advertisement


the end of the airbus A380

I'm not the 380s greatest fan, far too much of a 747 fan. With BAs 380s I think they missed a huge opportunity by not including a bar/social space into the interior design. It works well on Emirates and Qatar. Without that space, I don't see much additional benefit, as a passenger, over other planes.
I really like the 787 and 350.
 
UK Post-Brexit version in trials.

10.jpg

Stephen
 
Been to Australia a couple of times on a 380, always amazed how quiet they are. I can't say I'll miss them, I hate flying, in particular the airport experience.

Cheers BB
 
business and first are lovely on an A380, been lucky enough to fly BA/Sing/Emirates with then. In econ I see little difference. I don't miss long haul (any) flying, made only vaguely palatable in first or bus.

A380 needed serious investment by airports, particular with two deck boarding and disembarking. Personally I always thought it was doomed.
 
I've flown on A380's quite a few times although only ever in cattle class sadly. Having said that the cattle class is pretty good although none of the ones I've been on (Emirates, Etihad and BA) have had a bar in the downstairs bit so once you're in it's not all that different from other wide bodied aircraft.

Back in the days when my employer used to pay for business class I used to enjoy 747's the most as in them it was upstairs in the area behind the cockpit.
 
cutting42 said:
It is very quiet and has well designed interiors and BA and QR have fitted reasonable to outstanding seating. The First suite in BA is their best out of all their aircraft but even economy seems better somehow. The immense power means they seem to gently ease into the air with hardly any effort compared to most of the twin engine planes that seem to need thrashing to achieve the same.
Click to expand...
Ironically, twin engined aircraft have a greater excess of power compared to four engined aircraft.

It’s all to do with having to have sufficient reserve of power to continue the takeoff in the event of an engine failure at a critical point. A twin engined aircraft thus has to be able to do this on 50% of its resources, whereas a four engined aircraft can rely on 75%. So the 4 engined jobbie needs to carry a total of 1.33x takeoff power whereas the 2 engined jobbie needs 200% of takeoff power on the wing.
 
Radio 4 had a piece on it this morning. As mentioned, the expected demand in long-haul flights between commercial centres such as London and Hong Kong etc never materialised. That's probably not a bad thing per se, if business etc can progress using online conferencing. I appreciate the potential loss of jobs is difficult, but we neee to put fewer, not more, planes in the sky.
 
In many respects fewer, bigger aircraft is a better option than more, smaller aircraft, from an environmental perspective.
 
They'll be flying for a few years yet!

I goto Australia every two years and always A380 it with Singapore.. I'm not surprised the order book is no longer brimming - a couple of times I flew (downstairs cattle class with two kids) the upstairs business class was totally empty in three sections, thats a hell of a lot of empty seats..
 
Always struck me as ugly plane - something that comes out of a development programme plagued by issues.

As someone else said, without giving up some of the seats for an unusual feature like walk up bar it was pointless.

On my Etihad flights from Dublin to Oz I always liked the smaller plane they used for the first leg versus the larger one for the second leg - both Airbuses and not A380's.

Boeing seem to have the right idea.
 
I loved the 380 KL-LHR when MAS ran them. Now they use the 350, the flights are always booked out months ahead as there is not enough capacity on the route and the journey is 1 hour longer, the 350 is SLOW. Meal service is a pain too as they always want to serve over India and the Andamans, where turbulence always happens
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
In many respects fewer, bigger aircraft is a better option than more, smaller aircraft, from an environmental perspective
Click to expand...

surely that depends on the comparative efficiency? If the large aircraft has an environment pollution index of 4 (I am making up the indices and numbers for this example), and a smaller aircraft half the size an index of 1.5 - then two small ones might be less polluting than one...… A380 is quite old tech compared to say a Dreamliner
 
davidsrsb said:
I loved the 380 KL-LHR when MAS ran them. Now they use the 350, the flights are always booked out months ahead as there is not enough capacity on the route and the journey is 1 hour longer, the 350 is SLOW. Meal service is a pain too as they always want to serve over India and the Andamans, where turbulence always happens
Click to expand...

Has MAS improved in the last 10 years? Haven't been to KL for a while.
 
gintonic said:
surely that depends on the comparative efficiency? If the large aircraft has an environment pollution index of 4 (I am making up the indices and numbers for this example), and a smaller aircraft half the size an index of 1.5 - then two small ones might be less polluting than one...… A380 is quite old tech compared to say a Dreamliner
Click to expand...
Oh indeed, but the reality is likely to be that the big jobbie has an index of 4 and the smaller jobbie an index of, say 2.5

Twice as many takeoffs and landings (local environmental considerations of noise, pollution, etc). Airways and approach paths have minimum separation distances which restricts the frequency of traffic, so fewer aircraft spaced further apart is safer and easier to manage.

It’s not just about fuel efficiency, and load factors will also play a significant part. That’s why you only get the biggest jobbies on the popular routes.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Oh indeed, but the reality is likely to be that the big jobbie has an index of 4 and the smaller jobbie an index of, say 2.5

Twice as many takeoffs and landings (local environmental considerations of noise, pollution, etc). Airways and approach paths have minimum separation distances which restricts the frequency of traffic, so fewer aircraft spaced further apart is safer and easier to manage.

It’s not just about fuel efficiency, and load factors will also play a significant part. That’s why you only get the biggest jobbies on the popular routes.
Click to expand...

in all probability, yes......
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Ironically, twin engined aircraft have a greater excess of power compared to four engined aircraft.

It’s all to do with having to have sufficient reserve of power to continue the takeoff in the event of an engine failure at a critical point. A twin engined aircraft thus has to be able to do this on 50% of its resources, whereas a four engined aircraft can rely on 75%. So the 4 engined jobbie needs to carry a total of 1.33x takeoff power whereas the 2 engined jobbie needs 200% of takeoff power on the wing.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the takeoff failure requirements but an A380 with 4 engines at 70,000lb thrust each is more power than a 777 with 2 x 92,000lb
 
cutting42 said:
I don't disagree with the takeoff failure requirements but an A380 with 4 engines at 70,000lb thrust each is more power than a 777 with 2 x 92,000lb
Click to expand...
Yes but you also need to factor in the max takeoff weights of each type. I don’t have those numbers to hand, but I’d guess the A380 is a fair bit heavier at max gross weight.
 
Max takeoff weights are 560 tonnes vs 352 tonnes (773)

Anyway, stats notwithstanding, the 380 definitely takes off much more smoothly and with less drama than the 777
 
Another fan of the A380. We flew Emurates business to The Maldives last year, 380 to Dubai then business 777 to Maldives. The latter was noisy and less comfortable, the 380 we both loved - a beautiful aircraft. A BA777 flight to Mauritius, Premium Economy, the previous year has the distinction of being the most uncomfortable flight I've ever had the misfortune to endure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top