HN Gopher Feed (2017-12-27) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal
232 points by tiff
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-a380/airbus-ready-to-a...___________________________________________________________________
Animats - 3 hours ago
The disappointing thing is that Boeing discontinued the B-757 while
continuing to make B-737 variants. The 737 first flew in 1967.
Fifty years later, variants are still in production. It's longer
now, has better avionics, and better engines, but it's still the
same diameter and still has poor climb performance.What the airline
industry wants to buy is flying buses.
stergios - 7 hours ago
Boeing most likely has already delivered the last passenger 747
ever to be built [1]. Cargo demand will keep the line alive, but
at greatly reduced numbers, which in total have been 1536 units
since it's commercial introduction in 1970 [2].IMHO, the A380 was
not created to meet market demand, but instead was conceived to
meet the national interests of England and France's own military
industrial complex, and in that regard it was a success.1.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/companies/the-last-747-...2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747edit: format fix.
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
Shouldn't that be France and Germany? From the top of my head the
largest production facilities with most employees are in those
countries.
stergios - 5 hours ago
Yes, you are right; Germany should be included, as today Airbus
is a consolidation of the European aerospace industry.My memory
was clouded by the highly publicized initial wiring harness
problems. The England and France teams were using CATIA
Version 5, while the Germany and Spain teams were using CATIA
Version 4.For the other children posts regarding my comment
about the military industrial complex, I meant to imply that by
being able to build the A380 Airbus as a corporation increased
it's own system wide capabilities. Boeing enjoys this same
benefit, which ranges from both technological capabilities as
well as financial advantages.
jmnicolas - 7 hours ago
The A380 is used as a military plane ?
toomuchtodo - 7 hours ago
It?s the commercial product of Airbus, an EU defense
contractor.http://www.airbus.com/defence.html
masklinn - 6 hours ago
Both Boeing and Airbus have defence contracting arms, that
doesn't mean all of their platforms have defence
purposes.AFAIK there is no military variant of the A380,
Airbus's current civilian platforms with military variants
are the A310[0] and A330[1] and their own derivatives (KC-45
which derives from the A330 MRTT).[0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
empressplay - 7 hours ago
I hate that plane, I flew it from Melbourne to LAX and won't do it
again. Weirdly noisy and almost hits the end of the runway on
takeoff. No thanks.
johansch - 4 hours ago
It's strangely quiet compared to everything except B787 and A350.
Are you really sure it was an A380 you flew?
_ph_ - 2 hours ago
While it is easy to see how airlines like the 2 engined airplanes
on most routes, and flying directly instead of the spoke and the
hub model, the question is, how easy is it to grow? I just flew
MUC-SFO and back. A nice direct flight operated by LHA once per day
with an A 340. And both flights were booked to the last seat. While
arriving at SFO on the way back I could see the LHA A380 leaving
for FRA.So, with them operating a flight to Frankfurth with the A
380 already and the flight to Munich filled completely, what is the
most economic way of growing? Is it to have two flights per day, or
take a larger airplane? And probably, there are only so many more
open slots at the airports for additional flights. Once they are
saturated, having a much bigger airplane available could be a
business perspective for Airbus. If global air travel continues to
grow, we need either many more flights, or bigger airplanes.
Especialls with the 747 going away, if Airbus can keep the A 380
alive, there might be quite a future.
karthikb - 39 minutes ago
The right way to deal with this is by adding more flights. United
operates a seasonal sfo-muc during the summer. And the timings
for this flight are quite different than the LH flight, giving
travelers quite a bit of flexibility.
WalterBright - 44 minutes ago
If I recall correctly, the 747 was in production for 10 years
before it turned a profit. And then it became a huge money-making
machine for Boeing.
org3432 - 7 hours ago
Naive question, but what routes does Emirates fly that could make
an A380 worth it? That's a big plane.
gsnedders - 6 hours ago
Dubai is slot contained, and they fly to plenty of other slot
contained airports.As far as I'm aware, London to Dubai alone has
seven daily A380 flights. More generally, Emirates have gone for
a single daily A380 flight instead of more frequent flights to
many destinations.
org3432 - 6 hours ago
Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a
population of little more than Austria would have that many
travelers.
namdnay - 5 hours ago
It's just a hub at an arbitrary (for travelers)
location.People aren't actually going to Dubai. DXB is an
extreme of course, but trasnfer passengers represents a huge
part of the activity for many hubs: 30% of passengers at LHR
are in transfer, and more than 50% at ATL!
ptaipale - 5 hours ago
Obviously, a vast majority of passengers are just changing
planes in the hub to go to other destinations.
gsnedders - 5 hours ago
I do wonder how many passengers ex-London are travelling to
Australia/New Zealand (which are undoable currently without
a stopover).
mpweiher - 7 hours ago
I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the
time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of
Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380
in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this
unopposed cash-cow.And, also missing from almost all the coverage
is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is
moribund or dead. Official backlog for the A380 is ~100 planes
(actual may be less), the 747's is 21. "the 747 line could be
closed in the third quarter of 2019".And I don't quite get how
Boeing somehow played this better, it's not exactly that they
decided not to develop a jumbo, they just already had one, whereas
Airbus had a bunch of mid-size twins (in fact, the company created
and was founded on the mid-size wide-body twin, the A300).Now you
can argue that both planes "were"/might be killed by the shift to
smaller twins (and the shift in regulations allowing much longer
ocean crossings with just two engines, heck, I recently read that
they are now doing the Atlantic in 737s!), but I don't think this
is necessarily so, at least not by itself.Boeing might have been
right that there wasn't space in the market for two such planes,
but that's a comfortable position if you have the monopoly in this,
the high-end segment of the market.I also am not convinced that the
reason given for the A380, constrained slots at major airports
serving the major routes, is entirely invalid. With air travel
growing the way it does, this problem is not going away, and the
shift to more point to point routes may only have been a temporary
reprieve.As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the
domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin
went belly up.
valuearb - 7 hours ago
Boeing played it better because they did not re-invest heavily in
the 747, and let it die.It?s not a question of competition. If
all of the remaining 747 orders switch to the A380, its still a
failure.And as far as airport congestion goes, building new
airports is far easier than new rail lines.
ghaff - 7 hours ago
>And as far as airport congestion goes, building new airports
is far easier than new rail lines.Might tell Berlin that :-)It
may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an
hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport
construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't
gone smoothly.
rsync - 5 hours ago
"It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space
within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major
airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually
hasn't gone smoothly."I remember DIA (Denver) being built
relatively quickly and without trouble - is my memory faulty
?(genuinely curious)
GiorgioG - 5 hours ago
Is this the same airport that constantly made the news for
its troublesome baggage system?Edit: Yep - https://www.biz
journals.com/denver/blog/broadway_17th/2015/0...
ghaff - 4 hours ago
As others have noted, it was hardly flawless though
arguably just par for the course troubled except for the
baggage system. And that was for an airport basically built
in the middle of nowhere.
valuearb - 3 hours ago
One can argue that Denvers airport was one of the most
successful government infrastructure projects in the US
over the last 30 years.
ghaff - 1 hours ago
It's not a bad airport. Its downside is that it was
popped down in empty land to the northeast of the city so
it's significantly farther from downtown and farther from
many of the mountain destinations to the west than the
old airport was.But obviously there was nowhere else to
put it.
valuearb - 5 hours ago
Everything but the baggage system.
jeblair - 5 hours ago
"As expected, Mayor Wellington Webb announced today that
the new Denver International Airport, already six months
late and more than $1 billion over budget, will not open on
May 15, missing its fourth deadline." [1][1]
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/us/denver-delays-
opening-o...
jsjohnst - 3 hours ago
> I remember DIAThe IATA code for Denver International
Airport is DEN. I originally heard it by DIA and was
confused many years ago, so I looked it up. Not a huge deal
as most airline folks know both versions, but wanted to
share the knowledge in case it was useful.
andy_ppp - 6 hours ago
Wow, there is so much space around Berlin I don?t even know
where to start with this, there?s even an airstrip in town
still. I know it?s a park now but seriously of all the major
cities I?ve lived in building a new airport should be
relatively easy... unless it?s a conscious decision to prefer
the train?Tegel is horrible but it?s also really quick - you
can and I have arrived 30mins before a flight and make it
just fine.Oh BER looks like the rarest of things, a German
construction disaster!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport
zimzam - 6 hours ago
The Berlin mention is a reference to the Brandenburg
airport which has been under construction since 2006 and
was scheduled to be completed in 2012. They are now hoping
to open in 2020 or
2021.http://madridjournals.com/2017/12/14/berlins-money-
guzzling-...
andy_ppp - 6 hours ago
Yes as I was checking the spelling of Tegel I came across
the Brandenburg airport information and linked to it
above. It makes Terminal 5 look fast and flawless by
comparison!
caoilte - 5 hours ago
Terminal 5 was fast and flawless (until the day it opened
and the airline computer systems fell over).Then again,
it is a giant metal shed.Now Crossrail, THAT'S something.
ant6n - 1 hours ago
Indeed: Heathrow has 75M annual passengers, crossrail
will have 200M
geezerjay - 3 hours ago
> Wow, there is so much space around BerlinAnd how do you
expect to move people from that empty space into Berlin?
People aren't happy to be flown 50 miles outside the city.
When that happens, all those flights coming and going into
that enpty space end up addin an extra couple of hours to
the travel time.To make matters worse, that empty space
tends to be connected with city centers by.... Train.
ant6n - 39 minutes ago
Fun fact: there's a single train that serves the already
completed train station under the not completed BER
airport -- the tunnels were designed with the assumption
of some air flow coming from the trains. Now that single
empty run ensures the tunnels don't mold.
[deleted]
nradov - 7 hours ago
I don't think the Boeing 747 really created much of a cross-
subsidy for their smaller models. Most of the major airlines with
747s had a mix of Boeing and Airbus airplanes.
coredog64 - 5 hours ago
The 747-400 set the stage for large aircraft that could be
operated with only a pilot and co-pilot. That, in turn, paved
the way for the 777's fancy new avionics. Those avionics then
went down market, including the then-new 737NG.At least, that
is my insider's perspective from the era (95-00).
exabrial - 5 hours ago
I don't think the a380 has an analog from Boeing... the 787 is a
smaller plane. Boeing gambled on "more choices, more planes" with
the 787, whereas AirBus is riding the trend of hauling larger
amounts of cattle to established infrastructure.
aj7 - 8 minutes ago
Ans. 777X
valuearb - 4 hours ago
The 747 was already in decline before the A380 came along. It was
getting long in the tooth (fuel burn too high) and Boeing needed
to invest billions to update it to keep it viable.In the 1970s
the 747 averaged 32 orders per year. In the 1980s it averaged 43
orders per year. It peaked in 1990, taking in 122 orders that
year alone, but from 1992-2000 orders dropped to average 27 per
year.In 2000, Airbus approved spending ?9.5B to build the A380.In
2005, Boeing announced the 747-8 to better compete with the
A380.From 2000-2009, the 747 had 214 total orders. The A380 had
212. Between them that's 43 orders a year. The market did not
grow, despite substantially better, more capable, more efficient,
products.From 2010-2017, the 747 has booked 27 orders, or 3 per
year. The A380 has booked 115, or 15 per year. 18 orders per year
combined is by far the smallest jumbo market since it
started.There is no doubt that Airbus hurt Boeing's profitability
by building the A380. But estimates are that Airbus spent
?20B-?30B developing it, most of which it will never recoup. And
the bulk of Boeing's profitability is in small to medium sized
jets. It mints money with the 777 and 737. It never needed the
low volume 747 to "subsidize" them.Losing tens of billions so
your competitor can lose a few billion is not a smart strategy.
Good business strategy is making profitable entries into your
competitors most profitable niches, not hemorrhaging money in
them. Airbus and Boeing were both told that point to point was
the future. Boeing heeded that advice (helped by a ton of their
own customer research), Airbus mostly ignored it, and the end
result is that Airbus crippled themselves while Boeing is as
successful as ever.The argument about airport congestion was
always a false one. Not only can and will (edit) new runways and
airports be built, but the A380's massive separation requirements
gives back much of it's slot efficiency benefits.
foxylad - 3 hours ago
One small nitpick - because of the rise in real estate costs
and nimbyism, new airports are not as easy a solution as they
once were. But I take your point that the 3A80 doesn't really
give much better slot efficiency.
hinkley - 2 hours ago
The new twins collect telemetry data from the entire flight.
Maintenance is scheduled based on cumulative stresses on the
engine and not on miles flown.They end up going longer between
service windows (reduced labor) but it also means they?re more of
a known quantity and shouldn?t fall off over the Atlantic. And
as we?ve discussed many times in SpaceX threads, having more
moving parts may increase the likelihood of a failure instead of
reducing it.So you have bigger engines, more efficient airframes,
fewer moving parts, and better maintenance records, why not fly
them over the ocean with only two engines?
mdasen - 6 hours ago
Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an
easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already
had a jumbo. It's easy to make a bet on twin-engines getting
certified for longer ocean crossings when you already have the
747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the 787 and
you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when
you already have the 747. However, they did make those bets and,
in hindsight, it looks like they were better moves.The A380 is
really built for hub and spoke systems which is one of the
reasons Emirates uses it so much. Emirates almost exclusively
goes through Dubai and so they're able to, for example, load up a
plane from London to Dubai and then Dubai to Singapore. The
airline industry started moving away from that and toward more
point-to-point routes in most cases. A 787 lets an airline serve
a route that just wouldn't fill a 747 or A380 and provide
customers with a better experience. For most airlines, that's a
win.The A380 isn't just a 747 competitor. It's a bet that the
747 didn't go far enough and that what airlines really needed was
something huge. Boeing's bet was that a fuel-efficient twin that
could serve point-to-point routes (rather than hub-and-spoke)
would provide the economics for better, more customer-friendly
routes, better utilization due to fewer empty seats, etc. Airbus
didn't build a 747 competitor, they wanted to one-up it.It is
true that some airports have constrained slots, but is this
mostly a London Heathrow problem? A slot-pair at Heathrow can go
for over $50M. By contrast, the DOJ valued 12 slot-pairs at JFK
at $44M or $3.7M a piece. American sold 17 at LaGuardia and 52
at Reagan for $381M or $5.5M a piece. That's certainly money,
but it seems like the problem at Heathrow is an order of
magnitude worse. When you move down from the most congested
markets (and DCA kinda counts due to artificial restrictions),
slot constraint seems a lot less interesting. Is the A380 a
plane to solve the problems of a few airports? Is solving that
problem enough?If you're Emirates, London -> Dubai might be your
most important route and the A380 means you can service it for a
lot of people. Of course, that's where most of the A380's
support is coming from. For airlines that don't operate such a
hub-and-spoke model, who use less constrained airports than
London Heathrow, etc. it seems that the 787 has been a lot more
attractive.You're right that when they started the A380, it
wasn't clear that the market would turn the way it did.
Honestly, if Airbus had made a 747 competitor instead of
something much larger than a 747, it might have fared better.
But the number of routes that can fill an A380 is small, the
number of airports where landing slots are unduly expensive is
small, and customers like the convenience of point-to-point (and
the larger windows, better headroom, better humidity, less noise
of a 787).The A380 isn't a complete bungle, but it was a bet that
not only did airlines like the 747, but they wanted something
larger. Boeing bet that if they could have something a bit
smaller for a lot of the routes the 747 was on, they'd like that.
The A380 found a big customer in Emirates, but the 787 has much
broader appeal. That doesn't mean the A380 doesn't have utility
and is certainly useful for certain routes that are popular and
slot-constrained, but the 787 seems to be more useful for a
larger number of situations.
Xixi - 2 hours ago
"Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an
easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing
already had a jumbo."It's also easier to make this bet when the
passenger version of the 767 is struggling for new orders
because of the A330. Boeing had the 747 against nothing, the
777 winning and killing the A340, and the 767 losing to the
A330. So Boeing made a better A330. That's why I don't see the
787 as such an insightful bet in terms of capacity (size,
length, weight and range): it really is pretty close to the
A330. And a modern A330 can pretty much do anything the 787 can
do, albeit burning more fuel on the way. The real risk was in
the development process and industrialization of the 787
though, which proved risky and costly.
hinkley - 2 hours ago
Remember that Boeing killed off a trans-sonic plane and
decided to build the 787 instead. They weren?t always sure
this was the only way to go. I think the economy tanking and
fuel costs rising made the decision for them.
coredog64 - 5 hours ago
2 points: Airbus had a competitor to the 747. The A340 was
close to the 747 with all the benefits of a single airframe
supplier.Second point: Airbus was in a tough spot with the
A380. They had to make it huge because Boeing was always
threatening a cheaper 747 stretch. I almost feel like Boeing
only ever spent money on the post -400 stretch as a "special
teams" move to force Airbus into the A380.
mpweiher - 3 hours ago
> competitor to the 747. The A340The A340 was not
competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of
a large twin.Beautiful plane, though, very quiet near the
front.> Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380Absolutely.
To me it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. A lot of
industrial jiu-jitsu going on at that level.
smachiz - 2 hours ago
> The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine
plane with the seating of a large twin.Well, they built the
A340-600 hoping it would. But it couldn't - and the length
caused CG issues which reduced cargo capacity.
valuearb - 3 hours ago
Making a money losing investment isn't a "tough spot". You
are only damned if you choose to do it. Not only did they
know that 747 sales were falling, they knew point to point
was becoming more popular.It was a really easy decision and
they blew it. Engineering the world's greatest aircraft is
an addictive endeavor, but the numbers have to work and
they never did.
mpweiher - 2 hours ago
> 747 sales were fallingA380 was officially started in
1993.747 orders per year, starting 19932, 16, 32, 56, 36,
15, 35, 26, 16, 17, 4, 10, 43, 72I don't see "falling".
At best, I see cycles.
valuearb - 2 hours ago
In the 1970s the 747 averaged 32 orders per year. In the
1980s it averaged 43 orders per year. It peaked in 1990,
taking in 122 orders that year alone, but from 1992-2000
orders dropped to average 27 per year.Ironically in 1993,
the year A380 design work began, the 747 had it's worst
sales year ever (till then), with only 2 orders.The A380
was approved for production in 2000. In 2005, Boeing
announced the 747-8 to better compete with the A380.From
2000-2009, the 747 had 214 total orders, almost all after
747-8 was announced. The A380 had 212. Combined that's 43
orders a year. The market did not grow, despite
substantially better, more capable, and more efficient,
products.From 2010-2017, the 747 and A380 have booked 18
orders per year combined. It is by far the smallest jumbo
market since it was created. And what point to point
advocates predicted.
mc32 - 3 hours ago
Wasn't another thing that Boeing believed that fuel economy
would become more important in the future and thus developed
airframes with fuel efficiency in mind?At the time the
Dreamliner was being announced people were initially
underwhelmed by the proposal but Boeing persisted and tried to
impress upon the aviation industry that they had made the right
choice. I don't think at the time everyone thought the
Dreamliner was the best answer to the A380.
valuearb - 3 hours ago
Turned out it wasn't. The 777 is the real profit engine at
Boeing, the Dreamliner may never earn back it's cost thought
it will never be as bad an investment as the A380.
mc32 - 3 hours ago
Apparently the Dreamliner is doing better than anticipated,
for it has begun turning a profit[1]. With the A380 being
developed, Boeing couldn't just stand arms crossed. They
had to develop a response --and in this case develop new
materials to achieve better fuel efficiency --the
discoveries thereof can be reused in future
frames.[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/25
/boeing-soars-...
valuearb - 2 hours ago
That article is misleading, the Dreamliner is at least a
decade away from true profitability, if it ever gets
there. When Boeing announces it "turned" profitable, they
are saying it now costs less to make each Dreamliner than
they are selling for. But that is ignoring over $30B in
development costs (plus interest) that it needs to earn
back before it can ever generate a true economic
profit."In the second quarter of 2015, Boeing lost $25
million on each 787 delivered but was planning to break-
even per plane before the year end. After that Boeing
hopes to build 900 Dreamliners over six years at an
average profit of more than $35 million each. But with
deferred costs peaking in 2016 at $33?billion, Leeham
analyst Bjorn Fehrm considers Boeing can't make an
overall profit on the program. Ted Piepenbrock, an
academic affiliated with the MIT and the University of
Oxford, projects losses decreasing through the first 700
airliners, forecast the cumulative deferred costs to peak
beyond $34 billion and its model most favorable to Boeing
projects a program loss of $5 billion after delivering
2,000 Dreamliners. Boeing?s original development
investment, estimated at least at a further $20 billion,
isn't included in these costs.[177]"https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
mc32 - 2 hours ago
Thanks for the insight and clarification. This has to be
one of the most difficult businesses to be in, given a
poor choice can risk bankruptcy for the
developer/manufacturer. If relative success means
turning a profit 20 years hence, that's one hell of an
industry to be in.
valuearb - 2 hours ago
Very true, but fortunately the people in charge of making
these momentous decisions are well compensated, win or
lose;)
rconti - 4 hours ago
Emirates has to use the hub and spoke model because their home
country is so small.
martinald - 2 hours ago
What I can't understand though is how it even makes sense at
LHR.A380 requires 'super heavy' spacing between planes AFIAK,
as opposed to 'heavy' for 747 and below.Surely all the gain you
get from more passengers is lost as you need significantly more
spacing between the plane and the next one? So you might as
well just run two 787s instead and extract more point to point
incremental revenue?Please do reply, I've wondered this for a
while and haven't been able to have a good answer.
jpatokal - 2 hours ago
The difference between heavy and super heavy spacing is only
30-60 seconds (depending on airport), which is a lot less
than an additional arrival/departure slot (which come in
pairs for obvious reasons).
mpweiher - 5 hours ago
Excellent points, and I agree that the switch in the market
certainly was a large component, and probably the larger
component. I still think that Airbus simply could not not do
the A380, just as a defensive move and hedge, and that it may
have served a commercial purpose even if it didn't manage to be
profitable on its own.> constrained slots [..] certainly money
[..]Are slots primarily a money problem? My understanding was
that the constraint is not so much their expense, but simply
non-availability. For example, one of the most valuable assets
of Air Berlin apparently is their slots[1]. AFAICT, these
were/are not available on the open market, they get doled out
by some mechanism.[1] https://www.srnnews.com/sale-of-air-
berlin-slots-offers-rare...
ivankolev - 5 hours ago
In the early years of the post-communist era state
disintegration that is currently going on in Bulgaria, the
national airline "Balkan" was sold for a funny sum of $150k
[1] and subsequently liquidated supposedly netting a lot of
unaccounted money for its valuable slots.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Bulgarian_Airlines
mdasen - 2 hours ago
Non-availability is what makes them expensive. It's kind of
two sides of the same coin. If the slots were widely
available, they wouldn't be a valuable asset. They are a
valuable asset only because they aren't available.The point
of looking at the monetary value is that it's a way to
quantify how unavailable they are. Land costs money. Where
land is scarce, it becomes expensive. Where land is
abundant, it's cheap. If landing slots can be acquired
cheaply, it means there is availability.It looks like EasyJet
bought their Berlin Tegel operation for ?40M including 25
leased A320s. Most likely the landing permits weren't that
valuable. Lufthansa is taking on 81 aircraft for ?210.Let's
say that each plane has 2 slot-pairs per day. That's
?800k/slot for EasyJet and ?1.3M for Lufthansa. But let's
say half of the value was the staffing and leases.Land costs
money even when it's not in a popular location. If landing
slots command a certain amount of money, that's not a bad
thing. It gets bad (bad enough that you want a work around)
when they become very expensive.For example, let's say the
A380 takes 2x the passengers of a 787. Let's say that based
on passenger load, fuel, profitability of point-to-point over
hub-and-spoke, etc. flying the A380 costs you $2M more per
year than flying two 787s. Well, it looks like you can get a
landing permit for well under $1M so it makes more sense to
buy the landing permit off someone else.Things are generally
available, even if scarce, for a price. Airlines are
choosing the 787 to optimize for their profit and including
the scarcity and cost of landing slots as part of that. At
most airports, it seems they're available for reasonable
amounts of money.--In terms of Airbus not being able to not
do the A380, do you mean that they had to create a 747
competitor to be prudent or that they had to build the
A380?You might be right that, based on the information and
the market at the time, prudence might have demanded a
response to the 747. But did it demand building something
bigger? Maybe they could have build something marginally
smaller than a 747 and been better off.Airbus had a dream
that a much larger aircraft than a 747 would be a winner. It
is for certain routes, but not most. For most routes,
companies wanted a smaller 747 and Boeing gave that to them
in the 787.At the time, I remember it looking like Airbus was
going to get a win with the A380 and that the 787 would be
the mistake. Turns out that larger didn't work out.
simpleigh - 2 hours ago
> The point of looking at the monetary value is that it's a
way to quantify how unavailable they are. Land costs money.
Where land is scarce, it becomes expensive. Where land is
abundant, it's cheap. If landing slots can be acquired
cheaply, it means there is availability.Sure, but I think
you're missing the point about the "non-availability." I
don't think the cost shows everything.When there's lots of
slots available then the price will be low. When there's
few slots available then the price will be high. When
there's _very few_ slots available then prices are harder
to compare. There's an upper limit on what a company will
pay (a slot can only provide so much profit, after all,
even if you expect to own it for many years). Prices will
presumably start to depend more on who's bidding for them
and what deals can be struck.Free market economics only
works if the market is able to respond (i.e. it's
relatively liquid).
panabee - 1 hours ago
this debate is extremely informative; thanks for sharing
and engaging so clearly and politely! since you felt a
smaller plane would be more desirable for most routes,
could you elaborate why you felt airbus was going to win at
the time? thanks!
valuearb - 3 hours ago
How can investing 20-30 billion euros into a massively
unprofitable project serve a commercial purpose? How did it
here?
notahacker - 2 hours ago
Speculatively, by (i) having a more negative effect on the
profitability of their major competitor in a duopoly and
(ii) by having indirect positive effects on their sales of
other aircraft. As unsuccessful airliner programs go, the
A380 wasn't that bad, with over 200 actually delivered.
Though it would have looked a lot worse if it wasn't for
EmiratesThere are also likely technologies developed for
the A380 which will have long run benefits when adapted for
newer generation versions of other Airbus aircraft.
valuearb - 1 hours ago
i) 747 sales were already declining and it required
expensive investment to continue. ii) How would A380
sales help sell other Airbus aircraft? It's such a low
volume plane that it offers virtually zero benefits to
purchasing other Airbus models.200 deliveries for a $30B+
development costs is a disaster. Airbus has already
admitted the development costs will never be recouped,
they'd have to sell over 400 planes to ever have a
shot.And any technology you want to develop for other
planes would have been far cheaper to just develop for
the other, presumably profitable, planes.Boeings
brilliance was sucking Airbus into this market. Instead
of canceling the 747, they kept the 747 production line
open with a low cost update (the 747-8) allowed them to
crater A380 pricing. That cost Airbus a huge amount of
capital, and delayed/hamstrung their efforts to compete
with the 777 and 787.Airbus has lost at least 10x as much
on the A380 as Boeing lost on the 747 since 2000.
notahacker - 22 minutes ago
Nobody is saying Airbus has made a profit on the A380,
but absorbing development costs over 250 aircraft
delivered leads to much lower losses than absorbing them
over 14 aircraft delivered like a certain innovative
indirect ancestor of Airbus...And much as program costs
are accounting fiction, Boeing's written down far more
than a 10th of the A380 program costs as 747-8
development programme specific losses, never mind the
bigger issue of losing a natural monopoly cash cow - even
a declining one - and the tag of being the undisputed
best at large widebodies which has wider ramifications.
Not sure the 747-8 was ever really a significant factor
in A380 pricing, because Emirates were even less likely
to buy something only fit for freighters as their
flagship passenger aircraft than they were to take any
notice of what the actual sticker price for the A380 was
when negotiating deals.It's an open question whether the
A350 would have done much better if Airbus had doubled
down on launching at the same time as the 787, or whether
it will do better in the long run for being the more
recent aircraft model for its first couple of
generations.
JumpCrisscross - 7 hours ago
> if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or deadBoeing
has built and sold over 1,500 747s [1]. It first flew in 1969 and
is now being end of lifed. It has been obscenely profitable over
its lifetime. The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a
commercial disaster.The 747 was a great plane for 1969. Airbus
built the finest horse-drawn carriage just as the Model T came
out.> constrained slots at major airports serving the major
routesBetween 30 and 40% of passengers departing from JFK or
Newark will go on to a connection [3]. Consider what happens when
they start flying directly to their destinations.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380[3]
https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR_2015.pdf
mpweiher - 7 hours ago
> It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetimeExactly.
And these obscene profits in a line where it had no competition
were a problem for Airbus. A problem that has now
disappeared.> The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a
commercial disaster.(a) It helped kill the "obscenely
profitable" 747.(b) It was a hedge in case airlines were going
to stick with the hub-and-spoke model(c) Slot constraints may
only have a temporary reprieve
valuearb - 3 hours ago
The 747 was a problem that was disappearing on it's own. When
the A380 was approved, the 747 was no longer obscenely
profitable, it was already facing lower demand and the
requirements for an expensive update.Airbus crippled itself
trying to eliminate it with the A380, they blew a huge amount
of capital they'll never get back.The hub and spoke model is
dead and won't be coming back. New slots can be easily
created by adding runways or building new airports. Flying
point to point isn't just more convenient and faster, it is
cheaper and more fuel efficient.
1_2__4 - 7 hours ago
Um, the 787 is what kiled the 747. As in Boeing decided, as
all companies do, to retire a line in favor of a more modern
one. It?s really weird you don?t acknowledge that at all.
monocasa - 6 hours ago
The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.
briandear - 6 hours ago
However the efficiency allows long, thin routes.
Essentially the 787 and now the newer 777 allow more
agile routing over longer distances which opens up
airlines to greater routing efficiencies that aren?t as
dependent on super-hub airports. There are over 600 787
routes, of which 368 are long haul and 90 are completely
new routes. For example, ANA flies Tokyo to San Jose and
BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version
runs the new 777s now.My point is that passenger capacity
isn?t such an important metric when comparing the ?47 and
the ?87. And the A380 is an airplane built for last
century?s model of air travel.
gsnedders - 6 hours ago
> BA flies London San Jose, those I think the BA version
runs the new 777s nowStill 787-9s; I'm unaware of any
plan to move it to 777s.
cdibona - 6 hours ago
It's a better bet to say the 777 killed the passenger
747. The real question is if cargo operations will
continue to drive 747 demand.It'll probably look like
tanker/military demand for the 767.The a380 cargo option
never really developed...
gsnedders - 3 hours ago
> The real question is if cargo operations will continue
to drive 747 demand.The reality is that we're going to
have loads of 747-400s that aren't life-expired
available, and I imagine many operators will just turn to
freighter conversions of them rather than order new
747-8s.
KeepTalking - 2 hours ago
Till now, cargo operations are built on the backbone of
older aircrafts that require relatively inexpensive
modifications to haul pallets. The economics of the
business rarely encourage brand new aircraft purchase
with the exception of UPS and FedEx and ad-hoc
specialized operators.In the future, this might not be
the case. In the era of fuel efficiency most passenger
aircrafts were not designed to haul cargo. In-order to
save on weight the main deck on the 777 was made of
lightweight materials that is acceptable for passenger
traffic. This in-turn makes it very expensive for cargo
conversions.
JumpCrisscross - 6 hours ago
The general point being nobody wants a passenger plane
with the A380 or 747's capacity anymore. Small,
efficient, long-distance planes like the 787, A350 and
C-Series are rendering the larger format obsolete.
sjm-lbm - 6 hours ago
.. just to piggy back on this and add a "why": the
smaller long range planes are allowing airlines to
connect smaller cities with direct flights while still
making money. This is easier for customers, and is
insanely popular.An example here is British Airways'
service from New Orleans to London. Obviously, some
amount of people have always wanted to get from New
Orleans to London, but previously they've been flying
though Dallas/Atlanta/New York, etc. The 787 allows BA to
offer a much better product to those customers, and the
size/cost to operate a 787 is what makes the flight
commercially viable. When the sky is full of airplanes
operating flights like that, there's no one group of
people in one place to fill up a jumbo.
waqf - 5 hours ago
But New Orleans/London isn't two smaller cities, it's one
smaller city and one major intercontinental hub. Doesn't
expecting to have a nonstop flight from London to every
city in the world put unsustainable pressure on landing
slots in London?
sjm-lbm - 5 hours ago
Yes. But that's a slightly different problem, and one
that could potentially be solved in other ways (an extra
runway at LHR, going to a different airport in another
European capital if London is unwilling to make the
changes needed to keep their airport competitive for
connecting passengers transiting through, stuff like
that).Slot utilization at busy airports is one of the
better pro-jumbo arguments going around at the moment,
though. There's just not enough market pressure to cause
airlines to push passengers away from direct flights and
towards less popular routing options right now.
ryguytilidie - 4 hours ago
I think routes like San Jose-Manchester is a better
example of why A350s and 787s are great. You're also
seeing a lot of 787 flights out of Oakland instead of all
bay area international travel being from SF.When I was a
kid and lived in Santa Cruz, we would always have to
drive to SFO for international flights because SJC's
runway was too short for some of the bigger jumbos. Now
with 350s and 787s, its not an issue.
kbenson - 5 hours ago
Does the comparison not work if the smaller city is in
Europe and he major hub is one of the ones in the US? Or
even two US cities?I think perhaps using London as an
example is overshadowing the point being made. If you
aren't aggregating passengers at hubs which you then use
larger planes for the common leg of the journey, you
don't need as many larger planes.
waqf - 4 hours ago
Direct flights to more destinations from any hub still
means a superlinear increase in the number of slot pairs
required. Are you suggesting that that wouldn't also be
problematic at hubs in North America?
kbenson - 4 hours ago
I'm suggesting, as I took sjm-lbm to be originally, that
there are more direct flights that are not using the
hubs, therefore less need for larger planes to support
aggregated passengers. If flights from New Orleans to
New York used to go through Atlanta and the Atlanta to
New York flight was full of aggregated smaller flights to
Atlanta, that would require a larger plane. If more
flights are going direct from New Orleans to New York
using smaller planes, that lessens the aggregation in
Atlanta, and lessens the need for another 747 at that
location.
sjm-lbm - 4 hours ago
For sure, the original intent of the 787 was to enable
flights that skip hubs[1], but for whatever reason, in
practice that hasn't really happened[2].Also, it's
totally possible that there's a better example of a rote
enabled by the 787 than New Orleans/London. That's just
one that came to mind.[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/
marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a38...[2] - https://centrefor
aviation.com/insights/analysis/787-network-... (though
you only get a lame summary of the article without an
account)
SteveCoast - 6 hours ago
At a lower $/passenger/mile.Why fly one 747 from NY to
London and make people connect to it, when you can fly
one 787 from Denver and one 787 from Chicago?
selectodude - 6 hours ago
I resent that. Chicago gets 747s and 777s from British
Airways and is about to get an A380 :)
_Codemonkeyism - 4 hours ago
My guess as stated elsewhere A380 usage will increase.
selectodude - 3 hours ago
I was just being snarky about the implication that
Chicago is a new opportunity opened up by the 787 when
it?s actually one of the largest cities in the world that
already gets multiple flights daily from most major world
cities.
_Codemonkeyism - 1 hours ago
Last time I was in Chicago the airport was a pain as the
plane needed a long time from the runway to the terminal
due to the size of the airport.
notahacker - 2 hours ago
It might be an atypical route, but LHR slot costs and
unavailability can certainly wipe out putative passenger
mile cost advantages...
junkscience2017 - 6 hours ago
by design
TylerE - 3 hours ago
I don't think the A380 really competes that directly. The 747
can use many more airports than the A380.
junkscience2017 - 6 hours ago
fuel costs killed the 747, not the A380we know this is true
because no one is replacing retired 747s with A380s, they are
replacing them with smaller, more fuel efficient planes
markonen - 4 hours ago
Plenty of airlines have replaced 747s with A380s. British
Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Qantas immediately come
to mind.
nimish - 2 hours ago
The first three are from countries where Eads doing well
is a political thing: Britain Germany and France own
chunks of airbus and have a lot invested in it doing
well. The former flag carriers are only nominally
independent from the state.
markonen - 2 hours ago
Tell me more about this nominal independence. The biggest
state owner of IAG (BA?s corporate parent) is Qatar.
Lufthansa is fully privatized. France owns ~15% of Air
France-KLM.
cnlevy - 1 hours ago
European airlines prefer european airplanes; its a
question of EU pride
yardie - 2 hours ago
It hasn't been a 1-for-1 replacement. At least for BA the
747 has been replaced by the A380, 777, and 787 on many
routes. All 3 have different capacities to scale with
demand; 787 < 777 < A380. And all 3 are more fuel
efficient per passenger than the 747.
csours - 6 hours ago
I'm sure you realize this, but some might not: a 747-8 in 2017
is very different from a 747-100 in the 1960s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
I would be interested on how your comment fits your quote.
[deleted]
joezydeco - 7 hours ago
if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or deadTwo
American carriers (United and Delta) already knew this. They
discontinued the 747 and their last flights were earlier this yea
r.https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/...Th
e A320s and 777s (and soon A350s) are just more efficient for
passenger ETOPS flights. Hell, United will probably even fly
737MAXs on Atlantic routes like they did with 757-ERs.
chiph - 4 hours ago
I was just passing through Atlanta, and there was a Delta
liveried 747 at what I think was Terminal F (we were taxiing to
C). I'm guessing it was there for the farewell tour for their
employees.https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayin
thesky/...Delta replaced it with A350's.
avar - 6 hours ago
Flying jumbo jets is bad business these days, but the immediate
reason for why these carriers dropped the 747 in 2017 was
because starting in 2018 they wouldn't have been allowed to fly
due to new FAA rules around fuel tank inerting.Of course
putting "we won't be allowed to fly them since the regulator
thinks they're too likely to explode coming next year, but
we're still selling flights on them!" in your own press
releases is bad for business, so most of the news only mentions
other reasons.
tomalpha - 5 hours ago
Do you have a source for that?I?m particularly interested
because I?m due to fly on a British Airways 747 in a couple
of weeks to the US.As an aside, BA appears to have the
largest remaining passenger 747 fleet[0] and doesn?t plan to
fully retire them until 2024.[0]
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/last-
ba-747-400-t...
avar - 4 hours ago
Start with this thread[1] from HN a couple of months ago
(search for "inert"). This has been a long time coming[2]
and is in response to TWA 800 which was a 747 that exploded
in 1996 due to lack of fuel tank inerting[3].The FAA issued
a directive in 2008 saying that by December 26, 2017 (not
2018, sorry) [4] passenger planes flying within or into the
US had to have fuel tank inerting. Many operators such as
Delta and United (can't find a better source for that now
than this reddit comment [5]) decided not to retrofit and
flew their 747s pretty much right up to the deadline.Other
operators, such as BA (presumably) have already retrofitted
their 747s and will continue flying them.So obviously Delta
and United weren't very interested in flying the 747s
anyway since they consider it more economical to turn them
into beer cans or cargo planes than continue flying them,
but the immediate reason they're stopping at this time is
because they couldn't legally continue past the
deadline.Which is all I'm pointing out here, that they've
known this was coming since 2008 but didn't value the
safety of their passengers enough to retrofit the planes,
and continued flying them right up to the deadline.It's
worth calling out corporate doublespeak and convenient
omissions whenever they occur.1.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=154784422. http://www.
iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/in...3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_8004. https://www.
faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...5. https
://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/7bxs0x/final_unit...
tomalpha - 3 hours ago
Thanks. I?ll get reading.Edit: completely agree with
calling out corporate doublespeak
valuearb - 2 hours ago
The 747 without fuel tank inerting is still has a very
good safety record. It's been over 20 years since one has
had a fuel tank explosion. FAA estimates are without
inserting a passenger jet risks a fuel tank explosion
every 60M hours, or roughly every 30,000 years. Lastly,
it's unclear how well the FAA inerting requirements will
even work, they only reduce oxygen levels to 12%, while
military jets require 9% to eliminate explosion
risks.It's silly to spend a large amount of money to
retrofit planes near the end of their useful lives with
safety equipment of questionable benefit. Especially when
every bit of equipment introduces it's own new risks.
avar - 1 hours ago
Agreed, overall they're safe. I'm just pointing out that
the time of the phase-out in the US is effectively FAA-
mandated due to the airlines not wanting to retrofit the
fleet, as e.g. BA has apparently done.This is an
interesting bit of trivia, and not something you'll find
in airline press releases since for better or worse it's
going to make them look worse in the eyes of their
customers.There's ~500 747s[1] in service. So 30k/500 =~
60yrs, or a 25% chance that one will blow up in the next
15 years. So this seems like a reasonable retrofit given
the cost.I assume that the FAA knows what it's doing and
12% oxygen helps, even if it's not 9%, similarly I assume
they've taken into account the risk of retrofitting
existing planes, since they started explicitly mandating
that in 2008.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boe
ing_747_operators#A...
dekhn - 7 hours ago
The 747 is dead, but it had a great life. The whole project was
one of Boeing's most successful (quick development time).
funnelsgun - 7 hours ago
Boeing could have chosen to compete with the A380 and built their
own Superjumbo, but they chose not to, instead working on the
Dreamliner.The 744, which was the last update to the 747 to see
large market penetration, wasn't all that cost effective either:>
with 70 percent of its seats occupied, used more than 95 percent
of the fuel needed by a fully occupied 747Yes, the A380 is more
fuel efficient, and cost per seat is much lower, but I suspect
with the exception of Emirates, most airlines did not need bigger
planes. Other airlines such as BA, Quantas and Singapore bought
A380s to replace their oldest 744s, but still have a lot of 744s
in service that won't be replaced with A380s.
FireBeyond - 4 hours ago
> QuantasJust as an FYI, it's Qantas, originally QANTAS -
Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services.
funnelsgun - 2 hours ago
Sorry, I know this, should have got that right the first
time!
jpatokal - 2 hours ago
Qantas will be retiring all its 747s in the next few years as
their replacements, a mix of A380s and 787s, come in.
blunte - 5 hours ago
I'm sure this is a VERY complex issue. But two things come to my
mind.1 - Maintenance and tooling for the 747 series has been
around for a long time; so moving to 380 would likely be a much
bigger deal in that regard than moving to the latest 747
variant.2 - Fewer airport options for 380 vs 747 means less
flexibility of how the fleet is deployed.
alexhutcheson - 4 hours ago
This could be posturing to help them win the Emirates deal.
Emirates has already made a huge investment in the A380, so if
Airbus shuts down the production line that could translate to
larger costs and less flexibility for Emirates in the medium term.
If Airbus can make a credible threat to wind down the program, that
might convince Emirates to pay more than they otherwise would as a
way to keep the program afloat.
notatoad - 3 hours ago
If it is, it's pretty shitty posturing. The fact that your most
sigificant recent product is effectively EOL if one customer
cancels is not the sort of thing you want other potential
customers to hear. Even if emirates does re-up on the 380,
they're going to have a hard time convincing other customers
after this.
eccbits - 7 hours ago
Good to see Boeing winning
ComputerGuru - 6 hours ago
Why, do you have a share in the company?
samfisher83 - 6 hours ago
The 747 struggled initially as well. If the A380 is completely full
it is almost 30% cheaper per passenger per mile to fly compared to
787. Maybe some new company will come up with a way to make money
like southwest or spirit.
ethagknight - 4 hours ago
Sounds like filling the A380 is the problem, without flooding the
various markets with availability. Curious- I've always read the
A380 is more expensive per seat mile than 787. Source?
Robotbeat - 7 hours ago
777x is probably the future of this segment. Larger planes simply
cannot scale because they already have to have short wings to fit
in airports. Folding wings (like the 777x) can address this.Longer,
higher aspect ratio wings are one powerful way to continue the
march to higher efficiency. Eventually, I think this will allow
electrification of most air travel.And I do think that supersonic
air travel will make a strong comeback. There are technology
advances making the energy costs lower and the noise quieter. We're
also becoming richer as a species. So I think this will bite into
the first/business-class trans-oceanic market segment that the
Jumbos previously operated in.
kylehotchkiss - 4 hours ago
Is the 777x quieter than the current 777s? Current 777s are soooo
loud. Trying to sleep when they need to climb a thousand feet in
the middle of a flight is a losing battle, especially on 10+ hour
flights.
ComputerGuru - 6 hours ago
> We're also becoming richer as a species.I don?t understand
this. Isn?t richness/poorness relative to something else in the
same pool? What other species are you comparing us to? Because
it?s a zero sum game otherwise; a pie chart where percentages
count but can be scaled up or down without effect.
Robotbeat - 6 hours ago
No, it's not merely relative. I mean we can martial more
resources to do as we please. Just like most people (in
developed countries at least) can drive around 50-60mph in a
vehicle (a car in 1st world or a scooter in developing
countries) but 200, 300 years ago they couldn't. We've become
richer.It's like this: when public transit advocates ask why
move a ton of metal around per person when literally stuffing
them in a train is more efficient, the reason is because we're
(in the US) rich enough to not have to pick the most
"efficient" solution to every problem. Otherwise we'd be
drinking generic Soylent and sleeping in pods instead of eating
lush, delicious food and sleeping in houses.The whole world is
going to get there, and you're not going to convince more than
a handful of people to voluntarily live like a drone when they
don't have to. So we better figure out how to live these non-
efficient lifestyles more sustainably.(EDIT: Yes, I do think
that if public transit offers a /better/ service, it has a
future. But if it's significantly worse than what people
already have, then good luck convincing people to use it.)
ComputerGuru - 6 hours ago
Sorry, your terminology threw me off. I get what you?re
saying, and as you can see from my quality-of-life replies in
this comment thread, I don?t disagree.
reaperducer - 6 hours ago
I understand what he's saying. And I don't think it's a zero
sum game. That's just a phrase people like to use to sound
smart.People in poverty today are a hundred times better off
than those in poverty in the 1500's. If it really was a zero
sum game, then for all the iPhone X-toting SF hipsters, there
would be thousands of people living in conditions worse than
the Middle Ages.
ComputerGuru - 6 hours ago
No, because living conditions have nothing to do with being
rich or poor. I?m not arguing that quality of life has not
gone up; it?s has undoubtedly done so. The richest of kings
of yore didn?t lead a more comfortable or luxurious life than
a middle class citizen of any country today. But they were
?richer.?But disparity in wealth (which is the definition of
being rich/poor) has nothing to do with that.
Robotbeat - 6 hours ago
Disparity in wealth is not the definition of rich/poor in
this context, clearly.(And IMHO, viewing the economy and
wealth in strict zero sum terms is depressing,
counterproductive, and incorrect.)
nostrademons - 1 hours ago
Disparity of wealth isn't how most people define being
rich/poor. Most people compare themselves to their 5-year-
ago self (or their parents, or their childhood, or their
expectations), and as long as they're doing better than
expected, they're rich.It's just that people who compare
themselves to others tend to be disproportionately loud.
If you compare yourself to yourself and come up short, you
have nobody to blame but yourself, so of course you're not
going to crow about it. If you compare yourself to the
people you hear about on the news and come up short,
obviously they must have cheated.
JumpCrisscross - 6 hours ago
> Isn?t richness/poorness relative to something else in the
same pool?Quality of life is not a zero sum game. If you want
to be quantitative, one could deploy a proxy metric like the
Kardashev scale [1].[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
ComputerGuru - 6 hours ago
But quality of life has nothing to do with richness. The
quality of life for Joe Schmoe making 26k a year beats that
of some of the ancient pharaohs with his AC, fridge,
microwave, running water, indoor plumbing, instant hot water,
and beat up 12 year old Camry. They were still ?richer? than
him.(Some Roman rulers did have ?AC? though:Attempts to
control indoor temperatures began in ancient Rome, where
wealthy citizens took advantage of the remarkable aqueduct
system to circulate cool water through the walls of their
homes. The emperor Elagabalus took things a step further in
the third century, building a mountain of snow?imported from
the mountains via donkey trains?in the garden next to his
villa to keep cool during the summer. [0])0: http://www.slate
.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/07/a_hist...
Robotbeat - 6 hours ago
The typical person in a developed country (especially) or
even a developing country can marshall more resources now
than a typical Egyptian thousands of years ago. Travel
farther and faster. That's what I'm referring to.
ComputerGuru - 4 hours ago
That's literally what I said in the comment you're
replying to! (yes, we're on the same page. Not arguing,
just found it funny that this was your reply.)
JumpCrisscross - 6 hours ago
> But quality of life has nothing to do with richnessYou're
arbitrarily defining "richness" as relative monetary worth
so you can make this circular argument."Richness" refers to
money, i.e. resources. As you point out, the average person
today can Marshall more resources than the average person
could before. That makes the average person today richer.
bobity - 7 hours ago
Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as it's
only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlines. The A380 is so much
more comfortable than any 747 I've been on. If you do long haul on
an A380 in any class you won't go back...
jeffcore - 6 hours ago
No one is really disputing that the A380 is more comfortable than
the older 747, but that's not enough to save it as more and more
carriers prefer frequency over size.
rconti - 4 hours ago
I've flown the A380 a bunch of times, always SFO-FRA, upper deck
economy on Lufthansa.The best part of the experience is the
relative calm of the small economy class on the upper deck. To be
honest, other than that, I don't particularly prefer it over
anything else. If I was pressed I guess I'd say I prefer the 787.
Mostly I prefer whatever gets me to my destination without a
layover (which, thankfully, is usually available from SFO).The
worst part is the crush of people trying to board the damn plane,
spilling out all over the entire terminal.
reaperducer - 5 hours ago
> Lots of yanks commenting who have never been in an A380, as
it's only used in euro, Mid East and Asian airlinesYou seem to be
under the impression that European, Middle Eastern, and Asian
airlines don't fly to the United States.I've been on the A380 at
least a dozen times on the LAX-NRT route. It also flies into
ATL, JFK, SFO, IAD, BOS, MIA, and IAH.
infofarmer - 6 hours ago
?Airbus to axe A380 mid-flight if Emirates deal blows up?
Yizahi - 6 hours ago
I may be dumb but I don't understand the numbers in the article.
They write Airbus has "96 unfilled orders" then say that "47 of
those are unlikely to be delivered". So they won't be ordered or
won't be delivered? If it's the latter then won't it be breach of
contract on Airbus side and just kinda plain stupid? And if it's
the former that doesn't it contradict previous number of 96 units
ordered?Next they say "deliver the remaining 41 it has on order" -
where did this number come from if they have 96 on order? Or if we
believe paragraph about 47 not delivered, then 96-47=49, not 41.And
the last whether it is 96, 49 or 41 - it is more than "Airbus needs
to sell at least another 30".And regarding "To bridge the gap,
Airbus plans to cut output to six a year beyond 2019, from 12 in
2018 and 8 in 2019, even if it means producing at a loss, Reuters
recently reported." - 12+8+(8years*6units)=68 units over next 10
years (and way more than "at least another 30") - how does this
correlate with any other number in the article?
csours - 6 hours ago
6 could be in production right now.
[deleted]
tolien - 6 hours ago
Some orders will be transferred to other models, e.g. Airbus sold
customers an A350-800 that didn't exist yet then cancelled the
project that would have developed it. The orders were transferred
to the -900 and A330neo, with the airlines presumably getting an
inducement to do so.
reaperducer - 6 hours ago
This happens all the time. Airline X places an order for 50 new
jets. The jets take 15 years to build. Three years later,
economics shift. Maybe Airline X is bought by Airline Y and
doesn't need all those jets. Some of the orders are cancelled.
You read about it all the time in the business press.
namdnay - 8 hours ago
I fly Emirates A380 from time to time, I have to say the business
class is better than the first class of most carriers. Very quiet,
masses of space, and the bar is not bad at all when you want to
stretch your legs. And when you get bumped up to first... having a
shower on a flight is very nice :)The only problem is the godawful
stopover in Dubai - If there is one advantage that the non-gulf
carriers have, it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from
Europe to Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long. Sometimes I'll
fly on BA, which is far inferior on every point, just to have a bit
of uninterrupted sleep.
JumpCrisscross - 7 hours ago
> The only problem is the godawful stopover in DubaiThis is why
the A380 has been a failure. It is only economical when it is
full. Airlines must cram demand into a few routes, e.g. London
--> Dubai, to ensure they fill their planes.That's fine if you're
flying from London to Dubai. But if you're flying to Asia, a
competing flight going directly to your destination is
preferable. That route has too little demand to profitably fill
an A380. It might be just right, though, for a 787.
l8again - 1 hours ago
>> If there is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have,
it's that they can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to
Asia, as opposed to medium+medium/long.The only place it would be
medium + medium/long going to Asia on a gulf airlines is if you
are going to far east. In which case, european airlines wouldn't
fare any better, and the best route would be to go pacific with
Singapore Airlines.For me, gulf carriers always seem better route
going to India as it translates to one long and one short (4
hours at most) flight.
vinay427 - 7 hours ago
This makes sense about the stopover, but is why these airlines
have gained a lot of traction with travelers from the Americas to
Asia. Particularly from the eastern part of the Americas to non-
eastern Asia, an approximately 10-15h flight followed by a 0-8h
is relatively nice for getting sleep. However, I am definitely
not a fan of the DXB terminal that Emirates flies into with its
dim lighting and incredibly high number of very expensive shops.
A high-end mall is not what I am looking for after hours of
sitting on a plane.
chimeracoder - 7 hours ago
> The only problem is the godawful stopover in Dubai - If there
is one advantage that the non-gulf carriers have, it's that they
can offer short+long haul to get from Europe to Asia, as opposed
to medium+medium/long.Emirates does offer at least one of these
flights (NYC to Milan). Though I'm not sure if it's an A380 - I
suspect it's not.I wish I had the spare cash to fly their
business class on the A380 before it gets discontinued!
namdnay - 7 hours ago
Apparently it is: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE206I
did not know about this flight, very interesting!
kylehotchkiss - 4 hours ago
They'll "offer" it to coach passengers for $1000 during check
in sometimes. It's worth the splurge just once.
mapgrep - 6 hours ago
It is indeed a 380. Even in economy, the Italian food (and
wine) was very respectable.
dfine - 8 hours ago
Can't help but think that this vindicates Boeing's bet on the
smaller 787.
seanmcdirmid - 8 hours ago
I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus?s bet
at the time raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing?s didn?t. The
only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the
assembly.
notahacker - 2 hours ago
International supply chains are the rule rather than the
exception. The 787 pushed the novelty envelope further than it
needed to with the amount of composite materials used (it's
possible that in time, this will look like a smarter bet as
it'll be easier to reengineer if competing with future
generations of aircraft where composites are commonplace) which
as one of the factors delaying launch, and also had major
issues with engines and batteries which were always going to be
supplied by third parties.
JumpCrisscross - 7 hours ago
> The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much
of the assemblySelling planes is complicated. For the same
reason the F-35 sources random things from practically
everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous to have
suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers.[1]
https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#nevada
kss238 - 6 hours ago
The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every
state in the US is a political one, not from a logistics
issue. Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to
continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if
the program was cut.
JumpCrisscross - 6 hours ago
> Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to
continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state
if the program was cutJust as Boeing might find it easier
to convince Singapore Airlines to buy its planes if its
government knows jobs would be lost if demand for the plane
is insufficient.
seanmcdirmid - 3 hours ago
Boeing?s decision to outsource internationally on the 787 was
more of a political move (well, foreign customers buy planes
you know) than a technical one. Surely they would have
outsourced some parts, but not the wings and the tail!
hindsightbias - 5 hours ago
Boeing was right and with all those savings still only has a
single-isle solution that is 50 years old.787 bankrupted them
mentally.
perl4ever - 8 hours ago
If customers believe this, is it self-fulfilling?
DoofusOfDeath - 7 hours ago
Or could it be a ploy to scare Emirates into making a big
purchase, because they don't want to be the only company
shouldering the support costs for a class of airplane?
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
Upper deck Air France economy A380 is still the best and most quiet
economy layout I've ever flown.
rconti - 4 hours ago
Lufthansa does this too (but I haven't flown the AF version so I
cannot compare)
[deleted]
brndnmtthws - 8 hours ago
When it comes to airplanes, bigger isn't necessarily better. I
guess the novelty value has worn off and giant jets like this have
limited appeal. If there was a significant cost saving (there
isn't) then of course it would make sense, but due to the limited
number of airports that can service these planes and the high cost,
I don't see much future in them. The efficiency just isn't there.
Xixi - 7 hours ago
The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not
successful because it was big, it was successful because it could
fly further than anything else. It is however because it was big
that it could fly far: if I remember correctly the fuel needed to
fly grows with the surface of the plane (in 2 dimensions), while
the fuel that can be hauled grows with its volume (in 3
dimensions).The 777 had already made the 747 largely obsolete,
and the kings of long haul flights going forward will be Boeing
787-9 and Airbus A350-900. With probably a mix of both in most
long haul fleets.It's surprising that Airbus did hit the jackpot
with its A330, seemingly by accident, and yet seems to have been
unable to foresee that it really was the future. Boeing built a
better A330, called 787, and even though the A350 is a success,
simply by virtue of being a larger plane that goes further it
will probably not sell as much as the 787.
TremendousJudge - 7 hours ago
Also, up until relatively recently regulators wouldn't let twin
engines fly transoceanic flights because they deemed it too
risky. They added ETOPS[1] regulation in order to allow this[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
digi_owl - 7 hours ago
Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it
could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller
twin engines could not do at the time. This while providing a
price pr seat that most people could accept.Now we have twin
engines that can at least do the Atlantic trip just as well,
allowing all manner of smaller airlines to offer trips from a
multitude of airports.
masklinn - 6 hours ago
> Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because
it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something
smaller twin engines could not do at the time.Technically
they could but regulations didn't allow it at the time: 1953
FAA regulations required that twin-engined aircrafts always
be within 60mn of an airport, and ICAO had slightly less
restrictive limits of 90mn. This meant some routes were
entirely unfeasible, or the flight path required to keep
within 60~90mn of an airport at all time made it
uneconomically unfeasible.3- and 4-engined aircrafts were not
affected by these rules (starting in '64 for the 3-engined
ones).The rules started being relaxed in the mid-80s with the
introduction of ETOPS ratings (initially 120 and 180, now up
to 370).
dingaling - 6 hours ago
> If there was a significant cost saving (there isn't) then of
course it would make senseThere could have been, but Airbus
shied-away from a really radical design like a blended-wing-body
and stuck to traditional tube-and-wings design, just on a larger
scale.There's not much margin for efficiency improvement in that
case other than begging the engine manufacturers to work more
magic.
seanmcdirmid - 8 hours ago
They do pay off for large congested airports with limited landing
slots (e.g. Beijing between Guangzhou, which is the only 380 I?ve
flown on). But this isn?t as much of a problem as we thought it
would be 20 years ago. Incidentally, this used to be why Japan
flew so many 747s on domestic routes.
brndnmtthws - 8 hours ago
Right, but in order for that to work you need to be able to
consistently fill the planes to capacity. That's not as easy as
it sounds. There's a limited number of routes where it makes
sense, so that means you don't really have an economy of scale
opportunity.
seanmcdirmid - 7 hours ago
Yes, for sure. It makes sense on a few routes in china ATM
but as airport infrastructure and high speed rail are built
out, airbus is surely in trouble (same reason japan no longer
uses any 747s domestically, and Boeing has basically
relegated the 747 to a freighter, albeit a very successful
one).
snowwrestler - 7 hours ago
Funny thing is that the 747 was originally designed as an
airframe that could convert to a freighter. That's why the
cockpit is in a bubble above the main cylinder of the
fuselage--to get out of the way of the cargo.Back then, the
conventional wisdom was that eventually all passenger
travel would be supersonic. Boeing put their best folks on
the SST project, and the 747 was a stopgap
afterthought.Turned out that fuel efficiency was way more
important than speed.
namdnay - 7 hours ago
The problem is that the A380 creates so much wake turbulence
that the next aircraft has to take off a bit later, negating
some (but not all) of the advantage!
gsnedders - 6 hours ago
That depends on whether you have enough A380s out of the
airport you don't need to worry about wake separation so much
(I imagine, despite never being there, that Dubai is like
that at certain times of day!).
nollbit - 8 hours ago
This isn't about efficiency or cost per passenger mile I
think.The A380 was a bet that the hub and spoke model (where
passengers travel to an airline's hub in small planes and onwards
from there in larger ones like the A380) would continue to rule
the industry.Instead, what happened was low cost carriers flying
passenger directly to the destinations. It appears that
passengers prefers that, which is why the B797 and A350 exists.
TremendousJudge - 7 hours ago
The thing is, you can't fly big planes between small
destinations because they will be half empty. Years ago planes
weren't efficient enough to allow small planes to fly the long
distances that are flown today. So, point to point is possible
because planes are more efficient
yason - 7 hours ago
Too bad it's struggling: A380 won't go anywhere overnight but in
comparison 747 was in production for decades. Compared to 747 and
many other wide-body aircraft it's a wonderful plane. Sitting on
the second deck gets you by far the quietest flight even in
economy.
code4tee - 8 hours ago
Boeing played the market correctly here. When everyone was oohing
over the A380 Boeing said super jumbos were on their way out and
focused on the 787. If it hadn?t been for Emirates buying so many
A380s to begin with it would have been a flop from the start
(Emirates alone operates almost half of the A380s ever built).The
future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin engine jets
and here Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing in both sales
and design.
JumpCrisscross - 7 hours ago
> Emirates buying so many A380sThe governments of Dubai and Abu
Dhabi have invested a fortune into their international hubs. The
shift away from hub-and-spoke is a demise for them, too.
dawhizkid - 7 hours ago
I don't think they're scrambling. The A350 is their 787
competitor and looks amazing. Can't wait to try it out.
code4tee - 7 hours ago
Um, there?s 5 787s flying around for every A350. On the future
book Boeing also has around 50% more 787 orders than Airbus has
A350.So yeah, I?d call that being a bit behind in that market
segment.
tolien - 7 hours ago
The 787 first flew 4 years earlier too, cost 3x as much to
develop and aren?t selling for three times the price.To the
end of last month there were 858 orders (133 delivered) for
the A350 versus 1287 (625 delivered) for the Dreamliner.
Considering the 787 had a head start (787 introduced in 2011,
A350 XWB in 2015), the pressure?s on Airbus to keep ramping
up deliveries (the last few years it looks like Boeing?s
stabilised at ~130 per year) but that gap?s going to shrink
pretty quickly?
yardie - 25 minutes ago
The A350XWB was their second attempt. The original A350 and
787 were introduced around the same time. But the all
aluminum A350 was DOA compared to the flashy new carbon
fiber 787. It showed in the order books as well, no one
wanted their warmed over A350.TL;DR the 787 didn't have a 4
year head start. The A350 arrived 4 years late after a
complete redesign.
tolien - 4 minutes ago
That's all true but I don't see how it refutes what I
said.The 787's been in production and delivering aircraft
for 4 years longer than the A350 XWB, which is still
ramping up [1]. If that's not a head start when we're
comparing delivered aircraft between the two then I don't
know what is, and the fact that Airbus let Boeing have
that lead by wasting their time trying to hawk an A330
with revised wings and engines is neither here nor
there.> Airbus plans to increase its production rate from
10 monthly in 2018 to 13 monthly from 2019, while the
Boeing 787 production will increase from 12 to 14 per
month in 2019, and six A330 are produced monthly.1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Production
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
It's 1250 to 850 orders.
jonknee - 7 hours ago
And it's 625 to 133 deliveries...
masklinn - 6 hours ago
And it's 2011 to 2015...
24gttghh - 7 hours ago
850 x .5 = 425850 + 425 = 1275Looks pretty damn close to
50% more orders for Boeing, so I'm not sure what you are
implying.
thisacctforreal - 6 hours ago
protip: 1250 / 850 = 1.4706, ie 147%
avh02 - 7 hours ago
Flew the A350 and 787 a week apart (recently, via Qatar) - the
A350 is a surprisingly quiet machine on the inside.The 787's
larger windows (combined with being tall) means I get an almost
360 view around the plane through windows around me over
people's heads (until they dim everybody's windows by default *
shakes fist * )
samfisher83 - 6 hours ago
The 787 windows seem to block cell phone signals. Their
tinting technology seems a a little unnecessary.
myrandomcomment - 6 hours ago
The reason for the tinting is really simple - weight. You
have to be able to shade the windows and doing this way is
less weight then have pull down screens. Everything in
aircraft design here comes down to weight reduction.
avh02 - 5 hours ago
I also think giving crew control is a factor. Rather than
asking/telling individuals to open their shades you just
control it. I guess this makes compliance with regulation
easier.
samfisher83 - 4 hours ago
Lets say there are 52 windows and each shade weight 2
pounds which I don't think they do. That is 104 pounds on
a 380,000lb aircraft. That is .02% of the weight of the
aircraft.
badosu - 2 hours ago
I guess the better calculation would be:Cost of a typical
trip w/ shades x Cost of a typical trip w/out shadesThen
account for the average number of trips in a year.May
seem like an exaggeration but the impact of some
decisions, even though seemingly tiny, may be bigger than
expected.
jsjohnst - 2 hours ago
> Lets say there are 52 windowsThe actual number is
almost double that, but that doesn?t negate your point.
More than weight, I think it was seen as a ?nicety?. I
think with the new Gen 2 (and soon Gen 3) Windows, people
won?t mind them as much as the newer generations are MUCH
darker.
chiph - 4 hours ago
There's also the cleaning and maintenance aspects. I
would guess the pull-down shades broke/tore more often
than the dimming technology fails (repairing either would
require pulling the seat row and wall panel to get
access, so more reliable == win)
gok - 6 hours ago
Size-wise the A350 is more like a 777; the 787 is more directly
competitive with A330neo.Are they scrambling? Not really.
Boeing is making a fair amount more money than Airbus but
they?re producing about the same number of planes (Airbus
probably has a slight edge in order count). Airbus was formed
as a program to address Europe?s concern about relying on North
America for airliners. It?s not clear even today that they
really care about actually making money from selling airplanes.
dingaling - 6 hours ago
> The A350 is their 787 competitor and looks amazingThe A350 is
considerably bigger than the 787, it actually competes against
the 777 ( original and X ).The 787-8 and -9 have the same floor
area as the much older Airbus A330-200 and -300
respectively.Airbus doesn't have a direct rival to the 787
other than the warmed-over A330Neo.
danmaz74 - 7 hours ago
> The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin
engine jets and here Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing
in both sales and design.Isn't the A350 already a very good
contender there?
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
Yes but HN always has been a pro-Boeing board.The A350 has
around 850 orders vs. Boeing 1250 orders for their 787.So
"scrambling" is highly subjective and suggestive.
ptero - 7 hours ago
> The future in long haul is mid-size highly efficient twin
engine jets and here Airbus is scrambling to catch up with Boeing
in both sales and designI agree with your first paragraph, but
not at all sure about this. Current air transportation is very
stratified, but some of its numerous rules could get a major
rework in the next N years (N >= 10). Current setup has mid-size
sweetspot when optimized on existing rules on routes, airport
slots, weather requirements and in general ATC that is over 30
years old.Even if only parts of the plans get accepted they can
change optimizations significantly, e.g. if and when Nextgen
allows planes fly directly from A to B (instead of along a few
pre-defined segments) it might push sweetspot from mostly mid-
size to a bimodal distribution: smaller for small airports,
larger between main hubs. Or some other way.
code4tee - 7 hours ago
It?s actually the airlines dragging their feet on a lot of
this, not ?30 year old ATC.? Many airlines don?t upgrade their
planes to have the latest equipment. Flew in a small personal
plane with a friend that?s a pilot and he was explaining how in
several areas his small plane has more advanced avionics than
commercial airliners. For example, his plane is certified to
fly the latest 3D GPS based landing approaches while many
commercial airliners still don?t have the necessary equipment
onboard.
ptero - 4 hours ago
> It?s actually the airlines dragging their feet on a lot of
this, not ?30 year old ATC.? Many airlines don?t upgrade
their planes to have the latest equipment.Yes, and I believe
they do not upgrade because it makes no business sense for
them. Regulators say, for example, "install ADS-B so you are
compliant with latest standards" which at the moment has no
tangible benefits for the airline. If, by installing it
airline would get useful additional capabilities, such as
being able to fly direct from point A to point B or allow for
lower separation I suspect they would upgrade quickly.The
above is not (really) bashing ATC -- there is a very low
tolerance for mid-air collisions, so regulatory change is
very, very slow.
bsder - 2 hours ago
> Yes, and I believe they do not upgrade because it makes
no business sense for them.Agreed. Those little wingtip
flip-ups--man, those went through the industry like
wildfire. I never saw those and then BAM suddenly they
were on every plane I flew on.The airlines can move like
the wind when money is actually involved.
[deleted]
jdietrich - 7 hours ago
There was a shift in the aviation market that wasn't entirely
straightforward to predict. Airbus bet that the market would
continue with a hub-and-spoke model, with lots of regional jets
providing connections to hub airports. Boeing bet that the market
would shift towards point-to-point service, with direct flights
between second-tier airports facilitated by mid-size jets with
extended range.Boeing clearly made the right call, but there's an
element of hindsight at play. Emirates, Etihad and Singapore have
been very successful as pure hub-and-spoke airlines and there's
still a vast amount of traffic going through the major hub
airports.The lead time on new aircraft designs is immense - the
A3XX project started in 1994 and took the first orders in 2000.
Airbus made some strategic blunders and didn't respond quickly
enough to market conditions, but in some respects they were just
unlucky. Boeing's 747X project failed and they have struggled
with sales for the 747-8, but they avoided heavy losses by re-
using old IP rather than launching a completely new platform.
Both manufacturers were caught off-guard by the events of 2008.
cryptonector - 2 hours ago
I wonder if Boeing's execs arrived at their strategy by the
appeal of being contrarian to Airbus' bet. Perhaps they felt
they had no choice: with the jumbo market fractured they might
never be able to profit from it, so why not develop the
alternative and hope for the best? No doubt they had data and
information from their contacts at the airlines and could sense
the brightness of the point-to-point future, but having no
future in splitting the jumbo market with Airbus must have been
a big factor too.
jdietrich - 1 hours ago
Boeing certainly have an advantage in terms of agility.
Airbus is a messy conglomerate, formed from the merger of
aerospace companies from France, Germany, Spain, the US and
the UK. With so many corporate and governmental stakeholders,
their projects tend to become bloated and overly complex, and
it's difficult for them to react quickly to market
conditions. The A380 project suffered severe delays, in large
part because the design effort was spread between teams in
four countries using different processes and software.
zerkten - 8 hours ago
It seems like a company can only make one successful move at a
time (in what I find a very ugly) industry. At the lower end
Boeing struggles with the 737 being too large for a lot of
markets. There Embraer, Bombardier (now part of Airbus), and a
bunch of other companies seem to have an opportunity, if they can
execute. It'll be interesting to see what Boeing does there given
the cozy relationship with Embraer.
rchowe - 7 hours ago
Bombardier is not a part of Airbus now, they just sold 50.01%
of the C-series program to Airbus so that they could
manufacture them in Alabama and dodge the 300% tariff imposed
on them by the US government. It is unclear where the C-series
airplanes for non-US markets will be made, but it's suspected
to still be by Bombardier in Canada.
gsnedders - 6 hours ago
> It is unclear where the C-series airplanes for non-US
markets will be made, but it's suspected to still be by
Bombardier in Canada.It's pretty clear?Canada. That said,
there's a significant change: sales, and post-sales work,
will mostly be handled by Airbus, who already have much more
contact with many more airlines and leasing companies than
Bombardier.
pmcollins - 8 hours ago
Boeing's market analysis said that the market could barely
support one super-jumbo, let alone two, so they opted for the
much cheaper 747 upgrade and we got the 747-8 (which is also
headed for extinction).I heard an analyst say that you have to
carry a lot of fuel to carry a lot of fuel. The optimal size from
an efficiency perspective is the much smaller 737 -- the more you
deviate from that, the larger the efficiency penalty.
api_or_ipa - 1 hours ago
> I heard an analyst say that you have to carry a lot of fuel
to carry a lot of fuel.In rocket applications, this is known as
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation [0].0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
froindt - 7 hours ago
>I heard an analyst say that you have to carry a lot of fuel to
carry a lot of fuel.Yep! Aerospace has been on the leading edge
of manufacturing methods for many years because of it. Even
worse is having a heavy airplane at the start of the flight
(the weight is always there).In school we were talking about
manufacturing aerospace parts, and the joke is that you always
take a nice chunk of aluminum and machine away 85% of the
volume.GE has been doing lots of work with metal additive
manufacturing, in some cases increasing performance while also
decreasing cost. It allows geometries which are otherwise
impossible with traditional manufacturing methods.Metal AM is
also hella expensive. You won't see tons of metal AM parts on
consumer cars anytime soon, as the metal powders and machines
are expensive, and production rates are often slow in
comparison to traditional manufacturing methods.For reference,
my professor passed around a part which weighed around 2 pounds
and fit in your hand. The all-in cost to get that printed in
steel was around $5,000, and around $8,000 for
titanium.https://www.ge.com/reports/epiphany-disruption-ge-
additive-c...
louithethrid - 6 hours ago
Never understoood why they would not use the fuel as
stability element- basically- the elments carrying the
fuelweight, are made from a carbonsponge that holds frozzen
fuel..
briandear - 6 hours ago
The complexity and logistical difficulty of what you
describe is mind blowing not to mention adding non trivial
safety concerns.
raverbashing - 7 hours ago
Boeing did put some money on the 747-800 it's not like they
ignored that part of the market
namdnay - 7 hours ago
I think that for airlines that want to differentiate on
comfort/quality, the A380 is a must-have: You can pimp up the
interior of a 787 as much as you want, it will never be as
comfortable as what you can do with an A380 (see my other comment
on the Emirates A380).However this segment probably isn't big
enough to justify such an expensive production line...@frik - for
some reason you are "dead" - no-one can see your comments since 5
days ago. Edit: now you're not! Congratulations I guess?
code4tee - 7 hours ago
I?ve flown just about every commercial model of airplane made
in the last 30 years including Emirates A380 biz class. While
that was undoubtedly an amazing trip, it had a lot more to do
with the airline than the airplane. My enthusiasm for the trip
also dropped off when I had to spend several hours waiting
around in the middle of the night at their hub in Dubai.
namdnay - 7 hours ago
Yes! See my other comment - the DXB stopover is their
Achilles heel I think.
oblio - 7 hours ago
Why? What happened in Dubai?
personlurking - 6 hours ago
Probably has to do with the way airlines schedule their
flights, depending on the final destination and direction.
Sometimes you'll catch a flight and can't make a connecting
flight for several hours.How Airlines Schedule Flights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXahSnA_oA
nhf - 5 hours ago
Many flights in Dubai happen late at night / very early
morning due to a combination of time zone alignment and
daytime heat making it harder to service large planes.
startupdiscuss - 7 hours ago
But the segment has an outsized impact on revenue.Say a
business class ticket for a transatlantic flight is 5x an
economy and a first class ticket is 10x an economy.And the
plane, of course, is largely fixed costs.
TremendousJudge - 7 hours ago
The business seats on a plane make more money than the
economy seats. However, there aren't lines where you can fill
a whole plane of business: economy is there mostly to fill up
space
namdnay - 7 hours ago
There are some, but they're very rare. One example is the
BA shuttle between London City and New York - only
business. I believe there is a French airline doing a
"cheap business" Paris-New York as well.
dillondoyle - 7 hours ago
La Compagnie! I really like them the couple times I've
flown. For the price it's really great value. Worst part
is the NYC airpot 'lounge'Not the fanciest interior/seat
but the food and service were great when I've flown.
gsnedders - 6 hours ago
> One example is the BA shuttle between London City and
New York - only business. I believe there is a French
airline doing a "cheap business" Paris-New York as
well.Both are done by BA, and both are stopping.
mpweiher - 7 hours ago
Also the new Boom supersonic jet is intended to be all
business class seats (around 60, IIRC).
ghaff - 6 hours ago
I'm not holding my breath for any of these supersonic
jet projects to come to market. But, if they do, I expect
the nominally "business" or "first" class seating will be
more like domestic business today than typical
international business class--as was the case with the
Concorde.
markonen - 4 hours ago
That?s Boom?s business plan explicitly. Cut down the
flight time to a couple of hours and you don?t need to
offer a bed, making the per seat cost comparable.
jsjohnst - 2 hours ago
Singapore Airlines used to have an all business flight to
NYC, but it?s been phased out.
yeukhon - 7 hours ago
I agree it is a fixed cost, but the initial cost is expensive
by itself before we consider the cost for maintenance. Also
5x for economy is really expensive, I highly doubt that many
customers would want this 380 experience for 5x of econ.
Airbus 380 is ideal for long distance, then 5*800 from NY to
Asia would be too damn expensive: then why not first-class on
non-380?
namdnay - 7 hours ago
I think you misunderstood the parent. They are saying that
business is 5x economy, not the A380.
jsjohnst - 2 hours ago
That?s part of the reason US based airlines don?t fly to most
gulf region airports anymore.1) they could essentially
justify a lightly loaded economy section due to Business /
First passengers (I?ve done several cheap mileage runs before
where I had multiple rows to myself in economy). When those
$$$$ passengers switched to the nicer Emirates/Etihad/etc
flights, they lost that marginal advantage.2) on top of #1,
another major factor is that Etihad/Emirates/etc are heavily
subsidized by their national governments. Due to this, the
slot fees were much cheaper for them than US based airlines
further reducing any money to be made on those segments by US
based airlines.The end result of the above is that now you
have to use an alliance partner + connection to get from US
to the Middle East (or fly a MENA based airline) where as
before you could choose from dozens of directs.
frik - 7 hours ago
I cannot upvote you enough, it's true.A380 is in its own
league, super comfortable, super low noise. No 747, 777 or 787
can match the comfort. They are noisier, or have downsides.
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
Exactly, when flying economy I always try to get an A380. 747
is the most painful plane there is in economy.
rconti - 4 hours ago
Lufthansa economy on the A380 is the best, if you can get
one of the upper deck seats, particularly a window seat
where you have a massive storage console/armrest between
you and the window.
dghughes - 7 hours ago
Boeing plays a lot of games like getting 40% of its revenue from
the US government but crying unfair when other countries get any
subsidies at all. Look at the nearly 300% duty it demanded added
on to the parts made by their competitor Canadian aircraft
manufacturer Bombardier.
valuearb - 7 hours ago
This is a lie. Bombardiers planes don?t compete with any Boeing
planes.Yet still Boeing flexed their lobbyists.
inferiorhuman - 1 hours ago
The risk isn't that Boeing competes with Bombardier right
now. The risk is that the Bombardier will stretch the
C-series and create a CS500 that will compete directly with
the 737. You can't do that with the Embraer.
louithethrid - 6 hours ago
Lobbyism is what saved the american car industry.
majormajor - 4 hours ago
The American car industry is safe in the US market as long
as nobody outside the US figures out how to compete with
the F150. Even if it had to eventually ditch everything but
the trucks, the cash cow shows no signs of dying anytime
soon. Make them aluminum, carbon fiber, electric, turbo,
whatever - it's the form factor that sells.
valuearb - 5 hours ago
Citation needed, cause no.
undersuit - 6 hours ago
Delta chose to go with Bombardier planes in this case[1]
which directly affected Boeing's ability to sell them their
equivalents. That sounds like competition.[1]https://en.wikip
edia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...
valuearb - 3 hours ago
Your own link explains how uncompetitive they are. Boeing's
737s range from 138-200+ passengers, the CS100 is in the
108-133 passenger range. More importantly the CS100 is
significantly smaller and lighter, helping make it cheaper
to operate on the routes Delta wanted.So to bid against
Bombardier, Boeing didn't even try to offer 737s, knowing
they can't fit Delta's needs. Instead they offered 717s and
Embrauers, both of which are used (Boeing canceled the 717
over a decade ago).
kogepathic - 6 hours ago
> which directly affected Boeing's ability to sell them
their equivalents.Boeing's bid to Delta was some Embraer E
series they had from an Air Canada trade-in. [1]No model of
737MAX competes with the C Series for Delta's RFP. Both
Boeing and Delta have readily admitted this when asked (see
[1]).Boeing has nothing in the market to compete with
regional jets like the C Series. This is exactly why they
are now looking into buying Embraer to counter Airbus
acquiring a majority stake in the C Series. [2][1] https://
www.forbes.com/sites/scotthamilton5/2016/05/17/embra...[2]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/boeing-
is...
undersuit - 5 hours ago
That sounds like there is competition for this market
between Bombardier and Boeing.
valuearb - 3 hours ago
Yea, it's like Chrysler suing to block Ferrari imports
because they want to re-sell McLarens.
kogepathic - 4 hours ago
> That sounds like there is competition for this market
between Bombardier and Boeing.Not sure how you came to
that conclusion. Let me try again:It's like going to a
Ford dealership and asking them for a scooter. Because
Ford doesn't manufacture scooters, they offer to sell you
a Vespa instead because the last customer traded one
in.Sure, they'll make a sale, but it's not like Ford
makes the Vespa or the replacement parts for a Vespa
(maintenance contracts are a BFD in aerospace, often
worth more than the initial plane order).So now you
(Delta) come and want to buy 100 Vespas, and Ford still
doesn't make a Vespa and has no plans to. So while
slagging Vespa (Bombardier) for detracting from Ford's
scooter sales they start talks to buy Vespa's closest
competitor (Embraer).Yeah... Totally competing in the
same segment...
junkscience2017 - 6 hours ago
Yet Bombardier itself is subsidized to the point where many
have suggested it would be easier to just nationalize it...yet
no one is critiquing that arrangement
alexland - 2 hours ago
That arrangement is heavily critiqued, particularly that
Bombardier is still controlled by private shareholders (and
is receiving significant public funding).It's pretty clear
that airplanes are expensive to build, and every large plane
manufacturer has government subsidies, but Boeing is being
particularly anti-competitive in this instance and is getting
away with it.
Analemma_ - 2 hours ago
What does "particularly" anti-competitive mean? Boeing,
Airbus, and Bombardier all get government subsidies. Are
there are reliable numbers about how large these subsidies
are showing that Boeing's are significantly bigger?
KeepTalking - 2 hours ago
>> As an example, Lufthansa recently used jumbo jets on the
domestic Frankfurt / Berlin route after their competitor Air Berlin
went belly up.Color commentary: This is a outcome of a micro trend
that was caused due to the collapse the 2nd largest airline in
Germany. It is unlikely this is an indicator of longer aircraft
deployment. Regional and domestic routes tend to skew towards
frequency and convenience. Most major airports and regulators also
encourage this behavior when analyzing and distributing airport
slots.
danmaz74 - 8 hours ago
> Emirates, however, has been a strong believer in the A380 and is
easily the largest customer with total orders of 142 aircraft, of
which it has taken just over 100....> Emirates, for its part, wants
a guarantee that Airbus will keep production going for a decade to
protect its investment.Closing the A380 production line isn't going
to happen for years anyway, considering the backlog they have, so,
this leak looks a lot like a tactical one to put pressure on
Emirates.
vladd - 7 hours ago
>> Closing A380 isn't going to happen for years considering the
backlog they haveThe article mentions: "96 unfilled orders -- But
based on airlines? intentions or finances, 47 of those are
unlikely to be delivered, which halves the number of jets in
play."So the actual backlog stands at 96 - 47 = 49 planes.This
page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and... -
shows that they've been delivering between 20 and 30 airplanes
per year in the last years, which would allow a backlog depletion
within 2 years. Even if they slow down, it still doesn't cover
the decade gap requested by Emirates.
danmaz74 - 7 hours ago
The article says that for this year they would produce 6 or 7
planes, so, the backlog would last much longer...
vladd - 7 hours ago
49 / 7 = 7 years (a gap of 3 years until they can commit for
a decade)
_Codemonkeyism - 7 hours ago
The A380 is too early and fell in a hole created by powerful and
efficient new engines. This created the possibility for long point
to point destinations.With growing air traffic congestion at
airports will increase again and the need for larger planes will
increase also.
KeepTalking - 5 hours ago
While the focus is on the original business case for building Mega
planes like the A380 the knock-on/hidden impact of closing the A380
line has detrimental impact on Airports that invested millions into
being 'A380 ready'.Airports around the world spent millions of
dollars building out A380 capable terminal gates, wider taxi-ways
and bigger baggage handling systems to deal with A380 arrivals and
departures. Food caterers invested money in special trucks that
deliver food to the upper deck. At the ATC level, slots and flight
seperation guidelines were changed to accomodate the whale jets.
Some airports were chastised for not investing fast enough (ORD?,
SEA) to be A380 ready. I guess they now look wiser. The death of
the A380 will reduce risk taking by airports in the future.Failed
aircraft projects have a large negative impact on future appetite
for these crafts. Just look at what happened to supersonic flight.
We have not seen any commercial investment and research into
supersonic air travel. While the case can be easily made against
these white elephant projects, the knock on R&D benefits of these
airlines projects are amazing.Selective R&D 'Hand of God' moments
that allow government support could be the solution here. At
minimum, it would be great if China, Japan or any other aspiring
aerospace super powers can buy the project and invest in its
future.
zitterbewegung - 5 hours ago
Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn?t cost
effective . Maybe the A380 will have the same outcome ? It seems
like ORD knew this .
masklinn - 4 hours ago
> Why not let the market decide ? Supersonic flight wasn?t cost
effective.Supersonic flight was mostly killed by US political
decisions, not by economics.
saosebastiao - 3 hours ago
I find it interesting that people claim that the hub and spoke
model is being phased out. It's not...it's being expanded. There
are more hubs, and hubs are expanding the reach of their spokes,
and that means more cities where you can find direct flights to or
from.The expansion of the number of cities in the US that fly
direct to London is because the London hubs have expanded its reach
to US cities. In the absence of an airline hub there, you would
never find a direct flight to London from Seattle or New Orleans.
In fact, you can prove this out yourself: find the list of non-
seasonal direct international flights available from your local
airport. Of those, filter out the flights that are seasonal, or on
an airline for which your local airport is a hub. Then filter out
all the flights where the destination is a hub for that specific
airline. What is left? For me, nothing [0].The trend in aviation
isn't point to point. It is more hubs with longer reaches. The A380
failed because it is an extremely expensive behemoth with a single
solitary benefit that could only ever be realized at megahubs that
were already maxed out on 747s: it eased slot constraints. Airlines
responded to slot constraints like they should have, by spreading
out to more hubs with fewer slot constraints...not by buying a
steaming pile of extremely expensive garbage.[0]
http://www.portseattle.org/Sea-Tac/Flights-Airlines/Route-Ma...