4 ms·

It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 hav

by bb123 6y ago

It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 have been disasters commercially. It seems like we will be stuck with the current widebody, single deck, subsonic planes for most of our lifetimes with little real advancement in comfort or speed.

newdude116 6y ago
Russian supersonic airliner by 2022? https://www.airlineratings.com/news/russian-supersonic-airliner-2022/ https://www.airlineratings.com/news/russian-supersonic-airli... Not sure it makes economic sense but good for dick comparisons :-)
marvin 6y ago
The aviation startups that are in the development phase today, e.g. Boom and Lilium, seem to my casual observation to be planning on operating the service themselves. And thereby forcing change directly, instead of trying to convince the incumbents. This seems like the way to do it when pioneering a new technological approach in an entrenched industry with an established status quo. The incumbents must be dragged into the future by their hair.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 have been disasters commercially. The aviation industry (for passenger planes) is people that purchase flights. Evidently, sufficient people don’t value the time a Concorde saves with the extra operating costs, and they don’t value the advantages of the A380 versus the disadvantages, such as time spent transferring to smaller planes. It would take a lot for me to prefer a longer flight with more stops than a shorter non stop flight.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Well, there's a lot of incorrect assumptions in that one sentence. Most Boeing airliners had significant pre-orders from airlines, like the 747, making those designs possible economically. Airbus offered a design and mfg. partnership with Boeing for the A380, but Boeing knew that hub-and-spoke was dead and let Airbus burn $50 billion or more on it. Also, Airbus' wiring harness CAD mistakes delayed the A380 an entire year: https://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 https://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 Regarding airlines, their sole criterion for an airliner is that it's more efficient than the last one. The A380 was both overweight (by tons) and had an operating cost up to 4x as much as smaller airplanes (around $25,000/hr vs $7,500/hr for a 777.) Considering even 2% is huge for an airline, you can see why nobody wants the A380 even for free. FYI: You won't see any of the supersonic startups build a certified model for cost and time reasons. Ain't gonna happen. Even the US government couldn't afford to operate the SR-71 after satellite imaging was good enough because everything was special for it (special fuel, a dozen dedicated tanker jets for that fuel, high-temperature engines, maintenance, backup flight, etc.) What actually killed the Concorde was the number of WTC passengers (many approving managers) who were killed, as well as the year-long retrofit of wing fuel Kevlar liners, etc. Also France treats air accidents as criminal investigations, unlike the US, so that doesn't help. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/19/concorde.world https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/19/concorde.world

by bb123 6y ago

newdude116 6y ago

Russian supersonic airliner by 2022? https://www.airlineratings.com/news/russian-supersonic-airliner-2022/ https://www.airlineratings.com/news/russian-supersonic-airli... Not sure it makes economic sense but good for dick comparisons :-)

marvin 6y ago

The aviation startups that are in the development phase today, e.g. Boom and Lilium, seem to my casual observation to be planning on operating the service themselves. And thereby forcing change directly, instead of trying to convince the incumbents. This seems like the way to do it when pioneering a new technological approach in an entrenched industry with an established status quo. The incumbents must be dragged into the future by their hair.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 have been disasters commercially. The aviation industry (for passenger planes) is people that purchase flights. Evidently, sufficient people don’t value the time a Concorde saves with the extra operating costs, and they don’t value the advantages of the A380 versus the disadvantages, such as time spent transferring to smaller planes. It would take a lot for me to prefer a longer flight with more stops than a shorter non stop flight.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Well, there's a lot of incorrect assumptions in that one sentence. Most Boeing airliners had significant pre-orders from airlines, like the 747, making those designs possible economically. Airbus offered a design and mfg. partnership with Boeing for the A380, but Boeing knew that hub-and-spoke was dead and let Airbus burn $50 billion or more on it. Also, Airbus' wiring harness CAD mistakes delayed the A380 an entire year: https://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 https://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 Regarding airlines, their sole criterion for an airliner is that it's more efficient than the last one. The A380 was both overweight (by tons) and had an operating cost up to 4x as much as smaller airplanes (around $25,000/hr vs $7,500/hr for a 777.) Considering even 2% is huge for an airline, you can see why nobody wants the A380 even for free. FYI: You won't see any of the supersonic startups build a certified model for cost and time reasons. Ain't gonna happen. Even the US government couldn't afford to operate the SR-71 after satellite imaging was good enough because everything was special for it (special fuel, a dozen dedicated tanker jets for that fuel, high-temperature engines, maintenance, backup flight, etc.) What actually killed the Concorde was the number of WTC passengers (many approving managers) who were killed, as well as the year-long retrofit of wing fuel Kevlar liners, etc. Also France treats air accidents as criminal investigations, unlike the US, so that doesn't help. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/19/concorde.world https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/19/concorde.world