dddc

If the A380 is supposed to bring savings, will the pax see reduced fares as a result?

Most of my friends and family when they come to visit me here in the UK from Oz choose generally on whats available on the day they want to travel and price. The most recent one choose Air Brunie as it was AUD$700 cheaper than BA/QF. Plus it took him 32 hours from take off to last landing (MilkRun!)!! My best time was 19 hours when because of storms we were delayed taking off, so at Singapore I just left one flight and straight onto my connecting flight to Brisbane. Airborn with 30 mins of touchdown! Fantastic! :-:

Would you pay a premium for the time saving if there was a direct LHR-SYD flght?

Would it make a difference on what was on board? I thought SA's A340 was billed as all premium economy? I wouldn't want to be in Y if it is as crowded as it looks (only done BA Y to Europe, J to Oz). WT+ maybe. On board entertainment would certainly have to match the Asian carriers to keep pax amused over such a long flight. The promises of showers and gyms, as great as they sound, won't be taken up by any airline I believe. (Showers maybe for F and at a pinch J).

How would the meal service work? A 19 hour flight would need at least 3 full meal services, and not the snacks and all day delis masquarading as meals on long haul.

How would the staffing work? More crew and a split shift? They won't be able to force people to sleep for 19 hours, no mater how warm they make the cabin feel!!

spotwelder

The book figures for operating costs for the A380 are approximately 10-15% lower per pax mile when compared with the 747-400. Boeing are having a good look at a new version with lower operating costs.

Remember, BA has a lot of its fleet up for sale at the moment. They have far too many 747-400s and 777s and could lose about half a dozen of each without worrying.

BA always harps on about LHR capacity and then replaces the 757 with a 319.

A380 wake vortex has been designed to be "no worse" than the 747, therefore, the 4 nautical miles heavy-heavy arrival and 1 miute heavy-heavy take off separations apply.

The A380 is shorter than the A340-600 and easier to taxi.

The A380 slides reach further than the 747s and this can cause the odd airport design problem with bridges over taxiways (boy we had fun with that one at a certain airport. If you got out of the fire and down the shoot then fell down the cutting onto the dual carriageway, it was not your day)

The worst case scenario for airport design is the A380 tug as it rips hell out of the tarmac.

The ICAO book says it needs 60 metre wide runways which is rubbish (Annex 14 Code F) as it will be certified for 45 metre wide runway operations.

The extra weight of 4 tonnes translates into 4 tonnes less payload so fewer passengers (40 at 100 kg including bags) or 4 tonnes less fuel (say 300-400 km range) or 4 tonnes less cargo (at about US$1 a kilo, loss of US$ 4000).

It will be possible to board from multiple points but the airports have to get the infrastructure right. If BA still cannot get "congestion by the aircraft side" right even though they have been operating the 777 for years, who knows what cockups will occur.

The other infrastructure issues you may see are the stupid rules about taxiway to runway separations, holding point positions, wingtip clearances, jet blast.

Take off distances and landing distances are not a significant issue.

Just imagine the additional number of in-flight diversions you will get with all those extra heart attacks on board.

As for frequency, give me that over size for long haul. I want a midday departure for HKG so I can party all night with JenBel and then stagger onto the aircraft and sleep it off for 12 hours to wake up in the morning refreshed.

As for the Japanese with their compliant baggage, try a Nigeria flight. The worst I know of was 270 kg of baggage.

What about launch customer for the Trident etc...

SchmeckFlyer

Isn't the lost cargo the worst issue for the airlines, cargo being so lucrative these days?

I was just at AMS panorama terrace watching a KLM 747 arrive at the F pier, where all the gates have two boarding points/bridges... one traditional for the front and another that hangs over the wing and serves economy. From the time the 747 landed on the runway nearby to the time both bridges were in place with pax disembarking was only 12 minutes. Seems like an efficient operation. (If only the Polderbaan was not always allocated my BA flights )

Here are some photos:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...TAy&static=yes
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...jkw&static=yes (best one)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...dg=&static=yes

SFO was the two-bridge design, but I think the AMS design is more efficient and looks more flexible. Certainly the huge reach of the "second bridge" of the AMS gates seem able to reach very far and can go quite high as well (presumably high enough to reach the upper deck of an A380).

At LHR T4 at fast bag drop... Nigerian family trying to check in (for nothing of course) 35kg of bananas... bananas... what on Earth do they need to drag so many bananas all the way to Africa, where they have more bananas than they can eat. They failed to understand why there was a problem... there danggling gold Rolex's did not create much sympathy. I finally became upset having to wait for 20 minutes at the "fast" bag drop and started to have some words with the Nigerians...

MAN Flyer

SQ will be the first airline to operate the A380.

notsosmart

Thanks for that correction. So long Megatop, I guess?

MAN Flyer

They have been phasing out the 744's for a while now and are down to under 30 now I believe. More will go when the 773ER's start arriving as SQ (despite owning 49% of them) are going the opposite of VS and prefer 2 engines over 4, purely down to the economics.

Speaking to the IFS on SIN-EWR recently, they don't seem to be overly impressed with the A345's performance and I think that may well get replaced by the 772LR when it becomes available. Again preferring the economics of 2 engines against 4.

Andrius

Call me stupid, but is there are significant difference of operating cost of 2 engines vs 4 engines - per seat per mile or per ton per mile or by any other economic measurement?

YVR Cockroach

I would say Japanese passenger appear to be better coordinated and get to their seats, stow their luggage and be seated in a much faster and orderly manner than pax in other countries.

Andrius

Yes. There is a very fair deal there, I think: rules are treated literally by everyone. Passengers take rules stated on their ticket and other regulations literally (including cabin luggage limitations and which row is boarding now), and in exchange airlines and train companies treat their schedules literally. If it says the gate will open at 10:20 it will open at 10:20 sharp. The gate girlies take a deep bow and proceed with the boarding.

I have flown a lot in Japan, and I am yet to see the frantic "idiots' ballet" where three ground staff at the gate run around like headless chickens with their Motorola walkie-talkies and expression of purpose on their faces.

Oh, and if there are four ticket windows at a railway station in a mountain resort of Nagano on Sunday morning, they all will be open. And at Haneda airport everyone on duty on time at ANA and JAL desks, not like flipping BA check-in at Gatwick North where shift time start of 0800 usually means that people will start arriving at 0810 and then start rummaging through their handbags and getting comfortable with no particular rush, and then half of the computers of course don't work or they cannot get them started up or whatever, and at about 0840 they actually start checking people in.

Also, the traditional warrior qualities and discipline of the Japanese help them to actually use their brain when locating their seats on a plane (e.g., they are familiar with the idea that row 20 usually follows row 21, seats letters follow each other alphabetically, and when you have about 50 people behind your back trying to get to their seats, it is perhaps not the best time to start rearranging the entire contents of your briefcase placed in overhead compartmenty with your a**e blocking the way).

paulusst

Ugly it is, beyond belief and that follows a recent trend in Airbus designs. The 340/600 isnt much better, with all its length its looks like a overambitioned plastic surgery on a male porn star ...

BUT, if design (which is more than just looks, if it looks right it will work right, esp. true with aerodynamics) ever was a factor of the reason for BA to operate an aircraft or not, they wouldnt have retired Concorde in the first place *sob* ....

Buster CT1K

The only aesthetically pleasing Airbus aricraft are the A320 series aircraft.

A300 might be OK too, and the A340 might grow on you if you fly LH in F as much as I have, but the A380 sure looks like a beast.

I totally agree that the 747 classic and 747 EUD designs are extraordinarily beautiful... with the 747-100/200s getting slightly higher marks.

CharlesMD

Winter housecleaning!

Jenbel

Yeah, but balance that against the 777! Its hideous. Personally, I like the 340 as well, and the 318 is actually quite sweet. 757's have got cute faces.

And I really can't wait to see a 380 on the ground - I think its going to have a really large "wow" factor - the 777 was frankly a disappointment, as everyone went on about how big it was, when it isn't really. Can't wait to see it at Farnborough in two years time (assuming it comes!) in display with a 318

spotwelder

The operating cost debate is rather difficult to sum up in 2, 3 or 4 engines. For example, the 777 usually cruises faster than a 340 so it gets there faster but it has more drag at higher speed so it might burn more, if they were equally efficient in design. Then there is time to climb which depends on wing design and efficient climb power. Then there is fuel lift capability which depends on runway length, atmospheric conditions and excess take-off power for the engine failure case as well as wing volume.

Then you have the cruise flight level. Does the aircraft need to do lots of step climbs as it burns off fuel, like a 747, or can it get straight to the best levels. Then there are the headwinds, if your aircraft route goes into them then the faster aircraft may win.

There are thousands of calculations to do to work out these values for particular city pairs at all times of the year and then dynamic updating throught the flight management system on the actual day.

So 2 large engines against 4 smaller ones is not so simple. If you run out of fuel, ingest volcanic ash or get a load of birds then it simply does not matter. Descent is inevitable as the aircraft cannot reach escape velocity.

SchmeckFlyer

Oh, yes, it will definately produce a very large "wow" factor when finally introduced to the flying public. Adult frequent flyers will be glued to the airport windows, rather than their laptops.

But...

The "wow" will be more of a "wow, that airplane is enormous, but it is so ugly... and fat! Oh my, it is going to fit between the gates? Thank goodness my signifigant other does not have such a figure, or we'd have problems fitting into our seats, even J."

On the other hand, the "wow" factor for the 747 has always been, "wow, that airplane is enormous, and look how beautiful it is. Look how it glides effortlessly like a swan to the gate. Sigh... if only my wife had legs as long and slender as those wings. / Sigh... if only my husband had that muscular and trim a torso."