 50 - 70 passengers with a crew of 40 - 60. Even if it's cut in half, that's an awfully high passenger to crew ratio (an airliner has a ratio of around 20 - 30 passengers per crew member). Even if fuel costs are minimal, you're sitting in an expensive aircraft for a day or so -- the airship may cost a fraction of the price of an airplane, but it travels at a fraction of the speed.
- consp 8y agoThe planes of the day were not capable enough for the trips and the planes which could in the years after had beds and many staff as well and were not cheaper by any means. You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing a modern blimp to an old one. I do not say it will be cheap (probably not) but the comparison is wrong.
- Johnny555 8y agoThe OP was describing Hindenburg-era travel: ...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. So I compared to the Hindenburg. He can already get the "cruise ship in the sky" experience in an A380 in business class where he can find spacious seats that lay into a bed, private suites, a bar, showers, etc. But it's not cheap in an airplane, and won't be cheap in an airship.
- growlist 8y agoI was really disappointed with the A380, having been told there was a noticeable difference. It was just like any other place, and being British Airways in 2017 the overall service was very much no-frills, verging on comparable to Ryanair.
- orginal__idear 8y agoI faked a leg injury to get on first the one and only time I've been on an A380. Took the opportunity to walk around the craft... when I got to the back spiral staircases the immense size kinda hit me.