3 ms·

Four-engine aircraft are wildly fuel inefficient, this is going away like the aircraft it was designed to compete against: The 747. Customers want smaller aircr

Four-engine aircraft are wildly fuel inefficient, this is going away like the aircraft it was designed to compete against: The 747. Customers want smaller aircraft point-to-point travel, not larger spoke–hub travel, and airlines want cheap fuel costs. Plus regulatory agencies have decided two-engine aircraft can make long over-ocean trips (ETOPS) if they show the FAA a good quality spreadsheet and perform a few trivial tests.

Beijinger 2y ago
"Customers want smaller aircraft point-to-point travel, not larger spoke–hub travel, and airlines want cheap fuel costs." Who are the customers? Customers want cheap flights. Many people in the world can't even afford a plane ticket. And the Airbus A380 Stretch could have carried 1000 passengers. Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict.
- Someone1234 2y ago
  > Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict. This is a post about the A340, 747, DC-10 (3x engine), and A380 dying (or being already dead). What more verification do you need? Airlines can and do charge higher air-fares for direct travel.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    And once business travelers largely establish the flight patterns, travelers for tourism or other personal reasons largely pay the costs that those patterns lead to.
  - Beijinger 2y ago
    The A380 may have been too early. The stretched version with new engines and >1000 seats could have changed things. Think about highly price sensitive customers. Iranians flying to Mecca or Indians to somewhere or Chinese. Don't think American businessmen. I said the verdict is not final because things can change: France’s Plan To Ban Short-Haul Domestic Flights Wins Approval From European Commission https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/12/03/frances-plan-to-ban-short-haul-domestic-flights-wins-approval-from-european-commission https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/12/03/frances-... So if countries start banning short haul domestic flights then the hub model may come back, at least in some countries with decent train transport. Combine this with the price sensitive customers I mentioned, and then I stay by my prediction. The verdict is not final.
- filleokus 2y ago
  Point-to-point can lower cost as well. Cheaper to take off from a smaller airport and less fuel used since you skip an expensive take-off from the hub.
  - pc86 2y ago
    The hassle in incomparable. There are certainly exceptions but almost always the smaller the airport the easier and faster it is to get through security. The easier and cheaper it is to park. You can just call an Uber from the sidewalk in front of the terminal instead of walking to some obscure pickup spot 3/4 of a mile away. Going through small 5-gate airports is a dream as long as they're appropriately staffed at security, which is not just a small airport problem. Going through living nightmares like Denver makes me seriously consider sepukku. If both flights are nonstop I'd probably pay 20% more for the smaller airport even if the flight itself is longer.
  - kuschku 2y ago
    The only reason point-to-point is successful is because regional airports are cheaper than larger airports. By economy of scale, larger airports should be cheaper. The reason they're not is that regional airports are heavily subsidized. If air travel subsidies would spontaneously end tomorrow, we'd see a return to the hub- and spoke model, more A380 flights, less 737-MAX8/A320neo demand, lower air travel emissions, and better competitiveness for trains.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    If you don't live in a hub you pay for two flights anywhere, one to a hub and one to where you want to go. this is double the cost in many cases.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  > Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict. The A380 is finished. Dead. Morte. Program over, and never made a profit. It was a magnificent machine, that no one asked for. The car that Homer designed, with wings. This verdict was already decided, everyone went home, and the lights were switched off.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    Lets of people asked for it and some still do. And most people predict that the demand a plane like it would go up over the next decades. It was just to much, to soon with the wrong engines.
- potatolicious 2y ago
  > "And the Airbus A380 Stretch could have carried 1000 passengers." Ticket prices have little to do with how many passengers a plane can carry at once. The A380 failed in large part because it didn't produce lower per-passenger costs than multiple smaller aircraft on the same route. More importantly the hub-and-spoke model isn't necessarily cheaper than direct flights, since a connecting passenger incurs additional costs (extra mileage flown, meaning extra fuel burn, extra employee expense, and much more fixed costs like airport fees and ground handling) There are situations where a larger plane makes sense - the Japanese domestic flight industry experiences extreme passenger volume, and landing/takeoff slots are constrained, that it makes sense to fly larger planes. But even that demand can be satisfied by large widebody heavies that aren't the A380, like the A350, 777, or 787. Super-heavies like the A380 only make sense on routes where the passenger volume is so extreme, and takeoff/landing slots so constrained, that you must carry > 1000 passengers in a single slot. There are almost no route pairs like this in the world.
  - jpgvm 2y ago
    The problem with the A380 is airlines didn't need enough of them in order to have enough of them. Thus they couldn't achieve any economy of scale in maintenance and spares. Only Emirates/Singapore did and have been very successful with their fleets as a result.
- jwells89 2y ago
  It’s such a bummer that the A380 got canned. I flew on Singapore Air’s A380 out of LAX a few times and its ridiculous size made for the largest and most comfortable economy seats I’ve ever booked. Can’t even imagine how nice the premium/business seats on those things were.
  - greengreengrass 2y ago
    One of the best and most memorable experiences I've had was sleeping in Premium Economy on the upper deck of a BA A380 back from San Francisco (from a work trip). It's quiet and the ride quality comfortable. It's a shame the food on that trip didn't make up for it. The A380 is one of my favourite aircraft. I never flew on a 747 and likely never will now, so it's the next best thing I've got for a two-deck experience.
    - arccy 2y ago
      BA food continues to be subpar
- 98codes 2y ago
  Airplane manufacturers' customers are the airlines.
nabla9 2y ago
Airport congestion and landing fees in main hubs will keep existing a380s in business for their whole lifespan. edit: a340s -> a380s
- Someone1234 2y ago
  Four engine aircraft take up larger gates, which airports also charge more for. It is a double-edged sword.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    The relevant metric is: - cost per passenger, and - number passengers passing per unit of time in airport. Larger aircraft lose in cost per landing, and time slot length per landing, but when you count per passenger number they can do better.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  You mean a380s? Longest A340 has fewer seats than the longest 777 But I could see the a340 being the choice for shorter hops where fuel burn is less of a concern
panick21_ 2y ago
Its not really true that by definition four-engine planes are more fuel inefficient per seat. A A380 with new engines on a per seat bases isn't that inefficient at all. It is just a question of if you can fill the space efficiently. That is why some of the Hub-and-Spoke Airlines are streaming for a A380NEO > Customers want smaller aircraft point-to-point travel, not larger spoke–hub travel Yes, but in the real world many Hub-And-Spoke Airlines are very successful. And with airport extensions and new builds not going up as fast as travel demand, Hub-And-Spoke isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will become more important. > if they show the FAA a good quality spreadsheet and perform a few trivial tests. Its not that easy. There is a reason private jets still have 3 engines, getting certified is to expensive.

Beijinger 2y ago

"Customers want smaller aircraft point-to-point travel, not larger spoke–hub travel, and airlines want cheap fuel costs." Who are the customers? Customers want cheap flights. Many people in the world can't even afford a plane ticket. And the Airbus A380 Stretch could have carried 1000 passengers. Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict.

Someone1234 2y ago
> Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict. This is a post about the A340, 747, DC-10 (3x engine), and A380 dying (or being already dead). What more verification do you need? Airlines can and do charge higher air-fares for direct travel.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And once business travelers largely establish the flight patterns, travelers for tourism or other personal reasons largely pay the costs that those patterns lead to.
- Beijinger 2y ago
  The A380 may have been too early. The stretched version with new engines and >1000 seats could have changed things. Think about highly price sensitive customers. Iranians flying to Mecca or Indians to somewhere or Chinese. Don't think American businessmen. I said the verdict is not final because things can change: France’s Plan To Ban Short-Haul Domestic Flights Wins Approval From European Commission https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/12/03/frances-plan-to-ban-short-haul-domestic-flights-wins-approval-from-european-commission https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/12/03/frances-... So if countries start banning short haul domestic flights then the hub model may come back, at least in some countries with decent train transport. Combine this with the price sensitive customers I mentioned, and then I stay by my prediction. The verdict is not final.
filleokus 2y ago
Point-to-point can lower cost as well. Cheaper to take off from a smaller airport and less fuel used since you skip an expensive take-off from the hub.
- pc86 2y ago
  The hassle in incomparable. There are certainly exceptions but almost always the smaller the airport the easier and faster it is to get through security. The easier and cheaper it is to park. You can just call an Uber from the sidewalk in front of the terminal instead of walking to some obscure pickup spot 3/4 of a mile away. Going through small 5-gate airports is a dream as long as they're appropriately staffed at security, which is not just a small airport problem. Going through living nightmares like Denver makes me seriously consider sepukku. If both flights are nonstop I'd probably pay 20% more for the smaller airport even if the flight itself is longer.
- kuschku 2y ago
  The only reason point-to-point is successful is because regional airports are cheaper than larger airports. By economy of scale, larger airports should be cheaper. The reason they're not is that regional airports are heavily subsidized. If air travel subsidies would spontaneously end tomorrow, we'd see a return to the hub- and spoke model, more A380 flights, less 737-MAX8/A320neo demand, lower air travel emissions, and better competitiveness for trains.
- bluGill 2y ago
  If you don't live in a hub you pay for two flights anywhere, one to a hub and one to where you want to go. this is double the cost in many cases.
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
> Lets see, I think it is too early for a verdict. The A380 is finished. Dead. Morte. Program over, and never made a profit. It was a magnificent machine, that no one asked for. The car that Homer designed, with wings. This verdict was already decided, everyone went home, and the lights were switched off.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  Lets of people asked for it and some still do. And most people predict that the demand a plane like it would go up over the next decades. It was just to much, to soon with the wrong engines.
potatolicious 2y ago
> "And the Airbus A380 Stretch could have carried 1000 passengers." Ticket prices have little to do with how many passengers a plane can carry at once. The A380 failed in large part because it didn't produce lower per-passenger costs than multiple smaller aircraft on the same route. More importantly the hub-and-spoke model isn't necessarily cheaper than direct flights, since a connecting passenger incurs additional costs (extra mileage flown, meaning extra fuel burn, extra employee expense, and much more fixed costs like airport fees and ground handling) There are situations where a larger plane makes sense - the Japanese domestic flight industry experiences extreme passenger volume, and landing/takeoff slots are constrained, that it makes sense to fly larger planes. But even that demand can be satisfied by large widebody heavies that aren't the A380, like the A350, 777, or 787. Super-heavies like the A380 only make sense on routes where the passenger volume is so extreme, and takeoff/landing slots so constrained, that you must carry > 1000 passengers in a single slot. There are almost no route pairs like this in the world.
- jpgvm 2y ago
  The problem with the A380 is airlines didn't need enough of them in order to have enough of them. Thus they couldn't achieve any economy of scale in maintenance and spares. Only Emirates/Singapore did and have been very successful with their fleets as a result.
jwells89 2y ago
It’s such a bummer that the A380 got canned. I flew on Singapore Air’s A380 out of LAX a few times and its ridiculous size made for the largest and most comfortable economy seats I’ve ever booked. Can’t even imagine how nice the premium/business seats on those things were.
- greengreengrass 2y ago
  One of the best and most memorable experiences I've had was sleeping in Premium Economy on the upper deck of a BA A380 back from San Francisco (from a work trip). It's quiet and the ride quality comfortable. It's a shame the food on that trip didn't make up for it. The A380 is one of my favourite aircraft. I never flew on a 747 and likely never will now, so it's the next best thing I've got for a two-deck experience.
  - arccy 2y ago
    BA food continues to be subpar
98codes 2y ago
Airplane manufacturers' customers are the airlines.

nabla9 2y ago

Airport congestion and landing fees in main hubs will keep existing a380s in business for their whole lifespan. edit: a340s -> a380s

Someone1234 2y ago
Four engine aircraft take up larger gates, which airports also charge more for. It is a double-edged sword.
- nabla9 2y ago
  The relevant metric is: - cost per passenger, and - number passengers passing per unit of time in airport. Larger aircraft lose in cost per landing, and time slot length per landing, but when you count per passenger number they can do better.
Scoundreller 2y ago
You mean a380s? Longest A340 has fewer seats than the longest 777 But I could see the a340 being the choice for shorter hops where fuel burn is less of a concern

panick21_ 2y ago

Its not really true that by definition four-engine planes are more fuel inefficient per seat. A A380 with new engines on a per seat bases isn't that inefficient at all. It is just a question of if you can fill the space efficiently. That is why some of the Hub-and-Spoke Airlines are streaming for a A380NEO > Customers want smaller aircraft point-to-point travel, not larger spoke–hub travel Yes, but in the real world many Hub-And-Spoke Airlines are very successful. And with airport extensions and new builds not going up as fast as travel demand, Hub-And-Spoke isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will become more important. > if they show the FAA a good quality spreadsheet and perform a few trivial tests. Its not that easy. There is a reason private jets still have 3 engines, getting certified is to expensive.