End of the A380?
Discussion
ukaskew said:
telecat said:
Until Passengers realise what the Airlines are doing and start to avoid the affected Planes they will continue to do it.
I'm thinking 99% of economy passengers couldn't care less, and almost certainly couldn't name the aircraft they're sat on even with the safety card in front of them.At a push if I told somebody I was flying on a Dreamliner some would probably remember the positive buzz created by the likes of Thomson, and people remember flying A380 for obvious reasons. But given a list of options to fly to say, New York at the same time, all direct, the vast vast majority would pick tbe cheapest option, some would consider the actual airline if the price was similar, and virtually nobody would look at the aircraft itself.
I'm over 6ft and we holiday a lot, always in economy. One fairly uncomortable upper deck 747 economy experience aside I'd struggle to recall issues by plane. Far more likely to recall by airline and the level of service/amenities on the flight. My wife never forgets that we usually get free wi-fi flying Norwegian and was a little disappointed that we flew the same route with BA next time.
Edited by ukaskew on Thursday 18th January 05:19
also, I can say losing 4 or 5 stone makes a heck of a difference in long haul comfort levels!
PhilboSE said:
Apart from on the Embraer E190 I flew on over xmas. More legroom in a "standard" seat in BA economy compared with an exit seat in Easyjet A320. A flight that I really genuinely enjoyed rather than endured.
Ditto. I recently flew in a BA E190 from Frankfurt to London City. More knee room than any other airline's economy seats that I have ever flown in.
Teddy Lop said:
many regular travellers do know, and will use seatguru to select a flight,
That depends - a regular 'holiday' traveller doing short hops around Europe, or even up to a 'middle distance' flight of say 6 or 7 hours, is probably going to look for the cheapest price. Business travellers, probably more likely to look at the aircraft for short haul flights, but once you get to long haul for all travellers the airline, rather than then plane, is going to be most important. Condi said:
Teddy Lop said:
many regular travellers do know, and will use seatguru to select a flight,
That depends - a regular 'holiday' traveller doing short hops around Europe, or even up to a 'middle distance' flight of say 6 or 7 hours, is probably going to look for the cheapest price. Business travellers, probably more likely to look at the aircraft for short haul flights, but once you get to long haul for all travellers the airline, rather than then plane, is going to be most important. I'm exactly the same with european flights, I'm balancing price with social acceptability of flight times with a nod to more local airports for overall traveltime reduction. Long haul I'm balancing price with plane types/seatguru and a nod to airline as some are preferable.
Teddy Lop said:
Unless we can nab a twin seat somewhere, such as the back of a 787 the other year,
I get an 8hr 787 flight every few months with Saudia (Saudi to UK) as a standard Economy seat and I'm constantly amazed at the lack of leg room considering the rest of the "comfort levels" that the Dreamliner is renown for, especially after a recent 8hr 757 flight with United Airlines (UK to New York) in a standard Economy seat which was miles better for both leg room and seat comfort and tied for "entertainment" systems, on a much older aircraft too.
One of the main commercial issues with the A380 that stunts it sales is the poor cargo carrying capacity. The larger 'legacy' airlines make a lot of money from cargo/air freight. Long-haul aircraft need to maintain the ratio of crew to passengers, with the requirement for the crew rest area(s). In a 787 or 777 you can put in a crew rest area in the crown, above the passenger deck, or as in the case of the 747-400 over the toilet area at the back of the aircraft. In a 380 there is no space in the crown as it is a full upper deck. That only leaves either taking up a huge area of one of the decks (not practical) or using the previously used idea where Airbus use the cargo hold and use cargo containers converted into removable crew rest pods. It sounds awful but is actually very good. The problem is, that the A380 has such a large crew that the number of crew containers means a lot of space is used in the cargo hold, and thus a reduction in cargo carrying capacity. That's what prevented even large hub airlines either buying, or buying more than a few A380's.
Rich Boy Spanner said:
One of the main commercial issues with the A380 that stunts it sales is the poor cargo carrying capacity. The larger 'legacy' airlines make a lot of money from cargo/air freight. Long-haul aircraft need to maintain the ratio of crew to passengers, with the requirement for the crew rest area(s). In a 787 or 777 you can put in a crew rest area in the crown, above the passenger deck, or as in the case of the 747-400 over the toilet area at the back of the aircraft. In a 380 there is no space in the crown as it is a full upper deck. That only leaves either taking up a huge area of one of the decks (not practical) or using the previously used idea where Airbus use the cargo hold and use cargo containers converted into removable crew rest pods. It sounds awful but is actually very good. The problem is, that the A380 has such a large crew that the number of crew containers means a lot of space is used in the cargo hold, and thus a reduction in cargo carrying capacity. That's what prevented even large hub airlines either buying, or buying more than a few A380's.
The other problem I'd read with cargo on the A380 was that because of the large number of passengers, the sheer percentage of space underneath occupied by the passenger's suitcases, plus the aforementioned crew bunks, means there's very little space at all for cargo. The 777, on the other hand, can supposedly make as much money from what's under the floor as it does with what's above it. Suspect this is one of the reasons for the BA/Iberia 777s/A340s that go between Heathrow & Madrid - shifting freight from one company's hub to the other rather than people.MitchT said:
DanL said:
larger planes bounce around less in my mind...
Largest plane I ever flew on was also the bounciest flight 
alangla said:
Rich Boy Spanner said:
One of the main commercial issues with the A380 that stunts it sales is the poor cargo carrying capacity. The larger 'legacy' airlines make a lot of money from cargo/air freight. Long-haul aircraft need to maintain the ratio of crew to passengers, with the requirement for the crew rest area(s). In a 787 or 777 you can put in a crew rest area in the crown, above the passenger deck, or as in the case of the 747-400 over the toilet area at the back of the aircraft. In a 380 there is no space in the crown as it is a full upper deck. That only leaves either taking up a huge area of one of the decks (not practical) or using the previously used idea where Airbus use the cargo hold and use cargo containers converted into removable crew rest pods. It sounds awful but is actually very good. The problem is, that the A380 has such a large crew that the number of crew containers means a lot of space is used in the cargo hold, and thus a reduction in cargo carrying capacity. That's what prevented even large hub airlines either buying, or buying more than a few A380's.
The other problem I'd read with cargo on the A380 was that because of the large number of passengers, the sheer percentage of space underneath occupied by the passenger's suitcases, plus the aforementioned crew bunks, means there's very little space at all for cargo. The 777, on the other hand, can supposedly make as much money from what's under the floor as it does with what's above it. Suspect this is one of the reasons for the BA/Iberia 777s/A340s that go between Heathrow & Madrid - shifting freight from one company's hub to the other rather than people.Rich Boy Spanner said:
alangla said:
Rich Boy Spanner said:
One of the main commercial issues with the A380 that stunts it sales is the poor cargo carrying capacity. The larger 'legacy' airlines make a lot of money from cargo/air freight. Long-haul aircraft need to maintain the ratio of crew to passengers, with the requirement for the crew rest area(s). In a 787 or 777 you can put in a crew rest area in the crown, above the passenger deck, or as in the case of the 747-400 over the toilet area at the back of the aircraft. In a 380 there is no space in the crown as it is a full upper deck. That only leaves either taking up a huge area of one of the decks (not practical) or using the previously used idea where Airbus use the cargo hold and use cargo containers converted into removable crew rest pods. It sounds awful but is actually very good. The problem is, that the A380 has such a large crew that the number of crew containers means a lot of space is used in the cargo hold, and thus a reduction in cargo carrying capacity. That's what prevented even large hub airlines either buying, or buying more than a few A380's.
The other problem I'd read with cargo on the A380 was that because of the large number of passengers, the sheer percentage of space underneath occupied by the passenger's suitcases, plus the aforementioned crew bunks, means there's very little space at all for cargo. The 777, on the other hand, can supposedly make as much money from what's under the floor as it does with what's above it. Suspect this is one of the reasons for the BA/Iberia 777s/A340s that go between Heathrow & Madrid - shifting freight from one company's hub to the other rather than people.Teddy Lop said:
That seems mad. if cargo is so sought after why don't they offer a configuration with crew rest at the expense of seats? could it even be done in a modular fashion so a jet could be reconfigured between the two depending on route and demand?
But how do you easily reconfigure the cabin? The crew rest area in Long haul will have beds, not something you can easily slap into the cabin without restricting access back and forth. Bit of an oversight in the design it seems.Badgerboy said:
But how do you easily reconfigure the cabin? The crew rest area in Long haul will have beds, not something you can easily slap into the cabin without restricting access back and forth. Bit of an oversight in the design it seems.
Emirates appear to have it at the back of economy...https://www.ausbt.com.au/photos-the-airbus-a380-s-...
IanH755 said:
I get an 8hr 787 flight every few months with Saudia (Saudi to UK) as a standard Economy seat and I'm constantly amazed at the lack of leg room considering the rest of the "comfort levels" that the Dreamliner is renown for, especially after a recent 8hr 757 flight with United Airlines (UK to New York) in a standard Economy seat which was miles better for both leg room and seat comfort and tied for "entertainment" systems, on a much older aircraft too.
When the 787 was first designed, it was intended to have a 8 across in Economy as the cabin interior width is 41 cm less than a 777 which is 9 wide (although more and more carriers are going 10 across, including BA with their Gatwick Fleet). The airlines decided they wanted to go 9 across, which means you have a less wide seat. Only Japanese carriers went with the original 8 seat plan, which was ANA, who later changed to 9 across, and JAL who have kept it at 8 across.When BA received their 787-8's (They are 3 class, which means it doesn't have First Class) travelers complained about the narrower economy seats, but the 787-9's (4 Class ones) have a redesigned economy seat to give your bum more width. Quite a lot of people who know this, if flying economy actively avoid those aircraft.
Badgerboy said:
But how do you easily reconfigure the cabin? The crew rest area in Long haul will have beds, not something you can easily slap into the cabin without restricting access back and forth. Bit of an oversight in the design it seems.
if you moved the rear staircase forwards (or front staircase back) you could have an area you could seal off for free or open up for seats. Granted its more something to consider at build though, or perhaps a re fit.I guess I'm seeing many of the world's major airports with capacity problems and thinking it insane that the worlds biggest airliner is so out of vogue with the larger versions shelved, but as there's only a small number of viable routes for the beast, it can't alone solve that problem.
Rich Boy Spanner said:
alangla said:
Rich Boy Spanner said:
One of the main commercial issues with the A380 that stunts it sales is the poor cargo carrying capacity. The larger 'legacy' airlines make a lot of money from cargo/air freight. Long-haul aircraft need to maintain the ratio of crew to passengers, with the requirement for the crew rest area(s). In a 787 or 777 you can put in a crew rest area in the crown, above the passenger deck, or as in the case of the 747-400 over the toilet area at the back of the aircraft. In a 380 there is no space in the crown as it is a full upper deck. That only leaves either taking up a huge area of one of the decks (not practical) or using the previously used idea where Airbus use the cargo hold and use cargo containers converted into removable crew rest pods. It sounds awful but is actually very good. The problem is, that the A380 has such a large crew that the number of crew containers means a lot of space is used in the cargo hold, and thus a reduction in cargo carrying capacity. That's what prevented even large hub airlines either buying, or buying more than a few A380's.
The other problem I'd read with cargo on the A380 was that because of the large number of passengers, the sheer percentage of space underneath occupied by the passenger's suitcases, plus the aforementioned crew bunks, means there's very little space at all for cargo. The 777, on the other hand, can supposedly make as much money from what's under the floor as it does with what's above it. Suspect this is one of the reasons for the BA/Iberia 777s/A340s that go between Heathrow & Madrid - shifting freight from one company's hub to the other rather than people.telecat said:
How Long before passengers realise just how crap the 787 is in the most popular Cabin configuration. I would actively avoid it in the 3-3-3 configuration.
A350-900 is the same 3-3-3 but having been on them both (787-9) the Airbus wins it. Quieter, more comfortable, doesn't have the In-Seat Entertainment box nestled on the floor between your legs.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff