Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
zakuivcustom wrote:First, is it just me, or is all these A380 threads just plain annoying.
And I don't really understand the original point - what does the density of the country has to do with whether they got A380 or not? A380 is a terrible short-haul plane, period.
Why not India as well? They're going to pass China in population by 2025-ish anyway.
ElroyJetson wrote:zakuivcustom wrote:First, is it just me, or is all these A380 threads just plain annoying.
And I don't really understand the original point - what does the density of the country has to do with whether they got A380 or not? A380 is a terrible short-haul plane, period.
Why not India as well? They're going to pass China in population by 2025-ish anyway.
Yes, all the A380 threads are annoying.
zakuivcustom wrote:iFirst, is it just me, or is all these A380 threads just plain annoying.
And I don't really understand the original point - what does the density of the country has to do with whether they got A380 or not? A380 is a terrible short-haul plane, period.
Why not India as well? They're going to pass China in population by 2025-ish anyway.
An767 wrote:Here we go another "why the A380 ......?
How many of these threads do we need. If you want info re the 380 read one of the hundreds of threads out there . These are getting so repetitive and boring
An767
neomax wrote:The A380 is ahead of its time. China and Japan will need some sooner or later, as high congestion at airports is only going to get worse, and VLA's are the solution.
PatrickZ80 wrote:The thing is that where there's lots of people there's also lots of airports all within a relatively small distance from each other. Passengers will spread out over all these airports. If you could consolidate all passenger demand from a densely populated region to one airport, an A380 would make sense. But you can't, and that's why an A380 doesn't make sense. The same destination is served from multiple airports on smaller aircraft, which contributes to the convenience of the passengers. They got the freedom to choose what airport to fly from.
rutankrd wrote:First world view . West Africa , Brazil, China and India aren’t actually burgeoning with airports every 30 miles !
And Indonesia is an atoll of a million islands !
flee wrote:Yes, very annoying - especially those weekly "A380 death" threads. Now that we know that the A380 should be still in production till at least 2030, we should hopefully have more meaningful discussions.
par13del wrote:So if the A380 was created as a people mover for congested airports why are the bulk of them not configured as people movers, they should all be configured for over 500+ seats.
PatrickZ80 wrote:par13del wrote:So if the A380 was created as a people mover for congested airports why are the bulk of them not configured as people movers, they should all be configured for over 500+ seats.
This doesn't matter, the problem is that the aircraft can only be in one place at one time. Instead of one aircraft having 500 seats you can have two aircraft having 250 seats and be more flexible. Offer multiple flights on different times of the day or to/from different airports.
There are very little routes on this planet where an A380 could be filled strictly on O/D passengers, by far most of them need a transfer flight at either end to get them to their final destination. But what if you can skip the transfer and have a direct flight to your final destination on a smaller aircraft instead? That would mean the seat you otherwise would have had on the A380 stays empty. If enough people do as you do, the A380 becomes too big and will be replaced by a smaller aircraft.
neomax wrote:The A380 is ahead of its time. China and Japan will need some sooner or later, as high congestion at airports is only going to get worse, and VLA's are the solution.
SC430 wrote:neomax wrote:The A380 is ahead of its time. China and Japan will need some sooner or later, as high congestion at airports is only going to get worse, and VLA's are the solution.
If Japan doesn't need them now, they never will. This idea that VLA's are the only solution to congestions is an idea created by Airbus to justify a poor investment.
MHG wrote:There´s just a single reason why:
The A380 is a terrible aircraft for short haul operations
In particular for the fact that its over all structure is too heavy for short hauls (basically the same applied even to the special 747´s that were used on Japanese domestic flights).
The structure is optimized for a very high MTOW (think of all the fuel to be carried on long hauls) and a relatively limited number of cycles.
You can´t simply trade in one advantage for another. The airframe of the A380 is ill-suited for short haul ops.
PatrickZ80 wrote:This doesn't matter, the problem is that the aircraft can only be in one place at one time. Instead of one aircraft having 500 seats you can have two aircraft having 250 seats and be more flexible. Offer multiple flights on different times of the day or to/from different airports.
par13del wrote:So if the A380 was created as a people mover for congested airports why are the bulk of them not configured as people movers, they should all be configured for over 500+ seats.
speedbored wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:This doesn't matter, the problem is that the aircraft can only be in one place at one time. Instead of one aircraft having 500 seats you can have two aircraft having 250 seats and be more flexible. Offer multiple flights on different times of the day or to/from different airports.
This sort of argument is trotted out here far too regularly. The simple fact that average aircraft size has been steadily increasing year-on-year, for at least 30 years, disproves it. On huge numbers of routes, it is simply not possible for airlines to just add frequencies.
itchief wrote:par13del wrote:So if the A380 was created as a people mover for congested airports why are the bulk of them not configured as people movers, they should all be configured for over 500+ seats.
And people would love to fly on an airliner packed with 500/600+ people for short haul flights. How long does it take to turn an A380 with 500+? Not really cost effective like turning a B737-700.
A sample of one here, I fly 100+ segments a year and waiting on a plane to disembark is one of the most frustrating things I ever do. For the very few times I check a bag waiting at the luggage carousel is also very frustrating. This is flying on aircraft with less than 180 seats, bump that up to 500/600+ and what fun that will be.
Faro wrote:In one word...frequency...
Faro
aviationaware wrote:neomax wrote:The A380 is ahead of its time. China and Japan will need some sooner or later, as high congestion at airports is only going to get worse, and VLA's are the solution.
The Japanese population is shrinking.
rutankrd wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:The thing is that where there's lots of people there's also lots of airports all within a relatively small distance from each other. Passengers will spread out over all these airports. If you could consolidate all passenger demand from a densely populated region to one airport, an A380 would make sense. But you can't, and that's why an A380 doesn't make sense. The same destination is served from multiple airports on smaller aircraft, which contributes to the convenience of the passengers. They got the freedom to choose what airport to fly from.
First world view . West Africa , Brazil, China and India aren’t actually burgeoning with airports every 30 miles !
And Indonesia is an atoll of a million islands !
goosebayguy wrote:If BA turned all its New York flights to A380 there would be an advantage over American airlines because passengers far prefer to fly the A380. They just need to be more adventurous.
Vladex wrote:MHG wrote:There´s just a single reason why:
The A380 is a terrible aircraft for short haul operations
In particular for the fact that its over all structure is too heavy for short hauls (basically the same applied even to the special 747´s that were used on Japanese domestic flights).
The structure is optimized for a very high MTOW (think of all the fuel to be carried on long hauls) and a relatively limited number of cycles.
You can´t simply trade in one advantage for another. The airframe of the A380 is ill-suited for short haul ops.
I believe that A380 has a super slow approach that would mitigate and preserve heavy structure. I am not an expert so I want to hear someone with an insight.
Vladex wrote:
A380 is literally two airplanes in one , passengers don't see nor feel the other floor
Overthecascades wrote:It’s such a beautiful bird. I want it to last as long as possible!
Turnhouse1 wrote:In reply to the OP, High Speed Rail, in Western Europe and Japan the number of city pairs where it is faster to go via train than plane is significant. China is building a lot of HSR, so only longer routes will be faster by plane. In France now, only Toulouse (perhaps appropriately with the Airbus base) and maybe Nice of the major cities are faster to get to by plane than train when you allow for getting from the city to the airport, security and the actual flight. You can get a fair distance from London on a train in the time it takes to taxi out at Heathrow.
JoergAtADN wrote:The problem is, that it's a long range aircraft and the market for longe range VLAs is already satisfied.
The best Airbus could do, ist to stretch the A380 without increasing the MTOW. This would be a very cheap strech, because only hull and appenage would be affected. On the other hand, it would be the aircraft with the best CASM on the market. This could create a new market in India, China and would be a superior A388 replacement on many established A380 routes like DXB-Europe where range is not needed.
flee wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:zakuivcustom wrote:First, is it just me, or is all these A380 threads just plain annoying.
And I don't really understand the original point - what does the density of the country has to do with whether they got A380 or not? A380 is a terrible short-haul plane, period.
Why not India as well? They're going to pass China in population by 2025-ish anyway.
Yes, all the A380 threads are annoying.
Yes, very annoying - especially those weekly "A380 death" threads. Now that we know that the A380 should be still in production till at least 2030, we should hopefully have more meaningful discussions.
StudiodeKadent wrote:The thing is that there are multiple solutions to this problem; competing transportation methods, using alternative airports, expanding megahubs, and point-to-point flying (bypassing megahubs).
All of these separate alternate solutions have occurred (or will occur) to some degree. High speed rail is a big thing in many densely populated, modestly sized nations. LCCs began aggressively using alternative airports to megahubs and more airlines have been willing to use these alternative airports over time. Heathrow and Hong Kong are getting additional runways and I think the only thing stopping Haneda from being able to receive more traffic is politics. Finally, planes like the 787-8 and 787-9 have made much more point-to-point travel economically feasible.
Indeed, the biggest user of the A380 used it to create their own megahub. This was not what Airbus envisioned..
dtw2hyd wrote:Ok, let's use 436 vs 845.
Even with twice airport/navi charges, A333/787 will be more profitable.
.