RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21004 times:
If they want to pay to upgrade the airports to accomodate such an aircraft then fine. My guess is by the time such an aircraft would exist that we would also have aircraft capable of making the DXB connection unnecessary.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
ASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 378 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 19810 times:
Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2): Another decade? Nah! Give it until Christmas for Santa to drop it down the chimney.
I don't think it needs a long wait at all - EK can just convert the cargo holds into windowless passenger cabins ... or rather sleeping cabins, like the crew rest areas ... and VOILA!!! charge them a premium for sleeper class
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15717 posts, RR: 48 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 19775 times:
Apparently someone got offended by my 380 comment , so let me say this: the market for very large aircraft is so limited now, how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 18593 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter): How close would a possible 380 900 or 1000 version come to this ( I am guessing EK wan't 3 class configuration, since one can already put 800 in a 380 with an all economy class configuration today ) ?
The supposed "double-stretch" 85m A380-1000 "S U-H" should fit about 670 seats in a configuration equivalent to their 517 seats on their A380-800's.
That's about the same as putting 390 in a 748i, or 300 in a 777-300ER
Putting 800 into such an A380-1000 would be the same as about 475 on a 748i or 375 on a 777-300ER
On the same basis as the 853 seat capacity for the A380-800, it would be certified for 1 080 seats
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 7): Whatever EK wants, it will have to be a plausible derivative of the 380 - otherwise it just won't happen.
Not in the next 20 years for certain.
I can't see a plane of that capacity being a "tube with wings" personally.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 15960 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 10):
The A380 size itself was a huge challange. (tranport of parts, assembly, separation issues, noise, pavement load,evacuation etc..)
They can forget it, unless they use a A380-900 in single class layout.
Would certainly take quite a bit of modifications, but the idea of using part of the hold as an extra deck is not too far-fetched. At the end of the day Airbus did already do this with the A340-600, where the washing rooms were put into the hold area. Would certainly require extra doors, windows atc - and the downsite is a reduced (aka non-existent) cargo capacity.
For people-mover flights such as UAE to India this could, however, be a workable option in the medium term.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3163 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14050 times:
Who would want to fly such a behemoth? The boarding process is bad enough now, imagine what adding another 200 people to that. Never going to happen. Which airline apart from EK, I guess would even want such a plane with the present aircraft being hard pressed to fill what they have on a regular basis.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10647 posts, RR: 100 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13592 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter): However, he said it would likely take at least another decade for a triple-decker style plane to be developed.
Won't happen. As already noted, by the time the market is ready for such an airframe, it will be a BWB.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5): how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
Development work is going on with BWBs which have amazing economics for large passenger loads. Due to the longer chord of the wings, the BWBs will be the better configuration for over 600 unless it is the Udvar-Hazy A389 in the mid-term. Long term it will be the BWB.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): The supposed "double-stretch" 85m A380-1000 "S U-H" should fit about 670 seats in a configuration equivalent to their 517 seats on their A380-800's.
Which is why one won't see anything bigger. It is a question of when we have a longer A380 and what length. 80m to 87m is the potential range and I think Airbus will go big and follow Udvar Hazy's advice.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): I can't see a plane of that capacity being a "tube with wings" personally.
Agreed. Not with the FAA informally telling airframers that certain exit concepts from BWBs will be approved (assuming the airframer is willing to do the evacuation test).
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13591 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): It has been done before, Lufthansa has their toilets on the A340 under the main deck.
Yes they do. And that works perfectly fine. Then again, a full triple deck A380 is not going to happen, but the A380-1000 as one time proposed by Steven Udvar-Hazy might see the light of day some day. Though first we will wait for the A380-900, which we could see entering service in 2020 or so. .
MrCazzy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12850 times:
appart from the huge size and time it would take for this aircraft to be developed it would not be worth the time and money for whoever develops the aircraft, it would be such a large plane that there would not be nearly enough airlines who want such a big plane.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9986 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): If they want to pay to upgrade the airports to accomodate such an aircraft then fine. My guess is by the time such an aircraft would exist that we would also have aircraft capable of making the DXB connection unnecessary.
In an aviation market that is becoming increasingly hub-oriented (which, like it or not, is the current situation), there will never be a real need for ultra-long-haul longer than the longest routes are today.
It is much less economical to carry relatively few passengers with a whole lot of fuel used up to carry the extra weight of the extra fuel that keeps you running longer, than it is to carry many more passengers at once, between 2 hubs, in an aircraft that is not used at its full range capability.
Most people transiting at DXB are between 2 flights that could already be flown as one non-stop by 'regular' l-h a/c such as A330 or 777 (not talking 772LR), but are not because of lack of demand to warrant a flight, or at least lack of demand to justify a cheap flight.
And there are plenty of people who fly A-DXB-B when there have always been direct A-B flights anyway, because adding the flight change allows for cheaper fares.
People want to fly for cheap, this is all what matters. Yes, this includes business people as companies are not willing to throw too much money in plane tickets either.
So... triple deckers.. yes perhaps but not for at least 20-30 years or so when the A380 becomes used up to the bone and obsolete. I sort of anticipate a triple-aisle before a triple-decker, however...
Vimanav From India, joined Jul 2003, 1470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9948 times:
Given that current designs more have the payload and range capabilities to go nearly from anywhere to anywhere non-stop or with one stop, the new challenge and focus should be on speed. Considering that speed would come at a pretty high rate of fuel burn, an alternative cheaper fuel source will have to be developed. Once that is done, the premiums would be driven by aircraft that could do LON NYC in an hour or SIN LAX in two. So my personal expectation for future growth is in the realms of speed more than size.
Sarfaroshi kii tamannaa ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhnaa hai zor kitnaa baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
25 N62NA: I think the only supersonic aircraft that we'll be seeing for civilian use in the remainder of this century will be biz-jets. 500 miles per hour is "
26 flybynight: Instead of bigger, I would prefer to see faster. If supersonic (and I am not taking about Seattle's former NBA team) can be made more effecient than t
27 flyingturtle: I found it strange that nobody mentioned the Stratocruiser... David
28 fanofjets: The way I look at it, if J.K. Rowling and the cinema folks could come up with a triple-decker bus for the Harry Potter series, why not a triple-decker