[HN Gopher] Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the Califo... ___________________________________________________________________ Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert Author : williamsmj Score : 118 points Date : 2023-04-19 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.smh.com.au) (TXT) w3m dump (www.smh.com.au) | et-al wrote: | I'm pretty sure the Mojave storage field is where it is because | of its proximity to Edwards AFB and Bakersfield, but climate and | land cost-wise, would there be a milder, yet dry, location to | store aircraft outdoors in the States? | aaron695 wrote: | [dead] | [deleted] | tonywastaken wrote: | Lufthansa is bringing A380s back as well | 0xDEF wrote: | Probably the cheapest way to fill the highly busy Germany- | Thailand air routes during the German summer vacation weeks. | WalterBright wrote: | > striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon | neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has | invested heavily in kick-starting Australia's sustainable | aviation fuel industry. | | This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent | people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a | C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions. | | The CO2 emitted is exactly the same, and in the same amounts. | | Biofuels are destructive in that they cost double, and if done in | mass quantity will require an enormous amount of agricultural | land to produce. | progman32 wrote: | The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the | atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2 | that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being | burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the | atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point? | | [1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio- | aviati... | neonate wrote: | https://archive.ph/Y2lHm | hristov wrote: | I like the a380 because it treats the lowly economy passenger | (i.e., me) the best of all the large planes. It has the most | headroom (even though it has two stories) so the cabin feels more | airy and less cramped. So this is good news. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | I love the A380 but the 787 is pretty cozy on the headroom too. | Seems very dependent on the selection of baggage bins the | airline makes. | diebeforei485 wrote: | It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they | launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was | done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and | extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched | just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for | passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, | even in turbulence. | | Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it cross- | subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed with the | A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and it made all | segments more competitive. | | It's unfortunate that the largest aircraft are going out at the | time when demand for flying is higher than ever. On the upside, | the A350 has many of the A380's technologies, and is a great | competitor to the 777 series (and is also a very good competitor | to the 787 series!) | bastian wrote: | A great video can be found here: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TSQdISWlkI | bobthepanda wrote: | The 747 also had incredible product market fit, if only | accidentally. They were all designed to be freight compatible, | because the 747 was meant to be a stopgap before supersonics | dominated the skies. Most 747s have happy second lives as | freight workhorses. | | The A380 is too heavy to get off the ground with freight packed | to the gills. | rconti wrote: | Source for the "they launched the shortened version"? I've | never heard that before. Interesting. | S201 wrote: | It's not so much as there is a "longer version" designed and | sitting around, but more that the wings were built with a | potential future, longer fuselage variant in mind. This is | more evident if you look at a top-down view of it and note | that the wing-to-fuselage ratio is higher than that of other | planes, similar to how the 747-SP looks much shorter in | length than its wings should be designed for. There's more | details on the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.or | g/wiki/Airbus_A380#Variants_proposed_... | rob74 wrote: | Or, to quote the Wikipedia article directly: | | > _The A380 's wings are sized for a maximum takeoff weight | (MTOW) over 650 tonnes to accommodate these [larger] future | versions, albeit with some internal strengthening required | on the A380F freighter. The optimal wingspan for this | weight is about 90 m (300 ft), but airport restrictions | have limited it to less than 80 m (260 ft), thereby | lowering the aspect ratio to 7.8 which reduces fuel | efficiency by about 10% and increases operating costs a few | percent, given that fuel costs constitute about 50% of the | cost of long-haul aeroplane operation._ | InTheArena wrote: | The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by | being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like | Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued | that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision | was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the | market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city | pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now, the three | busiest airports in the world are ATL, DFW and DEN. None of | which was ever a target market for the A380. Airbus walked away | from what made them successful to go after the "we are the | biggest" crown... | hinata08 wrote: | I wonder about statistics for hub vs pairs | | Airlines line Turkish seem to do well, with their shinny new | super hub in Istanbul. | | There can only be so much pair to pair flight, so we will | always have some hub airlines. | | I took Nice to Manila last year. Friends of mines flew from | random town in France to Abu Dhabi, through Istanbul. On my | flight to Istanbul, I talked to passengers going to a random | town in Egypt for diving & friends holiday. | | And I also saw students (or at least young ppl) going to | Japan on my flight. A stopover probably made the flight more | fuel economic, hence cheaper, which is great for a lot of | flyers. | | I was also glad to stop midflight to wait at the warm water | fountain with Chinese ppl (who were wondering why a gringo | was having a warm glass of water), to stretch my legs, and to | change and everything. More than 10 hours of a single flight | is unbearable. | | I have no doubt that city pairs flights are hotter atm, and | you will always have flights between your home city and | trendy destinations like the famous Montreal or the infamous | USA from now on. | | But for all of these reasons and more, I don't believe hub | airlines are doomed. | majormajor wrote: | I don't know about Denver but ATL and DFW have been extremely | busy airports for at least a couple of decades, so I'm not | sure why it wouldn't have been taken into account. | | And if neither of those airports is a "mega hub" than I don't | think LAX is either. They have the gate count, the passenger | count, and the Delta/American hubs. | version_five wrote: | I'm not convinced that those airports being busiest is | relevant here. Presumably most of the volume is domestic | traffic, which was never going to be the A380s wheelhouse | anyway. | | Or maybe that's what you mean, and that Airbus has lost | domestic US carrier sales by focusing on the A380? But | they've presumably won long haul international sales- | Emirates, Singpaore, etc | noahtallen wrote: | > Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go | after the "we are the biggest" crown... | | But they have direct competitors for these types of routes | too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are | as good as Boeing's options! (And even some which Boeing | doesn't have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like | Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts | shipping the 777X and working on a new single-aisle plane. | InTheArena wrote: | The A380 decision was two decades ago now. The A350 was a | result of Boeing wiping out the A340 and the first | iteration of the A350. Airbus is in a good potion now that | they did in fact go back to what made them successful. Mid | range single deck two engine airframes. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > which Boeing doesn't have, like the A220 | | What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project. | | Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while | Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for | NAFTA. | ramesh31 wrote: | >Boeing's 747 was incredibly profitable at the time, so it | cross-subsidized other aircraft like the 737 (which competed | with the A320). Launching the A380 countered that effect, and | it made all segments more competitive. | | It all comes down to fuel prices. Lamenting for the age of the | 747 is the same as missing those boat size finned Cadillacs. It | was another era. The ETOPS ratings of modern engines and fuel | efficiency of high bypass designs means we will never see a | four engined passenger liner ever again. | | The A380 itself was outdated by the time it flew its first | passengers, as the 787 was in its final stages of testing at | the time. They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads, | and possibly long haul first class configurations, but the | economics are simply not there for mainline passenger use. | buildsjets wrote: | "They will live on as cargo planes for outsized loads" | | For outsized loads, you need an articulated nose or tail, | like a cargo 747, a C-17, C5, A400M, AN124, etc. It is | generally economically unfeasible to modify an aircraft to | add this kind of feature, although it has been done on a | limited basis for specific missions, for example the Boeing | 747 Large Cargo Freighter with an articulated tail, or the | super guppies, or Airbus Beluga. Note that those | modifications were all purpose built for a specific task, not | general purpose cargo aircraft. | | The A380 does not have a side cargo door, reinforced | floorbeams, or a cabin fire extinguisher system, so currently | it cannot even take on palletized freight, much less outsized | loads. It is not uncommon for aftermarket companies to modify | retired passenger aircraft to add reinforced floorbeams, a | side cargo door, etc, so this could happen, if some company | decides that it is a profitable mod. IAI is doing this with | older 777s right now. https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft- | propulsion/iai-open-bo... | ggm wrote: | The 380 will not be a significant player in freight for a | very long time. It can't operate the same services a 747 | freight unit can, door loading efficiencies. The drivers | cabin is up top in a 747 so you have clear run into the main | loading bay. the 380 can't do that because the bus driver | sits in a half-level in front of both upper and lower floors | so there's only side-door loading. | | Yes. We all saw 380's loaded to the gunnels with PPE during | covid. No, that doesn't mean they are all going to wind up | doing freight. What I read suggests it will carry less, or | only very close to a 747 in most cases. | | It's working fine in long haul passenger roles and will | continue to work well for state funded airlines like | Singapore and Emirates as well as ANZ and Qantas and China | Southern (they've pulled out now). BA and other European | carriers are a bit half-pregnant on it. Singapore and | Emirates alone probably have 1/2 of the entire fleet | worldwide. QANTAS has 10, maybe options on 2 more. Its fleet | looks to be moving all airbus with the recent purchases, | Jetstar run the 787. | | At one point Emirates flew their mostly empty 380s from | Brisbane to Auckland to park: it was cheaper considering all | the economics, and the opportunistic passenger load you can | pick up there, than parking in Brisbane. I am sure it wasn't | literally "parking fees" but I flew that segment a few times | and it was less than 20% load both ways. | | The lack of US market isn't impacting it's viability in other | segments. Shutting down the line was a mistake in my opinion, | but I'm not an economist. That said, the other lines (350, | &c) are running fine. | | The a350 is a better craft than the b777 for passengers. | Engine noise and seat economics. I've done 7+ international | (AU to USA and Europe) flights a year for the last 20 years | and so as a passenger I think I can compare aircraft | experience. I am told in engine burn its better too but the | differences here would go to TCO and I can't comment, I don't | run an airline. If you have to do the operations research on | buy new, lease new, buy old, lease old, outsource, insource, | end-of-life retained value, flight profiles, load, its all | complicated. | | It's too easy to claim "this aircraft is better" when you're | an armchair planner. | | All major aircraft are state subsidised in development no | matter how hard Boeing or Airbus try to mask it. | tinglymintyfrsh wrote: | It is. They're just difficult because their wingspan is too | damn big to fit in most airports. If they had retractable | folding legs like us sardine passengers in economy class, | they'd fit like a champ. | WalterBright wrote: | Seattle built a new terminal to accommodate the big jets for | $1 billion. After completion, they discovered the jets won't | fit. | | https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- | aerospace/sea-t... | aziaziazi wrote: | > demand for flying is higher than ever | | Is it ? Trafic is close to prependemic but still below. | | > The industry is now just about 15% below 2019 levels of | demand [0] | | [0]https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2023-releases/2023-04-04-0 | ... | badcppdev wrote: | You can tell demand is high because ticket prices are very | high. | | Airlines have opted and are opting to fly fewer planes with | higher ticket prices. It's a price over volume optimisation | that seems to be in fashion in many industry segments. [0] | | I will note that some airlines have been affected very badly | by issues with rebuilding staffing in ancillary services like | luggage and airport security. That uncertainty I think leads | to them being less ambitious with growth. | | 0 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/transc | rip... | aziaziazi wrote: | The causes you propose may be true but don't respond to | "higher than never". I'll add to your note the not-totaly- | solved risk of petroleum not being infinite and while the | industry is not freaking out, it has started to questioning | itself. | | I can buy "prices are very hight" but how would you measure | that ? Also did you took inflation into account in your | estimation ? Flight "recovery" is largely due to Asian | market booming, so prices may go up in the US while | decreasing in the biggest market share. | nerdbert wrote: | Ticket prices are high because demand in the front of the | plane is low. Economy class tickets have to go up a lot to | make up for empty first and business seats. | majormajor wrote: | I'm seeing higher coach prices on some routes that I know | well than I could get (domestic) first class for in | 2019... so that makes up for a LOT of empty first class | seats... | kylehotchkiss wrote: | Emirates, the largest owner of A380s, is asking for a bigger | one https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/emirates-boss-tim- | clark-o... | | Apparently the slot limitations at major city airports are | becoming a harder constraint to work with, especially as a | larger swatch of Asia gain the ability to travel long haul. | | Losing the A380 in 15-20 years is going to make flying between | big city pairs more expensive. | wahern wrote: | None of the engine manufacturers are interested. That's what | killed the A380--Rolls Royce pulled out of a re-engine deal | that would've brought A380 engines into the 21st century. | "Green" concept showcases notwithstanding, all the engine | manufactures seem to have decided to cut back on investment | and coast for awhile. Something will need to change to spur | competition in the engine space, and then we might see | hungrier competitors. But the shelving of the A380 supply | chain means there'll still be a steep hill to an A380 | derivative. | MichaelZuo wrote: | The latest and greatest engines are not that far from the | theoretical thermodynamic efficiency limit. So future | designs are running into the hard part of the asymptote. | | I doubt airlines are actually interested in committing tens | of billions of capital, today, to get a dozen % improvement | in fuel efficiency a decade from now. | | And why would a private investor take such a huge risk | without guarantees of making it back several fold? | | So it doesn't happen. | coredog64 wrote: | I'd be interested in a source for that. The 737 is an | unqualified success. IIRC, at the turn of the century, one out | of every three commercial flights was undertaken on a 737. (At | around the same time, another third would have been DC-9 and | derivatives) | | The 737 wasn't particularly expensive to design or build. It | shares a 41 section with the 707 and 727 for example. | rob74 wrote: | Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 | people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably | question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no | one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for | far too long, some would say). | reisse wrote: | 737 MAX MCAS issue pale in comparison to 737 classic rudder | issues (two crashes confirmed because of the issue, three | crashes suspected, and a few more cases where pilots were | able to overcome the plane). Yet it happened in the era | without social networks and Internet news, so few people | remember about it. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | >Yet it happened in the era without social networks and | Internet news, so few people remember about it. | | And the public's opinion of the air travel industry was | different so hand wringing over it wasn't so fashionable. | ThePowerOfFuet wrote: | The 737 Max has almost nothing to do with the 737. Don't | conflate the two. | buildsjets wrote: | The 737 MAX is certified on the same type certificate as | the 737 NG, 737 Classic, and 737 Jurassic. Structurally | and systematically, they are nearly identical. The only | major changes are new flight deck instrumentation, new | engines and engine installation, new wingtips, and a re- | lofted tailcone. | JustLurking2022 wrote: | And those engines played a significant role in the | problems. | rob74 wrote: | Do pilots need a different type rating to fly the 737 | Max? No? Then it's a bit strange to say that it has | nothing to do with the 737... | SgtBastard wrote: | IANAP, but a lot of the root cause analysis around the | 737 max crashes was that they _were_ sufficiently | different and so should have required re-certification of | pilots before being allowed to fly them. Due to the costs | involved, Boeing made the ultimately fatal mistake of | minimising these changes to airlines so that pilots | _didnt_ know what they were flying (insofar as some of | the subsystems). | tinglymintyfrsh wrote: | To be fair, the 737 NG fiasco that preceded it isn't well | known and it's unknowable how many excess deaths it caused | or will cause because there are planes flying around with | substandard structural components. | | https://christinenegroni.com/boeing-workers-warn- | of-737-ng-s... | 908B64B197 wrote: | The original 737s by Boeing were all-American masterpieces | that had pretty great safety records considering the sheer | number of miles flown and delivered airframes. | | The 737-MAX, courtesy of Post McDonnel Douglas-Boeing | merger [0], with code written by offshored 9$/h Indian | coders was a complete disaster. | | [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how- | boeing... | InTheArena wrote: | The 737 and 707 are the exemplar for airplanes. MCDs | reverse takeover of Boeing has been a disaster / but safety | wise even with the 737 Max debacle the 737 is the lane that | took the jet age from only the elites to everyone. | InTheArena wrote: | This was a bad misreading of Boeing's financial state - which I | think John Leahy eventually fessed up to. The 737 never needed | any subsidizing. It is, to this day the most popular delivered | jet plan (although the 320 now has more orders). If you count | by airframe, the 707 + 737 family still dominates. JL simply | never could understand why the A320 wasn't beating the 737 and | placed the blame for the A320 not selling better than the 737 | on mythical subsidies that Boeing was supposedly providing. The | real reason was Airlines stuck with the 737 instead of the A320 | because the price was competitive, they had trained pilots, | staff, and mechanics, and some people didn't want fly-by-wire | and CFRP. | | The 777 had already passed the 747 as the main breadwinner well | before the A380 took to the sky. Boeing had tried to launch two | different 747 stretches and both failed. Airbus with government | aid decided to launch the A380, even though there was | significant evidence that the A340 was getting crushed against | the 777. | Reason077 wrote: | Of course the A340 got crushed against the 777: it was a | fairly inefficient quad jet in an era that nobody wanted quad | jets anymore due to the relaxation of ETOPS rules. The twin | A330, however, sold very well and still sells well today | (A330neo), as does the larger A350. | diebeforei485 wrote: | The A340 was badly timed. ETOPS restrictions were loosened, | making the 777 the better product for the vast majority of | routes. | | The A340-500 in particular had great range and was used on | the longest nonstop routes for some time, but it was replaced | by the A380, 777-200LR, 787-9, and the A350-900. | devoutsalsa wrote: | Quad/Tri jets made great sense when twin engine planes were | limited by ETOPS regulations. [1] A 3+ engine jet could fly | routes that twin engine planes could not, which meant the 3+ | engine lower fuel economy wasn't a big deal. When twin engine | jets could fly across the large bodies of water on routes | previously served by quad/tri jets, the superior fuel economy | of twin engine planes became a competitive advantage. 747s, | a340s, and similar planes simply couldn't compete in routes | efficiently served by twin engine planes. The a380 is a great | plane for an airline like Emirates which primarily serves | Dubai because there is a lot of tourism demand for long haul | travel on a jet w/ huge passenger capacity. If you can keep | an a380 full, it's a great plane. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS | dsfyu404ed wrote: | >If you can keep an a380 full, it's a great plane. | | This goes for just about every largest of its kind piece of | commercial cargo moving equipment. | raulgalera wrote: | i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the | takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that | you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were | trying to get rid of it. | llsf wrote: | The landing surprised me too. Super soft compared to smaller | planes. | | I once landed in Johannesburg on a A380 Air France from Paris | and the airport was in thick fog. You could not even tell we | touched the ground. The captain made the announcement after | landing that it was his very first time letting the plane | land in itself... you could tell the excitement in his voice | :) | Scoundreller wrote: | > the takeoff is so long and smooth | | Is this another way of saying slow to accelerate? | rootusrootus wrote: | The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises | is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that | prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other | smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky | smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term | comfort that matters for most of the flight. | acchow wrote: | Is this how pilots are taught to operate it? Or how the | engines automatically operate when the pilot is throttling | "smoothly". | ak217 wrote: | The pilot is not flying the plane at cruise, the autopilot | is. | | The autopilot can definitely have an effect on how smooth | the flying feels, depending on how autothrottle and | altitude hold control loops are implemented. | Andys wrote: | Oh, I thought it was just me! All the Airbus planes have | horrible autopilots that gradually rise and fall, in a barely | noticeable way. I found myself feeling irritated and wished | the source code was opensource so I could have a look at it. | benjaminwootton wrote: | I can feel that glide too. You are flying along, then feel a | slight gliding fall, then a wobble. You always feel any | turbulence during the glides too. | | Sorry for the highly technical terms but I agree it is unique | to the A380. | | Apart from this they comfortable to travel and sleep on. | beavis000 wrote: | What are "glides"? | joncrane wrote: | The flying equivalent to a car coasting. | eternalban wrote: | I think it's the slight (unexpected and short duration) | change in altitude. That sensation of ground falling | under your feet, with a slight sense of suspension. As if | the craft is _sliding_ down. (Glide as in gliding down a | slope.) | herpderperator wrote: | I just got back from a road trip where I visited this boneyard | (among other things) in the Mojave Desert.[0][1][2] The | airport/planes are all fenced in, but you can still go up to the | fence and see them up close. Pretty wild to see so many planes in | one place. | | [0] | https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjkmpacv7yvpur5/PXL_20230411_00382... | | [1] | https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pgdlmn7z9ej0rc/PXL_20230411_00433... | | [2] | https://www.dropbox.com/s/f65qu80wlcb5wma/PXL_20230411_21410... | hencq wrote: | I had read about it as a kid and knew it existed, so it was a | delight when I drove by it a few years ago on my way to Mount | Whitney. "Hey, I know about this place!" | empressplay wrote: | Having escaped Australia during the middle of the pandemic, I'd | like to correct this article: Australia's only long-haul carrier | during the pandemic was United. | | Thanks United for getting me out of Australia! | madeofpalk wrote: | Qantas was operating repatriation flights back to Australia | during the pandemic on behalf of DFAT. | anthonyshort wrote: | I believe it was saying that Qantas was the only Australian- | owned airline operating long haul flights during the pandemic. | delsarto wrote: | They also make good tankers when your refuelers strike | https://australianaviation.com.au/2023/03/qantas-uses-a380-f... | madeofpalk wrote: | Note: Qantas resumed A380 flights in January 2022 after shelving | them due to the pandemic. | | I guess this article is about them _finishing_ bringing back the | last A380s | | https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-returns-flagship-... | wunderland wrote: | This is pretty clear from the article: | | " Qantas stored 12 of its A380s in Victorville. There are now | seven servicing the airline's London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong | routes, with another three expected to return next year | following the completion of an extensive maintenance check and | cabin reconfiguration process. The remaining two jumbos were | left in Victorville to be broken up into parts." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-19 23:00 UTC)