flatlander

I do agree about the noise and dryness of the 777 - especially the noise!

I don't quite see how the A380 CW cabin is less cavernous or "dorm-like" than the 777 CW cabin. Are you all pining for your exclusive 747 upper deck cabin to be present on all fleets?

fruitcage

Lower cabin pressure, surely?

Waterhorse

Swanhunter

skywardhunter

Actually higher cabin altitude due to lower differential pressure and lower cabin pressure (on the 777). Not that significant though, I think the 77W cruises with a cabin alt of around 8000ft, the A380 around 6000ft. The 747 is in fact the best at around 5400ft. None are that critically high. Below 10,000ft prolonged exposure doesn't cause any symptoms in most humans.

airsurfer

Maybe when the engines are upgraded by more fuel efficient ones ?
I think the greatest design flaw of the 380 are the four engine instead of two. The A340 also has a short production period.
A 380-sized double decker plane with two engines should be technically feasible, the engines should only be slightly larger and more powerful as the 777W. But the frame is also larger.

skywardhunter

I don't think it's feasible, because even though the same total output could be achieved, an engine failure would massively reduce available thrust, and cause very assymetric thrust. On the A380 an engine failure reduced thrust available by 25%, and even though two engines can ail, chances are it's not on the same side. I suppose it could be possible but technically very challenging. the 777 engines are massive, and would have to probably be another 30-40% more powerful to power an A380 at MTOW

flatlander

The A330 and A340 is not exactly comparable to the A380.

The A340 series does have four engines and it was not purchased much as initially anticipated by Airbus but they had a plan. They had the twin engine and four engine versions of the same basic design so they could offer either two or four engines depending on customer needs. When ETOPS became much more widely acceptable for long oceanic routes the four engines were largely superfluous but that wasn't a big problem for Airbus. The A330, with much of the same cabin, controls, and even a fairly similar wing design, could meet customer needs - and continues to be a successful aircraft with strong sales today (NEO version).

The A380 is unique in its category, there is no twinjet option that is equivalent. So the question here is not how many engines, but what size of aircraft - a very different question. The answer has turned out to be "medium size" rather than "extra large" for most operators.

The A380 design work only contributed to the A380. The A350 is an entire new design on its own. So the costs sunk into the A380 that can only be recouped by A380 sales is much higher than for A340 design costs which are largely being recouped by A330 sales today, no A340 sales required to recoup the cost.

bpe

The only reason the 717 suddenly became 'in demand' is because Delta bought a whole lot of used ones, because they were cheap and not in demand. The 717 and MD-90 were not that popular at their list prices, but they have held up well over time and for the right price, will sell.

The A380 might have a secondary market for used aircraft (when sold at an appropriate price, for a fraction of the cost of a new one), but it is much more specialized and how easy/cheap they are to maintain in the long run is still unknown.

1010101

SQ avoided cannibalising their mainline operations by having Scoot, Tiger and Silkair and getting them performing. By contrast CX have taken the same model and somehow managed to create their own competition with KA.

scubaccr

4 Engine A380 is too costly since the new 2 Engine widebodies 777/787 came on the scene. Plus the noise+landing costs at say LHR, means 2x 787 landing is no more than 1x A380, A380 can not compete on either cost per passenger per mile or greater max flying range, unlike the B747 when it first came out.
Even 747 is on last legs, I think BA is biggest remaining 747 user ? Only possible because of use on premium earning UK-USA routes like LHR-JFK overcomes the higher cost per passenger mile

The things going for the lovely A380 (I will be so sad to see it go) I think of initially are the scenarios where
i)limited airport landing/takeoff slots (eg LHR), so larger capacity planes are needed
ii)fetching outlying passengers to airlines hub... The ME3 airlines plan, but again home location needs to be in middle of tons of routes
iii)passengers numbers per day work out as 1x Full A380, or 2x 70% loaded 777/787 , so financially cany load two flights/day so stick with A380, or cut capacity per day

lost_in_translation

The other positive point I'd make about the A380 is that it has helped to keep F alive as a travel class! Every version of the A380 (apart from EK's somewhat rarer 2-class version) has F class because the economics of the plane allow it. When the A380's gone there'll be a lot less F left in the skies.

1010101

The A380 on 3 engines can produce ~230,000 lbs of thrust. On 2 engines it's 150,000lbs and will still get airborne if the right conditions are met.

Given the GE90 on the 77W is a technological marvel and the most powerful jet ever built, yet still 'only' manages 115,000lbs, we're some way off a twin engine A380.

daftboy

This is the interesting point I think - I'd echo Swanhunter above that it feels like there might be legs in A380s shuttling around some of the more congested intra-Asian routes (in addition to being suited to scenarios like LHR congestion and ME3 business model), but I'm sure much of that will depend on whether it just becomes uneconomic to run the A380 as an older model (e.g. if parts, technical skills become too rare and expensive etc)

[Disclaimer, I know very little about the mechanics or economics of aircraft operation! ]

airsurfer

In terms of passenger count, the A380 is not far off a 77W, so I still think, upscaling a 77W in size might allow running an A380 sized aircraft on two engines. The 777-X to be released in 2020-'21 comes rather cose. Particularly when using even more composite wing and fuselage materials like the 787 and 350 have (which makes them more efficient than a 380).

For comparison: a bus carrying say, 40 passengers still has one engine and not more, it is just larger than an automobile engine carrying 5 passengers.