Are the Jumbo Jet days numbered?

FloridaPilot said:
According to CNN production has been halted:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/11/new...80/index.html?sr=fbmoney121114airbus0130story
Click to expand...

The A-380 is a perplexing case, and shows how little consideration was given to the numbers of them they could sell. It's really efficient on the real long haul legs when it is full. However short hauls, even filled, are less so due to the extra time and expense at the gate.

Airbus should have understood the market capacity for these behemoths. They've delivered less than 150 so far. Their real problem though isn't that the passenger version isnt selling, because that's the crappy market anyway. The real problem is they cant seem to make a freighter out of it and the progam is delayed. Where big planes really pay for operators is freight.
 
Seems nothing was learned from the L-1011 saga.
 
And the physical support infrastructure at an airport to support the A380 (or any of the NLA) can be staggering to implement.
 
Jumbos days have ALWAYS been numbered. The 747 is probably the only one with a decent measure of success. The others have all been losers and the 380 wouldn't have even got built without massive subsidies from it's European governments. Not that it's much different in the US. The big US aerospace companies lived and died by sucking on the government contract tit...primarily military. Lockheed tried and lost big and got out of the biz. Douglas was probably commercially viable with the smaller planes but the DC-10 killed them.

While bigger has potential for higher efficiency, if you can't get the load factor to support that many seats, you're wasting effort.

I'm in the middle of a rather interesting book on the commercial and ethical analysis of the US industry and government regulation, primarily targetted at the DC-10, but there's a lot that applies to all the big aircraft.
 
We're seeing some 748's here (Lufthansa for the most part), IIRC a memo came out a while back about Air China. 4 carriers with 380's. Impressive when we're on back approach as the takeoff for 06R is right next to my office :)
 
From what I remember, part of the issue with this plane is that many commercial airports do not have big enough runways or the proper gateway setup to allow the plane to land. It almost requires multiple gateways used in tandem to get the aircraft loaded and unloaded efficiently. The airports that accept it have to be able to orient to plane so this can be done, which not only uses up multiple gates at the terminal, but most terminals were not designed to be used in this fashion.

You can also see where the industry may be going based on Boeing. They are not building new superplanes, but instead concentrating on midsized planes that are highly efficient, thus the 777 and now the 787. Yes the 787 has had problems, but in the long run I am confident that it will be successful. When it comes to jumbos they just update the 747 and call it a day.
 
drotto, in our case (LAX) it was the runway spacing that we had to deal with. We use the outer runways for landings, inners for takeoff. Couldn't get separation without pushing the south runway further south (El Segundo fought that - lost :) ) Other option (which we used for a while) was to NOT take off on 25R if a 380 was landing, or land on 25L if a 380 was taking off. We still need to do this to the North complex runways (24's), but that's substantially more involved :( )

Had to remodel the ends of "old" TBIT to dual jet bridge as the 380 REQUIRES two (we had several with dual bridges for convenience, but didn't go high enough IIRC) Bradley West (and if I recall correctly the new Midfield Satellite) will all accommodate NLA's

Service roads are still a PITA when a 380 is taxiing, as an Airfield Operations car has to "follow" the 380 and keep anyone from driving under the wingtips (which overhang the service roads big time) (driving under the wing is a big NO!)

Firefighting equipment had to change, handicap lifts had to change. The damn tug for the 380 is HUGE, takes about 70% of the width of a service road when they go back to where they sleep :)
 
Last edited:
drotto said:
From what I remember, part of the issue with this plane is that many commercial airports do not have big enough runways or the proper gateway setup to allow the plane to land.
Click to expand...

This.

drotto said:
When it comes to jumbos they just update the 747 and call it a day.
Click to expand...

I agree. Why change a good thing going?
 
Old Fart said:
drotto, in our case (LAX) it was the runway spacing that we had to deal with. We use the outer runways for landings, inners for takeoff. Couldn't get separation without pushing the south runway further south (El Segundo fought that - lost :) ) Other option (which we used for a while) was to NOT take off on 25R if a 380 was landing, or land on 25L if a 380 was taking off. We still need to do this to the North complex runways (24's), but that's substantially more involved :( )

Had to remodel the ends of "old" TBIT to dual jet bridge as the 380 REQUIRES two (we had several with dual bridges for convenience, but didn't go high enough IIRC) Bradley West (and if I recall correctly the new Midfield Satellite) will all accommodate NLA's

Service roads are still a PITA when a 380 is taxiing, as an Airfield Operations car has to "follow" the 380 and keep anyone from driving under the wingtips (which overhang the service roads big time) (driving under the wing is a big NO!)

Firefighting equipment had to change, handicap lifts had to change. The damn tug for the 380 is HUGE, takes about 70% of the width of a service road when they go back to where they sleep :)
Click to expand...

Which is just another miscalculation that was made with the A380. Whenever you are requiring airports to make major, expensive changes to accommodate one model there id going to be resistance. The airports are either going to drag their feet or just say screw it we do not need the plane. The cruise ships are now encountering the same problem. The super jumbo liners have gotten so big many ports have said they are not going to alter facilities to accept anything bigger, and will reject some of the ships already out there.
 
If you look at Emirates route map, this airplane makes sense for them, as they shuttle a lot of people into and out of Dubai. Most of the rest of the worlds airlines don't do that with a single location. People like direct flights. If you were going, say, from Chicago to Paris, did you want the nonstop from O'Hare to DeGaulle, which takes 8 and 9 hours, or would you like the one that stops in Istanbul, which takes 17 and 29 hours? Thought so. The huge plane makes sense for New York to London, or Los Angeles to Sydney, but for most other city pairs something smaller enables more nonstop flights for more passengers.
 
I hope not. I hearKennedy wants to extend one of its runways by around 800 ft to accomodate the 380 better
 
Even the 747 days are numbered. Large 777 are rapidly replacing them. Even as a cargo plane, it burns too much fuel. It's time for Boeing and Airbus to pull the plug. Tim Clarke of Emirates is ****ed because his airline is operating something like half the A-380 fleet.
 
The 747-8 is also a total flop, so it's just not the A380 struggling. The future belongs to ETOPS twins.
 
drotto said:
From what I remember, part of the issue with this plane is that many commercial airports do not have big enough runways or the proper gateway setup to allow the plane to land. It almost requires multiple gateways used in tandem to get the aircraft loaded and unloaded efficiently. The airports that accept it have to be able to orient to plane so this can be done, which not only uses up multiple gates at the terminal, but most terminals were not designed to be used in this fashion.

You can also see where the industry may be going based on Boeing. They are not building new superplanes, but instead concentrating on midsized planes that are highly efficient, thus the 777 and now the 787. Yes the 787 has had problems, but in the long run I am confident that it will be successful. When it comes to jumbos they just update the 747 and call it a day.
Click to expand...

Right, it's not practical for pax really, what they need is swing/tilt nose and/or ramp tail so fork lifts and large loads can be rolled in and managed easily. That is where the market for really big planes shines.
 
Henning said:
Right, it's not practical for pax really, what they need is swing/tilt nose and/or ramp tail so fork lifts and large loads can be rolled in and managed easily. That is where the market for really big planes shines.
Click to expand...

We can put people in pods then roll them in 50 at a time. :P
 
They make sense for State Subsidized Airlines that don't TRULY and I do mean TRULY have to make a profit. You'll almost certainly never see them in any US passenger livery. Both Delta and United's 747s are scheduled to go away. The 777x and 787-10 as well as the Airbus 350-1000 are the future of long haul for those carriers that have to actually make money.
 
FloridaPilot said:
According to CNN production has been halted:
Click to expand...


And I missed my chance to see them being built in the huge factory.

I actually booked a tour last summer when I was in Toulouse on business, but I ended up watching the World Cup at the hotel instead. I figured I could always do it next time. But it's not to be. :(
 
drotto said:
We can put people in pods then roll them in 50 at a time. :P
Click to expand...

You laugh, but that really is an excellent thought, a convertible pax/freighter that you can roll in passenger modules pre boarded at regular gates. Thing is there are still runway requirements, but there are more runways that will take it than gates.

BTW what was with the engine fuel specifics issue?:dunno: Are they having trouble meeting up to expectations in efficiency?
 
Henning said:
You laugh, but that really is an excellent thought, a convertible pax/freighter that you can roll in passenger modules pre boarded at regular gates. Thing is there are still runway requirements, but there are more runways that will take it than gates.

BTW what was with the engine fuel specifics issue?:dunno: Are they having trouble meeting up to expectations in efficiency?
Click to expand...

Take it a step further that way you can customize the plane per flight. Get allot of high rollers use deluxe pods, all economy low rent pods. Hell maybe you can put ballistic chutes on smaller pods and drop them in an emergency.
 
stratobee said:
The 747-8 is also a total flop, so it's just not the A380 struggling. The future belongs to ETOPS twins.
Click to expand...


The only place you need four engines are some of the southern hemisphere routes, and not many of them have enough traffic to support an A380. I'm thinking of something like Sydney to Johannesburg or Buenos Aires.
 
drotto said:
Take it a step further that way you can customize the plane per flight. Get allot of high rollers use deluxe pods, all economy low rent pods. Hell maybe you can put ballistic chutes on smaller pods and drop them in an emergency.
Click to expand...

Exactly, convertible flight by flight by just exchanging what modules you roll in for it. Say six sections that may or may not be segregated into upper and lower with pax or freight modules depending on what needed to be accommodated.
 
FormerHangie said:
The only place you need four engines are some of the southern hemisphere routes, and not many of them have enough traffic to support an A380. I'm thinking of something like Sydney to Johannesburg or Buenos Aires.
Click to expand...

Can't a 777 service those routes?:dunno: I used to fly direct LA<->Melbourne on one. Both routes have enough islands on them to play the same reserves game.
 
wsuffa said:
Seems nothing was learned from the L-1011 saga.
Click to expand...


Now now. They learned not to create separate AP disconnect warnings between the two yokes, and to put two sets of gear annunciators in, for when a light bulb burns out...

... after they killed a bunch of people for a single burnt out lightbulb.

L-1011 was a huge success in cockpit design bad examples to redesign on the next generation of aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
... after they killed a bunch of people for a single burnt out lightbulb...
Click to expand...

Really? Lockheed "killed a bunch of people" on account of not having enough gear annunciation light bulbs? :rolleyes:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Which polar routes need three or more?
Click to expand...

Perhaps SOUTH polar routes. ETOPS 330 covers all northern polar routes.
6847c1a8a8.png


Just the gray areas around Antarctica are out of 330 coverage.
 
drotto said:
From what I remember, part of the issue with this plane is that many commercial airports do not have big enough runways or the proper gateway setup to allow the plane to land. It almost requires multiple gateways used in tandem to get the aircraft loaded and unloaded efficiently. The airports that accept it have to be able to orient to plane so this can be done, which not only uses up multiple gates at the terminal, but most terminals were not designed to be used in this fashion.

You can also see where the industry may be going based on Boeing. They are not building new superplanes, but instead concentrating on midsized planes that are highly efficient, thus the 777 and now the 787. Yes the 787 has had problems, but in the long run I am confident that it will be successful. When it comes to jumbos they just update the 747 and call it a day.
Click to expand...

I once read that it takes about a week to build a B787 from scratch, and yet it takes 4 months to built a B747. :hairraise:
 
Henning said:
You laugh, but that really is an excellent thought, a convertible pax/freighter that you can roll in passenger modules pre boarded at regular gates. Thing is there are still runway requirements, but there are more runways that will take it than gates.

BTW what was with the engine fuel specifics issue?:dunno: Are they having trouble meeting up to expectations in efficiency?
Click to expand...

IIRC, UPS had a similar arrangement on a few 727s. At one time, they ran cargo in them during the week, and passengers on weekends (the grand experiment of running a passenger airline never made it).

denverpilot said:
Now now. They learned not to create separate AP disconnect warnings between the two yokes, and to put two sets of gear annunciators in, for when a light bulb burns out...

... after they killed a bunch of people for a single burnt out lightbulb.

L-1011 was a huge success in cockpit design bad examples to redesign on the next generation of aircraft.
Click to expand...

Actually, I love(d) flying on the L-1011. Very comfortable, very smooth, and an engine spooling noise that one will never forget.

The L-10 was a financial disaster for both Lockheed and Rolls Royce. The government(s) had to step in and effectively bail them out (not as big as the Wall Street bailout, but big nonetheless). They way over-estimated the demand for the aircraft, especially as the economy went south. M-D did much better with the DC-10/MD-11 series, despite the accidents that it had (Chicago, Sioux City, etc). 3 engines don't provide much redundancy when hydraulics are lost (or when one falls off on takeoff).
 
wsuffa said:
3 engines don't provide much redundancy when hydraulics are lost (or when one falls off on takeoff).
Click to expand...

The issues with the Chicago and Sioux City crashes exposed the weaknesses in the design and routing of the hydraulic systems. The three engines provided three separate systems, which would have been more than adequate if they had been constructed differently.

I'm not a statistician but it seems to me three engine driven systems would be more reliable than the two plus an electric/RAT system found on current large twin engine airliners, the exception being total fuel exhaustion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top