Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bigger Is NOT Always Better!  
User currently offlineMd11_man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

I don't see why there was such a big fuss over the A380. Yes it means over 500 people can travel together. To me it just means more conjestions and it will still be 8 Hours from Toronto to Amsterdam. If major airlines invested in faster aircrafts (Not necessarily the Concorde), they could fly more flights in a day, need fewer crews and people wouldn't have to go insane on long hauls. Plus I think they would make more money in the long run. After all, my uncle flew on the Concorde 3 or 4 summers ago and he said it costs an arm and a leg. Tell me what you think

Dan  Smile

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 34614 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

The problem is very clear. As time goes on, air travel will go nowhere but up (well, for the next 18 months there might be down turns, but that won't last), and there is only so many airplanes you can put in the sky at once.

User currently offlineDatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

777 cruises in Mach 0.85. You cannot make it faster more than 15% unless you don't make supersonic. And, in fact, at most cases, No.1 reason for time consuming is on airports, not over sky. That's why 380 is sold.

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1638 times:

One slot. It's a 7772LR. 300 pax for arguments sake. SIn - LHR

One slot. It's an A388. 480 pax for arguments sake. Same travel time (about), same route, more pax, more money.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineFlyinghighboy From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

I agree with Singapore_Air. More passengers more money. Why send two planes down when you can send one bigger one that will nearly fir the same amount of people. Save a heap of money and it will get rid of some of the smaller planes in the air. In the end, less money wasted on having planes everywhere when you can cut a few down by having a bigger one.

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

777 cruises at M.84

User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Everyone seems to imply that aircraft are crossing the atlantic full. The sad fact is that if you filled the aircraft, there would be tons of leftover slots.

Deregulation has in part caused the congestion in domestic and international airports and airspace. Too many airplanes for the amount of people.

User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

The airlines would make more money on flights with the A380 because of the number of passengers that it flies. The flight would have to be very popular to make money using the A380 though, because 500 seats is a lot of seats. I can see where the congestion would be brought down in the airports. There would be less planes flying if so many passengers could be flown on one aircraft. In the terminal there might be massive congestion. Trying to get 500 people on to a plane would take forever and to get that many people into a terminal waiting area might be kind of tough. I would bet that the gates no longer used by one airline because they are using the A380 instead of two other aircraft, would still get used by another airline that wants them. In my view, there are both serious pros and serious cons to the A380.

User currently offlineMd11_man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

You won't ever get rid of the small airplanes because I doubt anyone would send a A380 on a 1700NM route. But in the end you guys have brought up very many interesting points. Thanks

User currently offlineDELL_dude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

None of you will know what will happen as far as the A380 goes so stop acting like you do! Just wait and see, how hard is that?


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

There are some advantages to sending 2 777s instead of one A380 on a route - the airline can offer 2 different departure times, and pax like choice, and having 2 departures is useful in the hub systems that the airlines are now organized around. Also, the issue of route fragmentation; ie, instead of one A380 flying SFO to Tokyo, it may be better to have a 777 from SFO and another 777 from San Jose (just an example). The A380 will be amazing, the only issue is which routes will support such a big aircraft under the current way airlines are organized. Of course, BA could fill the A380 between JFK and LHR, but I do not see BA going from 6 flights per day to 3 per day on that route.

If the horrors of 11 Sept have a long term impact on the flying public, the need for the A380 may be reduced or delayed. Airbus is looking at this now but, of course,its too soon to tell.

User currently offlineParisien From France, joined Dec 2000, 847 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

well, it is normal that we should be able to anticipate...making predictions is an integral part of life. The A380 would be extremely useful for busy routes with heavy congestion and few available slots...such as CLK LHR, JFK LHR, SYD LHR, SIN LHR NRT LAX etc. At the same time using bigger planes diminishes the choice of time when a passanger can leave...but there is a definite preferences of passangers of when they would rather fly !
The 777s and 340s would be useful on less saturated markets and direct point to point routes...which I guess would be present more and more as people wish to avoid huge hubs and all the headache associated with hub transfers.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
1st Class...not Always Better For Aviation Buffs? posted Mon Apr 15 2002 02:58:08 by SJCguy
Bigger Is Better posted Sat Mar 13 2004 05:42:17 by Schweizair
Bigger Is Better-Or Bullier? posted Tue Apr 16 2002 19:04:10 by Matt D
RRJ (SuperJet 100) Is Not Doing So Bad posted Sun Nov 5 2006 00:25:28 by Concentriq
Making Sure My CO Flight Is Not Discontinued posted Sat Nov 4 2006 22:41:30 by OB1783P
Why GA Is Not A Threat posted Sun Oct 15 2006 22:13:16 by Flyingbronco05
GSO Is Not Fully Utilized posted Sun Oct 15 2006 19:37:43 by Quickmover
The A380 Is Not Dead. posted Mon Sep 25 2006 11:37:36 by CHRISBA777ER
This Iberia Plane Is Not As It Seems... posted Fri Sep 22 2006 18:19:10 by JakTrax
FlyWho Who Is Not Flying? posted Thu Jul 13 2006 14:05:00 by Rdwootty