4 ms·

>Meanwhile airports haven’t gotten bigger and more people are flying. This was the flawed thinking that led to the production of the a380 and its ultimate demi

>Meanwhile airports haven’t gotten bigger and more people are flying. This was the flawed thinking that led to the production of the a380 and its ultimate demise. It turns out that people mostly don’t like layovers and more efficient mid sized planes flying between cities people actually want to go to is much better. I don’t have to care about the capacity of ORD when I can just fly to SFO directly from the east coast. The airports with the worst capacity problems (cough LHR) generally had that issue because they were major layover hubs too. The economics will just eliminate them as a hub and life will move on. The 777ER came in and wrecked the other pillar supporting the layover life by opening up direct long range routes from NA to Asia that would have previously made sense on an A380 to NRT with fanouts to other destinations in Asia. The a380 is super cool, but it is not filling a need.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
This wasn't really what killed a380. Many major airports are near the limit of their runways with planes landings/takeoffs every 2-3 minutes. Constructing 3th/4th/5th runway is often impossible. Yearly traffic keeps growing. A reasonable forecast would be that it's only a matter of time until demand for planes like a380 will rise. But evidently it came too early and then the 2008 recession and then COVID moved that point even further into the future. Will see in 20 years I guess.
- kortilla 2y ago
  This is incorrect. Very few airports are anywhere near their limits and the ones that are have alternatives close by that it turns out people prefer airports once the options become available and they are cheaper and/or more convenient for their destination. SFO is at the heavy capacity you are referring to, yet it still operates as a united hub and there is plenty of capacity in SJC and OAK. The area is nowhere near its ceiling. LHR has also been at that limit for 20 years and has been shedding layovers and locals to other regionals easily. The flawed thinking is that “at max runway operations per second” implies a max capacity. It turns out a lot of that was really inefficient usage of resources.
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    This is an interesting perspective, thank you. IMO it still doesn't explain the exact threshold though: why 400-seat planes make sense and 550-seat planes somehow don't. One of the options would be to draw the line at "2 vs 4 engines". If that's the case, then I hope to live long enough to see 2-engine behemoths.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      I think there is an unintuitive scaling factor at play that makes a 150 passenger jump in capacity much harder to justify than it seems on the surface. Planes are optimal when they are full. So 550 people need to want to go specifically between two cities and at generally the same time. A similar number need to want to immediately then the other direction or onto another city. With the aforementioned move away from huge hubs, it’s hard to find that kind of consistent demand. Stated slightly differently, the planes on a route have to make sense for the off-peak demand. It’s better to constantly run a 777 at 90% capacity and then leave potential rev on the table a few days a year rather than an a380 at 60% to absorb those really busy times. A larger fleet of smaller planes also gives you much more flexibility as a carrier to shift capacity around to reach regional demand shifts. The only downside is increased crew costs.

alexey-salmin 2y ago

This wasn't really what killed a380. Many major airports are near the limit of their runways with planes landings/takeoffs every 2-3 minutes. Constructing 3th/4th/5th runway is often impossible. Yearly traffic keeps growing. A reasonable forecast would be that it's only a matter of time until demand for planes like a380 will rise. But evidently it came too early and then the 2008 recession and then COVID moved that point even further into the future. Will see in 20 years I guess.

kortilla 2y ago
This is incorrect. Very few airports are anywhere near their limits and the ones that are have alternatives close by that it turns out people prefer airports once the options become available and they are cheaper and/or more convenient for their destination. SFO is at the heavy capacity you are referring to, yet it still operates as a united hub and there is plenty of capacity in SJC and OAK. The area is nowhere near its ceiling. LHR has also been at that limit for 20 years and has been shedding layovers and locals to other regionals easily. The flawed thinking is that “at max runway operations per second” implies a max capacity. It turns out a lot of that was really inefficient usage of resources.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  This is an interesting perspective, thank you. IMO it still doesn't explain the exact threshold though: why 400-seat planes make sense and 550-seat planes somehow don't. One of the options would be to draw the line at "2 vs 4 engines". If that's the case, then I hope to live long enough to see 2-engine behemoths.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    I think there is an unintuitive scaling factor at play that makes a 150 passenger jump in capacity much harder to justify than it seems on the surface. Planes are optimal when they are full. So 550 people need to want to go specifically between two cities and at generally the same time. A similar number need to want to immediately then the other direction or onto another city. With the aforementioned move away from huge hubs, it’s hard to find that kind of consistent demand. Stated slightly differently, the planes on a route have to make sense for the off-peak demand. It’s better to constantly run a 777 at 90% capacity and then leave potential rev on the table a few days a year rather than an a380 at 60% to absorb those really busy times. A larger fleet of smaller planes also gives you much more flexibility as a carrier to shift capacity around to reach regional demand shifts. The only downside is increased crew costs.