3 ms·

I find the whole thing a little odd. The 747 seems to be a great aircraft. It's also a quad jet and the change in regulations for ETOPS makes twinjets a no brai

I find the whole thing a little odd. The 747 seems to be a great aircraft. It's also a quad jet and the change in regulations for ETOPS makes twinjets a no brainer for reducing cost. There's no reason to hurry and up and get rid of them, many will continue in cargo service for many years. But there isn't any reason to build big quad jets any longer

nradov 4mo ago
We might still reach a point in a few decades where capacity constraints at major airports make larger quadjets economically viable again. That was the thesis behind the Airbus A380, and it didn't work. But is it possible that they weren't so much wrong as just too early?
- ggm 4mo ago
  "Didn't work" meaning did not result in 5,000 orders. The aircraft in use by the middle east and asian airlines (and Qantas) are doing fine. They are also less economic than the modern 2 engine widebodies, despite being more economic than a 747 on the same route, with higher comfort levels and less intrusive engine noise. They just didn't turn out to fit the emerging economics of flight. They "work" fine.
  - sidewndr46 4mo ago
    I think what they mean is the A380 never made airbus any money. It makes plenty of money for many airlines
    - ggm 4mo ago
      Thanks. Good clarification, makes sense to me now I grokked context.
  - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
    I think they mean work out for airbus. Financially was a huge program disaster. It sold half the number of airframes needed for cost break even in nominal value, before accounting for the cost of capital. This also doesnt account for billions in illegal EU government subsidies.
    - ggm 4mo ago
      > billions in illegal EU government subsidies. I think this is a bit gratuitous. It's not like Boeing doesn't receive massive subsidies. I'm not disputing that subsidies exist. WTO said "both sides" and you are on a TKO because the fine to Europe was bigger than the fine to the US.
      - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        I wasn't trying to get into a comparison with US, but do think they they are relevant to the financial accounting of the 380 programing. Airbus got some 15 odd billion in launch aid that was to be paid back through sales that never occurred. I love the plane itself. It is my top choice for transatlantic flight. Businesses class is fantastic. If you get a window, they have stow cabinets big enough for my backpack, laptop, and street shoes.
        ggm 4mo ago
        So the point was that they had massive sunk costs which couldn't be recovered. The legality or otherwise of the EU subsidies is a bit beside the point. It's absolutely one of my favourites to fly on. I'll miss it when they replace it with the 2 engine widebodies. Economics just didn't work out for a good idea. (A re-engined 747 with something quieter, and with better cabin pressure and humidity could also have worked but Boeing were never going there)
        microgpt 4mo ago
        > that was to be paid back through sales that never occurred. That just sounds like a state investment

nradov 4mo ago

We might still reach a point in a few decades where capacity constraints at major airports make larger quadjets economically viable again. That was the thesis behind the Airbus A380, and it didn't work. But is it possible that they weren't so much wrong as just too early?

ggm 4mo ago
"Didn't work" meaning did not result in 5,000 orders. The aircraft in use by the middle east and asian airlines (and Qantas) are doing fine. They are also less economic than the modern 2 engine widebodies, despite being more economic than a 747 on the same route, with higher comfort levels and less intrusive engine noise. They just didn't turn out to fit the emerging economics of flight. They "work" fine.
- sidewndr46 4mo ago
  I think what they mean is the A380 never made airbus any money. It makes plenty of money for many airlines
  - ggm 4mo ago
    Thanks. Good clarification, makes sense to me now I grokked context.
- s1artibartfast 4mo ago
  I think they mean work out for airbus. Financially was a huge program disaster. It sold half the number of airframes needed for cost break even in nominal value, before accounting for the cost of capital. This also doesnt account for billions in illegal EU government subsidies.
  - ggm 4mo ago
    > billions in illegal EU government subsidies. I think this is a bit gratuitous. It's not like Boeing doesn't receive massive subsidies. I'm not disputing that subsidies exist. WTO said "both sides" and you are on a TKO because the fine to Europe was bigger than the fine to the US.
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      I wasn't trying to get into a comparison with US, but do think they they are relevant to the financial accounting of the 380 programing. Airbus got some 15 odd billion in launch aid that was to be paid back through sales that never occurred. I love the plane itself. It is my top choice for transatlantic flight. Businesses class is fantastic. If you get a window, they have stow cabinets big enough for my backpack, laptop, and street shoes.
      - ggm 4mo ago
        So the point was that they had massive sunk costs which couldn't be recovered. The legality or otherwise of the EU subsidies is a bit beside the point. It's absolutely one of my favourites to fly on. I'll miss it when they replace it with the 2 engine widebodies. Economics just didn't work out for a good idea. (A re-engined 747 with something quieter, and with better cabin pressure and humidity could also have worked but Boeing were never going there)
      - microgpt 4mo ago
        > that was to be paid back through sales that never occurred. That just sounds like a state investment