Future not good for super sized passenger jets

[cymaz]

After Boeing and Airbus have invested millions in designing and building a new generation of super-sized planes, they may not see their money back according to this article

[Mark Kettle 1]

A video I shot the other day of the two in question.

[Phil May]

Two big birds.

It never ceases to amaze me how something that large can fly.....nice video Mark.

[Mark Kettle 1]

Cheers Phil...the A308 only just gets over the lamp post LOL.

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 07:08:17

[Dave Bran]

Is that a 747-800? BA's website does not list that model in fleet.

[Andy Meade]

I'm not really into the old meat-haulers, but that last aircraft (Singapore Airlines) looked like it was struggling badly - is that normal?

[Simon Chaddock]

Andy

I see regularly see the A380 climbing out of Manchester.

It does look like it must be at the point of stalling but it is an optical illusion. We tend to judge speed as the time it takes to travel it own length. For something so big (and with its huge area wings) it seems to be travelling much too slowly.

[Andy Meade]

Probably right there Si. If that was a model, I'd be chopping the throttle and bringing her back in!

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

@Hi Peter , the upper limit of the size of an commercial airplanes today has achieved the intended desired earnings in service.....the balance of ''the law of investment and gain''.
Any increase, in the dimensions of an aircrafts after that, will produce losses (financial and other)...it is my humble opinion...

Cheers and ,Let live the Cornwall.

Jo

 

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2015 11:38:58

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 24/04/2015 11:59:09

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Andy Meade on 24/04/2015 09:02:11:

I'm not really into the old meat-haulers, but that last aircraft (Singapore Airlines) looked like it was struggling badly - is that normal?

Nothing suggest any issue at all, Pilot is complying with noise abatement protocols, etc. LOADS in reserve!

Re: "Meat Haulers", I used to like one website I frequented, they listed plane sections as, Vintage/WW1, WW2, Light Civils, Jets and "Air Pollution"...............

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 24/04/2015 10:03:46:

Andy

I see regularly see the A380 climbing out of Manchester.

It does look like it must be at the point of stalling but it is an optical illusion. We tend to judge speed as the time it takes to travel it own length. For something so big (and with its huge area wings) it seems to be travelling much too slowly.

Absolutely. I couldn't believe the performance when I saw a A380 at Farnborough Air Show. Fair enough, at the show it is devoid of weight (of fuel, passengers, luggage), but still gives a glimpse of how much is in reserve.

[cymaz]

Posted by Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 06:43:09:

A video I shot the other day of the two in question.

Super shot of the wing profile from the rear....that is a very deep sweep on the inboard edges.

[Phil Cooke]

I'm convinced the predicted global increase in air travel combined with the lack of viable new airport developments will only see more large widebody aircraft being required by the major airlines. Whether they will be 4 engined machines like the 747 or A380 is another question, as the power generated by large diameter engines combined with their reliability means twins are more attractive to the operator (from a fuel burn perspective) on the vast majority of routes.

Having said that, just this month Emirates have placed an order for 50 new Airbus A380s, and they are building a 6 (yes SIX!) runway super airport to be kitted out with 100+ double decker terminal gates in Dubai... they clearly see the requirement for large scale aircraft and have placed their confidence in the A380 as the vehicle with which to meet the passenger demand. It's very likely other airlines will watch on and follow suite to stay competitive.

I think economics will dictate we'll be seeing superjumbos for a long time to come.

[Andy48]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 24/04/2015 12:00:00:

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 24/04/2015 10:03:46:

Andy

I see regularly see the A380 climbing out of Manchester.

It does look like it must be at the point of stalling but it is an optical illusion. We tend to judge speed as the time it takes to travel it own length. For something so big (and with its huge area wings) it seems to be travelling much too slowly.

Absolutely. I couldn't believe the performance when I saw a A380 at Farnborough Air Show. Fair enough, at the show it is devoid of weight (of fuel, passengers, luggage), but still gives a glimpse of how much is in reserve.

 

I was at that show too. The flight was unbelievable.

Even better, looking forward to the tour of the Boeing factory in Seattle next month, if they haven't gone bust in the meantine.

Edited By Andy48 on 24/04/2015 19:54:24

[Bill_B]

Posted by Phil Cooke on 24/04/2015 19:34:38:

Having said that, just this month Emirates have placed an order for 50 new Airbus A380s.......

........And 200 engines, plus spares for the lucky supplier(s). Also, I believe that they're not all firm orders, if the press are to be believed.

QUOTE:

"I think economics will dictate we'll be seeing superjumbos for a long time to come."

Hopefully, but if there's a global impact, for instance another 9-11 or war, it will unfortunately upset the economics somewhat.

[Mark Kettle 1]

I'm at Heathrow about 4 times a week, and the other day on the M25 I could see the activities of the airport from about 8 miles out and noticed landing flat approach and take off the usual steep angle.

What I was thinking was, how much fuel would be saved if the angle of flight for take off was done at the same angle as on approach for landing. Even considering the weight at take off why be so 'lairy' with the power.

Video fuel saving paint finish / coating, and weight saving manuals saves millions of dollars in fuel.

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 20:42:49

Across all operations for Delta Airlines and multi million pound saving via a laptop / tablet.

 

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 20:50:50

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 20:51:52

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 24/04/2015 20:53:00

[PeterF]

A380 is fantastic to fly on when you can afford business class (or your company does), in January I flew from Dallas to Sydney as one leg of a round the world trip with Quantas. Over 17 hours flight time, not sure you could manage that in a twin engined plane, although you need plenty to keep you occupied. When you are on the upper deck at take off it is quite odd, you are out of the engine noise and the tyre noise and you do not seem to be fast enough to rotate, yet up it goes. I have had a shower in an A380 at 40,000ft over the Indian Ocean once, just had to do it for the novelty value.

[Phil Cooke]

Bill_B - yes a fantastic win for Rolls and all linked via their supply chain - 220 engines will really do the Trent 900 programme a lot of good!

As I understand it the Emirates order is for 50 A380 CEO with the option to convert the second half of the order to NEO should Airbus launch the improved, more efficient, weight reduced airframe. But it is all solid business for RR one way or the other.

[buster prop]

Ah well.. I've flown an A380 : on a cockpit simulator. My son lives in Abu Dhabi and there's an A380 SIM in the Y as island shopping mall. I had a fly on it and landed at Heathrow! There is no control column just a side stick on the left of the pilot's seat. I had to resist the temptation to pull back in turns to keep the nose up, it's all automatic on the 380 as is rudder. No need for coordinated turns, the rudder bar is mainly for ground steering. I have flown on a 380 as a passenger from Abu Dhabi to Melbourne, about 14 hours.

[Mark Kettle 1]

PeterF here's a video about extended ETOPS....for long flights on two engines.

[Colin Leighfield]

This is a very topical subject right now and is potentially central to the heavily propagandised campaign to get the third runway at Heathrow, based on the principle of using it as a "Superhub" which everyone travels to for their long-distance flights. This strategy is largely based on the use of the heavies, currently the A380 and 747/8.

However, it is true that not a single order was placed in 2014 for passenger 747/8s or A380s, but hundreds for 787s and A350s. The Emirates order is exceptional but despite the huge value of the order, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the continuous numbers of planes needed to keep these production lines going for the decades needed to make them substantially profitable. The new generation 787 and A350 have the same range capability as the heavies, but can make a profit with half the passenger numbers. Also, they don't need "Superhubs", regional airports like Birmingham with its' new longer runway can operate these very effectively.

The argument seems likely to move between the Davies Commission plan to keep everything "London-centric" with Heathrow expansion, or to what seems to me to be the far more suitable German model of a number of fully capable regional airports like Frankfurt, Cologne, Munich etc. and no single "Superhub". At the moment, the government is blindly supporting the Davies Commission, but the environmental issues surrounding Heathrow expansion might yet be a killer, so its' by no means certain and for me personally, it would be a big mistake.

So, as much as I love the big ones and travel quite a lot, it looks as if the cards are probably stacked the other way as we see modern technology enable the smaller planes to match the seat economics of the bigger ones, with much greater flexibility and lower environmental impact. Although partially retired, the things I still do include some involvement with this issue and reflect things that have been discussed only this week. Airport and airliner design strategy are intrinsically linked right now and this will pan itself out over the next 10 years. At the moment, it seems to be going against the big guys, but it might rebound the other way. We'll see.

[cymaz]

Agreed Colin, super hubs are great but when things go wrong ( weather/ attack threat) they go very wrong. Big planes with limited landing areas ....whereas smaller cheaper planes and more regional slots makes sense. At least they can be diverted and land somewhere else.

[buster prop]

Hosted by buster prop on 24/04/2015 22:52:50:

Ah well.. I've flown an A380 : on a cockpit simulator. My son lives in Abu Dhabi and there's an A380 SIM in the Y as island shopping mall. I had a fly on it and landed at Heathrow! There is no control column just a side stick on the left of the pilot's seat. I had to resist the temptation to pull back in turns to keep the nose up, it's all automatic on the 380 as is rudder. No need for coordinated turns, the rudder bar is mainly for ground steering. I have flown on a 380 as a passenger from Abu Dhabi to Melbourne, about 14 hours.

I meant to say Dubai to Melbourne On a 380, I also went to Melbourne from Abu Dhabi on a 777 300 E R. E R is the Extended Range version which is the subject of the original post. I suppose Emirates have gone with the 380 because they want Dubai to be the UAE hub airport. I think Etihad only have one 380 and they rely on 777s for long haul flights. They use the 777 to fly to the UK as well, about 6 1/2 hrs.

[Colin Leighfield]

Cymaz, bang on, another good reason why centralisation isn't a good idea. Buster, interesting experiences. I've done a few long distance flights in recent years to Oz, NZ, via Dubai, HK, Singapore and KL, as well as to the U.S. through JFK and Miami. All,of these though in 747s, 777s and A330s, (my least favourite). Sadly I haven't fallen lucky yet with the A380, though I hope to and await my first go on the 787.

You're right about Emirates plans being related to airport expansion at Dubai, in that example the hub case stands up. Could be the exception rather than the rule though?

[John Privett]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 25/04/2015 09:36:31:

You're right about Emirates plans being related to airport expansion at Dubai, in that example the hub case stands up. Could be the exception rather than the rule though?

I think that is very much the exception. They've taken a place that a relatively small number of people travel to (as a destination) and made it the hub of the global network.

I'd be interested to see the stats on how many passengers arriving at Dubai (or other hub airports in the region) depart almost immediately on the next leg of their journey without ever leaving the airport. It must be a much higher percentage than 'traditional' busy airports like LHR, JFK, LAX etc which are destinations in their own right, and hubs as a secondary function.