4 ms·

A380s are much more comfortable to fly in, even in Economy: there's more space around, cabin air is better (thanks to higher humidity). They're also much quiete

by 4cao 6y ago

A380s are much more comfortable to fly in, even in Economy: there's more space around, cabin air is better (thanks to higher humidity). They're also much quieter and apparently less likely to suffer turbulence. In Business/First (depending on the carrier), they came with private suites, on-board shower, and a bar. Also, I believe the 4-engine design is still considered safer, just less fuel efficient. Such a beautiful piece of engineering gets discontinued at the time something like the 737 Max, which should have never been built, is on its way to be reapproved. This is a sad day for airline passengers.

madeofpalk 6y ago
What I appreciated about Business/First on the A380, depending on the carrier, was the stairs. On a long 13 hour flight, going for a walk up down the stairs to the snack bar or whatever was good. I will never forget the bathroom/shower onboard the Emirates A380s. Being able to show onboard a plane in a bathroom bigger than that of some apartments was extremely decadant.
apexalpha 6y ago
Sad day for passengers? I disagree, and here's why: This thing was built for one thing only: hub and spoke model. That's a model of flying where you don't go directly from A to B with a smaller plane but you always go through a hub. This adds a ton of time to your route. Point to point is way more efficient and relaxed for passengers. Only Airlines with big hubs prefer that model; they gladly sacrifice your time to make more money. Lots of people in this thread say the A380 was luxurious and had a lot of leg space. But that what airlines configure it to be. And most A380 went to luxury airlines like Emirates. The A380 was dead on arrival. Built for a model of aviation that the world departing from just as the A380 arrived.
- yardie 6y ago
  Sadly, this is it. You know why Boeing didn’t build a competitor? Because they weren’t competing planes they were competing business models. When the A380 was announced Boeing announced the 747-900 and then said this was the last iteration of this line. Their largest plane now is the 777. But I wouldn’t call the A380 doa. When it arrived the Middle East and Asia were booming. Newly minted millionaires wanted to travel and for a while they did. But the hub and spoke wasn’t enough. You can only stop in DXB so many times before realizing this isn’t your destination just another distraction from where you really want to be. And those destination terminals figured it out. Expanded the airport accommodate more flights. And the hubs became less relevant. And so did the A380.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    > And the hubs became less relevant Dubai is the 4th busiest airport in the world Atlanta is the busiest, don't tell me people want to go to Atlanta. If I fly Manchester to Singapore, I can either fly on a 90 minute narrow shorthaul flight to Heathrow then spend 15 hours on a tired BA plane departing evening, arriving the next evening, or I have a choice of multiple departures on Qatar and Emirates, with two 8 hour flights. Same amount of hassle, but works far better for jetlag. Now if I'm flying UK to South Africa, and there's little time change, then sure I want an overnight 12 hour flight where I can get a good 9 hour sleep in addition to dinner and breakfast. Not many routes like that (10+ hours, overnight, sub-3 hour time difference).
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      > 15 hours on a tired BA plane departing evening, arriving the next evening I mean there's a number of other airlines you could fly on - Singapore Air, or Qantas (I'm pretty sure they offered that as a fifth freedom flight)
      - iso1631 6y ago
        Not from Manchester (actually I think there was a flight on Singapore, but you still had to fly via Frankfurt), that's the point. Sure you can fly on Singapore and (used to Qantas) from Heathrow, that's a hub to hub flight, and both are/were on A380s. Fly from Dublin to Singapore you're going via a hub -- Healthrow, Frankfurt, Dubai, doesn't matter. Fly from Delhi to Manchester you're going via a hub Fly from Edinburgh to Muscat you're going via a hub The 787 and A350 perform well for gulf carriers in flying to places like Edinburgh, where Emirates I think were doing 2 flights a day. The A380 doesn't work for these region-hub airports, but we still have Spoke-Hub-Spoke on long haul, and will for the forseeable. What we don't have (much) is Spoke-Hub-Hub-Spoke, as the 787 and A350 have made it more economic to serve long haul spokes from a single hub.
        madeofpalk 6y ago
        sorry, i just meant from heathrow. it was a "well actually" that didnt actually contribute anything of value, now that i look back on it.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Exactly when did the hub and spoke die (on long haul, where the A380 tends to operate)? When I think of large airlines across the world very few point to points come to mind. The 787 has allows hubs to serve smaller cities so it's no longer 2 stops, just 1. If I want to fly from say Dar es Salaam to Ho Chi Minh City, or Athens to Lima, I'm going to be flying via a hub (probably Dubai / Frankfurt respectively). Perhaps I no longer need to fly Athens-Frankfurt-LAX-SanDiago, with Frankfurt-LAX leg therefore justifying a large jet, but that's a change from multi-hub to single-hub Thinking of the big long haul (>2500 mile) routes, very few fly direct outside of their hubs Cathay / Hong Kong JAL / Tokyo China Southern / Guangzhou Singapore / Singapore BA / London Emirates / Dubai Qatar / Qatar Ethiad / Abu Dhabi Turkish / Istanbul
- 4cao 6y ago
  If a non-stop itinerary is an option, and you're flying in business with a fully-reclining seat, it'd of course be preferable. In economy though, I'd likely rather have a stopover than a 10h+ non-stop long-haul flight, or at least would be indifferent between the two. However, having to transfer at least once on the way to their destination is the reality for most long-haul passengers anyway, unless you're travelling between tier 1 global cities. And even in such cases, a business flight with a stopover is usually significantly lower-priced than a non-stop, so many people are choosing between a longer flight time in business (where they also get to use the lounge during the transfer) vs. economy non-stop. The A380 was not dead on arrival but killed largely due to the lack of adoption in the US market, for a number of reasons but generally not because of the industry moving away from the hub-and-spoke model, which is still alive and well but now increasingly with the tendency to fly narrow-body aircraft long-haul, such as over the Atlantic, due to the relaxed ETOPS regulations. The A380's premature demise mostly means reduced "hard product" differentiation between carriers. I can't see how that could be a good development for passengers.

by 4cao 6y ago

madeofpalk 6y ago

What I appreciated about Business/First on the A380, depending on the carrier, was the stairs. On a long 13 hour flight, going for a walk up down the stairs to the snack bar or whatever was good. I will never forget the bathroom/shower onboard the Emirates A380s. Being able to show onboard a plane in a bathroom bigger than that of some apartments was extremely decadant.

apexalpha 6y ago

Sad day for passengers? I disagree, and here's why: This thing was built for one thing only: hub and spoke model. That's a model of flying where you don't go directly from A to B with a smaller plane but you always go through a hub. This adds a ton of time to your route. Point to point is way more efficient and relaxed for passengers. Only Airlines with big hubs prefer that model; they gladly sacrifice your time to make more money. Lots of people in this thread say the A380 was luxurious and had a lot of leg space. But that what airlines configure it to be. And most A380 went to luxury airlines like Emirates. The A380 was dead on arrival. Built for a model of aviation that the world departing from just as the A380 arrived.

yardie 6y ago
Sadly, this is it. You know why Boeing didn’t build a competitor? Because they weren’t competing planes they were competing business models. When the A380 was announced Boeing announced the 747-900 and then said this was the last iteration of this line. Their largest plane now is the 777. But I wouldn’t call the A380 doa. When it arrived the Middle East and Asia were booming. Newly minted millionaires wanted to travel and for a while they did. But the hub and spoke wasn’t enough. You can only stop in DXB so many times before realizing this isn’t your destination just another distraction from where you really want to be. And those destination terminals figured it out. Expanded the airport accommodate more flights. And the hubs became less relevant. And so did the A380.
- iso1631 6y ago
  > And the hubs became less relevant Dubai is the 4th busiest airport in the world Atlanta is the busiest, don't tell me people want to go to Atlanta. If I fly Manchester to Singapore, I can either fly on a 90 minute narrow shorthaul flight to Heathrow then spend 15 hours on a tired BA plane departing evening, arriving the next evening, or I have a choice of multiple departures on Qatar and Emirates, with two 8 hour flights. Same amount of hassle, but works far better for jetlag. Now if I'm flying UK to South Africa, and there's little time change, then sure I want an overnight 12 hour flight where I can get a good 9 hour sleep in addition to dinner and breakfast. Not many routes like that (10+ hours, overnight, sub-3 hour time difference).
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > 15 hours on a tired BA plane departing evening, arriving the next evening I mean there's a number of other airlines you could fly on - Singapore Air, or Qantas (I'm pretty sure they offered that as a fifth freedom flight)
    - iso1631 6y ago
      Not from Manchester (actually I think there was a flight on Singapore, but you still had to fly via Frankfurt), that's the point. Sure you can fly on Singapore and (used to Qantas) from Heathrow, that's a hub to hub flight, and both are/were on A380s. Fly from Dublin to Singapore you're going via a hub -- Healthrow, Frankfurt, Dubai, doesn't matter. Fly from Delhi to Manchester you're going via a hub Fly from Edinburgh to Muscat you're going via a hub The 787 and A350 perform well for gulf carriers in flying to places like Edinburgh, where Emirates I think were doing 2 flights a day. The A380 doesn't work for these region-hub airports, but we still have Spoke-Hub-Spoke on long haul, and will for the forseeable. What we don't have (much) is Spoke-Hub-Hub-Spoke, as the 787 and A350 have made it more economic to serve long haul spokes from a single hub.
      - madeofpalk 6y ago
        sorry, i just meant from heathrow. it was a "well actually" that didnt actually contribute anything of value, now that i look back on it.
iso1631 6y ago
Exactly when did the hub and spoke die (on long haul, where the A380 tends to operate)? When I think of large airlines across the world very few point to points come to mind. The 787 has allows hubs to serve smaller cities so it's no longer 2 stops, just 1. If I want to fly from say Dar es Salaam to Ho Chi Minh City, or Athens to Lima, I'm going to be flying via a hub (probably Dubai / Frankfurt respectively). Perhaps I no longer need to fly Athens-Frankfurt-LAX-SanDiago, with Frankfurt-LAX leg therefore justifying a large jet, but that's a change from multi-hub to single-hub Thinking of the big long haul (>2500 mile) routes, very few fly direct outside of their hubs Cathay / Hong Kong JAL / Tokyo China Southern / Guangzhou Singapore / Singapore BA / London Emirates / Dubai Qatar / Qatar Ethiad / Abu Dhabi Turkish / Istanbul
4cao 6y ago
If a non-stop itinerary is an option, and you're flying in business with a fully-reclining seat, it'd of course be preferable. In economy though, I'd likely rather have a stopover than a 10h+ non-stop long-haul flight, or at least would be indifferent between the two. However, having to transfer at least once on the way to their destination is the reality for most long-haul passengers anyway, unless you're travelling between tier 1 global cities. And even in such cases, a business flight with a stopover is usually significantly lower-priced than a non-stop, so many people are choosing between a longer flight time in business (where they also get to use the lounge during the transfer) vs. economy non-stop. The A380 was not dead on arrival but killed largely due to the lack of adoption in the US market, for a number of reasons but generally not because of the industry moving away from the hub-and-spoke model, which is still alive and well but now increasingly with the tendency to fly narrow-body aircraft long-haul, such as over the Atlantic, due to the relaxed ETOPS regulations. The A380's premature demise mostly means reduced "hard product" differentiation between carriers. I can't see how that could be a good development for passengers.