

Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'? - giles
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32384435

======
jpatokal
There are two major future super-jumbo markets not mentioned here, and they're
whoppers: core domestic routes in China and India, eg.
Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/Hong Kong and
Delhi/Mumbai/Chennai/Hyderabad/Kolkata. The distances are too long to be
covered by any form of terrestrial transport, even bullet train (there's
already one for BJ-SH, but it takes five hours), and as both countries get
richer, demand will grow exponentially. China's airports are huge, but badly
hampered by military ATC restrictions, while India's byzantine permitting
process means eg. Mumbai's airport isn't going to expand any time soon (and
I'm not holding my breath for the construction of Navi Mumbai), which means
the only way to increase capacity is larger planes. And indeed, China Southern
is already flying A380s domestically.

[http://www.ausbt.com.au/the-world-s-shortest-
airbus-a380-fli...](http://www.ausbt.com.au/the-world-s-shortest-
airbus-a380-flights-starting-at-two-hours)

~~~
vinay427
Is there a reason Bangalore is not included there? It's the most populous city
in the south and is growing rapidly.

~~~
jpatokal
No, that should be in the list as well. As should a large number of obscure-
outside-China-but-huge Chinese cities like Chongqing, Chengdu, Wuhan, etc.

------
billforsternz
A weird thing to watch is three separate Auckland (New Zealand) to Dubai
Emirates A380 flights depart 15 minutes apart, every day. Why such huge
capacity on this obscure transcontinental route ? These three flights are
really Sydney-Dubai, Melbourne-Dubai and Brisbane-Dubai. I heard from someone
that the airport fees mean it is cheaper for Emirates to park three A380s in
Auckland for most of the day than the Australian airports.

For as long as this arrangement lasts, it means that these amazing planes are
serving the trans-Tasman (NZ-Aus) route every day. Believe me, there is no
comparison at all in flying comfort between an Emirates A380 and any kind of
737/A320 (especially given that the A380s are less than half full).

~~~
sfrechtling
You have to keep in mind that to get to Europe, any Australasian has to stop
over at least once. Dubai is the most convenient; so really this route is
Australasia to Europe.

~~~
billforsternz
Well, yes. Dubai is the Emirates hub. Europe-Australasia is one reason Dubai
makes sense as a hub location. In fact one of the (few) redeeming features of
travelling to Europe from Australasia is the large number of countries that
are about half way, meaning a lot of airline/stopover options.

------
shawkinaw
Curious that the article didn't mention the 787, which is what Boeing bet on
rather than an even bigger plane like the A380. Seems like that was a good
move.

~~~
jballanc
What the article really missed on mentioning is ETOPS (which is part of the
success story of the 787). If you look at the total distance, there are _very_
few routes that can only be serviced by a 747 or A380. Historically, though,
many more routes were services by these 4-engine behemoths because of ETOPS
rules
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS)).

In a nutshell, ETOPS says how far away a twin-engine plane can be from an
airport at any time (for emergency landing purposes). Historically, ETOPS
limited twin-engine planes to being within 120 minutes flight time of an
airport. More recently, due to experience and engineering improvements, ETOPS
regulations now allow many twin-engine planes to be up to 240 minutes from an
airport.

For the 787, Boeing is even targeting 330 minute ETOPS. Once they achieve
that, there will essentially be no routes outside the range of a 787, leaving
passenger capacity as the _only_ reason to consider a super-jumbo. Given fuel
costs, and improved route planning, there just isn't enough financial
incentive to run a super-jumbo when a modern twin-engine wide-body with
ETOPS240 or ETOPS330 will do.

 _Edit_ : As a side note, ETOPS improvements are also why all the good ol'
3-engine birds (727, L-1011, DC-10, MD-11) have been put to pasture.

~~~
ubernostrum
Another important thing to note is that the A380 has, relative to its size,
_terrible_ cargo capacity, and using extra hold space to carry cargo in
addition to a load of passengers has historically been a lucrative side
business for passenger airlines. There are also doubts about whether it would
even be possible, structurally, to do a freighter conversion of an A380,
meaning that one of the traditional easy ways to squeeze that last bit of
money out of a plane (by selling it off to a cargo airline when you no longer
want the plane for passenger service) probably isn't an option with the A380.
Meanwhile those 3-engine MD-11s and DC-10s are still up in the sky, having
undergone freighter conversions to fly for FedEx and DHL and other cargo
carriers.

That's also the reason why the 747-8F is the better-selling variant: cargo
airlines love the 747 freighters (and from the beginning, the 747 was designed
for this, in anticipation of them being retired out of passenger service and
replaced by supersonic airliners that never really materialized), even if the
passenger versions are no longer a good fit for the market.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
A freighter version of the A380 was planned right from the start, and some
orders were taken. So it's certainly possible.

But that doesn't mean it would be economic.

For various reasons - not least fulfilment delays because of manufacturing
issues - the A380F hasn't been prototyped yet, and probably never will be.

~~~
ubernostrum
A freighter-from-the-beginning variant could be possible. But knowledgeable
people I've heard from say that taking a passenger A380 and doing a freighter
conversion is probably either not possible due to the internal structure of
the plane, or if possible would end up costing more than the resulting plane
would be worth.

------
bpodgursky
Maybe I'm not the usual passenger, but I realized recently that it's been many
years since I've been on a plane larger than a 737 -- and I fly at least once
a month. Most of my flights are to/from reasonable sized but not megacities
(SF, St Louis, Kansas City, Nashville, Charleston, Phoenix, etc), and since I
try for direct flights, I almost always end up on Embraer 145 or 175 or
similar small planes.

I think at long as gas prices aren't too high, far more passengers are going
to pay a small premium for direct flights on smaller economy planes, and stay
away from the 380s and 747s. I couldn't care less if I'm on a fancy plane with
a video screen etc -- having to make a connection is 100x worse.

~~~
tsotha
>I think at long as gas prices aren't too high, far more passengers are going
to pay a small premium for direct flights on smaller economy planes, and stay
away from the 380s and 747s.

As an airline you don't get a superjumbo to save fuel or provide more
amenities. You get one because you have only so many landing slots in a
particular airport and the only way to increase passenger volume is to
increase the number of passengers per landing.

~~~
Animats
_" As an airline you don't get a superjumbo to save fuel or provide more
amenities."_

See Etihad Airways' A380.[1] "Only half the cost of a private jet".

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr0MsAoeLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr0MsAoeLw)

------
drpgq
"Air travel is set to more than double from today's 3.3 billion passengers a
year to 7.3 billion by 2034, says the International Air Transport Association"

Even with more efficient planes, that's a lot of greenhouse gas emissions.

~~~
guard-of-terra
You can easily take your part off by not flying and not owning a car.

~~~
gaius
No no no, _other people_ should stop flying. It's important that all those
Green lobbyists and politicians get to their many, many international
conferences!

------
pmontra
"We fill our aeroplanes because of the way we design the interiors, the amount
of money we spend on the brand, and [in] getting the job done."

Is this really how people pick an airline? I type in my destination in a web
site, sort the options by price, discard the ones with too many or too
inconvenient connections, pick the cheaper. The airline is not so important.
The plane definitely not, given that on intercontinental routes they are more
or less the same and some companies are geographically placed on optimal
locations: going from Europe to Australia with one or two stops in a single
day basically means flying through the Emirates.

~~~
phillc73
Sometimes this is how I choose an airline.

Next week I'm flying Vienna to Sydney. There are only a few one stop options.
I wasn't prepared to consider two stops. e.g. Vienna - London - Bangkok -
Sydney. This limited my choices somewhat, as only a few airlines fly from
Vienna to Sydney, one stop.

Having flown Emirates previously, I thought they provided very good service,
the meals were better than average, the in flight entertainment provided a
good selection, the seats comfortable etc etc. The stopover time in Dubai is
less than three hours. And I know Dubai airport provides complimentary baby
strollers, which is a nice touch when traveling with a small child.

I could have flown cheaper, but was happy to pay an extra EUR300 total cost
(two adults, one infant) to fly with an airline I'm hoping will provide better
than average service.

For short haul, I don't even choose the cheapest option all the time, as I'd
rather pay an extra EUR100 to not have to deal with the crap of Ryanair.

For long haul, it's definitely worth paying a little extra for a premium
airline.

------
guard-of-terra
They surely have their niche - Europe to East Asia, USA to UAE.

I think they'll survive.

~~~
dogma1138
That only works if you actually have the ability to fill the aircraft, smaller
WB/UWB aircraft are cheaper to maintain, require less crew (even per
passenger), consume less fuel and are much less restrictive in terms of
airports in which they can land and be serviced.

People don't count the fact that one of the reasons why smaller jets are more
successful these days is that airports became much better at air traffic
control, planes land and take off much faster on average than even few decades
ago, combine it with more airports being built or expanded into multi-runway
airports and you got much more landing/takeoff slots than before.

Big planes take quite a bit of space in the airport, they need special taxi
considerations, and special terminals (especially the A380 with it's full
double deck design), all of which comes with a premium in airport taxes when
operating such aircraft. It would not surprise me if landing a single A380
costs more than double what landing a A330/787/777 costs these days.

And since It's not only cheaper to fly more smaller planes to the same
destination, but also more commercially appealing to customers I highly doubt
that companies will continue to run big ass planes for much longer, yes the
A380 won't go away, neither will the 747-800 but i really doubt they'll get
much more beyond the original orders, and even most of those I'll suspect will
be converted into cargo within the next 10-15 years.

I flew on the A380 and the 787-800 to HK (Lufthansa and BA), and on a 777/787
on the same route, and I have to say the smaller aircraft are much nicer to
fly on, fewer people, quieter, you get more personal service from the staff,
bathrooms don't look (nor smell) like a porta potti at a Kiss reunion concert
after the first 3-4 hours of the flight.

~~~
geoelectric
OTOH, I took the A380 from SF to France last year and thought it was the
quietest, most comfortable plane I'd been on.

Hopefully the same tech advances that hit that plane hit the smaller ones too.
That was the first flight where my noise canceling headphones actually seemed
somewhat superfluous.

~~~
dogma1138
Well add drunken British tourists flying to Sidney via HK and the less you
have of them the better :)

All new aircraft has quite quiet engines overall (and i use active noise
canceling headphones anyhow), that said having half the people onboard helps
it quite a bit, If you fly 1st class i don't think it would matter, and the
380 has probably the best 1st class offerings out there but for anything below
that i rather have less people around me :)

------
gaius
This is a pure PR piece for Boeing which lost the jumbo wars. The only
question is why the BBC is running it.

