
A380 cancellations by Qantas raise new questions about the superjumbo's future - holografix
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/business/qantas-airbus-a380/index.html
======
Someone1234
I totally understand why big aircraft (A380, 747, etc) are disappearing
commercially but I will miss them. Flying in a larger aircraft makes one feel
less like cargo, in particularly for airlines that offer places to stretch
your legs (e.g. "bar" seating, showers, staircases, etc).

I was always kind of secretly hoping large blimps would return. And we'd get
to choose between 7 hours in a tiny metal tube with the seat-back of the
person in front resting on your knees, or 24 hours on a slow blimp with a bed,
the ability to walk around, and social areas. Kind of like a cruise ship in
the sky.

An A380 feels kind of like Concord in that it really touched the imagination.
I still hope to have a shower at 40,000 feet before they're retired
completely.

~~~
danepowell
I love the A380 as an aerospace enthusiast, but absolutely despise it as a
passenger. In my experience (with Lufthansa), the boarding process is chaotic
and takes forever, the seat pitch is minimal in economy, and never have I felt
more like cattle than when sharing the situation with 700 other passengers.

I'm curious how your experience as a passenger sounds so different from mine.

~~~
chrisper
For long hauls I'd _always_ recommend to upgrade to Premium Economy. It's not
quite first class, but it's much better than regular economy imho.

~~~
owenversteeg
Really? I've flown both Premium Economy and Economy (>10 flights each I
believe) for Delta, as well as both on a few other carriers, and I've never
noticed a difference that was worth more than $20 in my mind. (Most of these
were long-haul.) If it's free or very cheap, then sure, but it's such a small
benefit that I've been on flights where I didn't even notice I was in Premium
Economy until I stood up at the end of the flight.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
"Premium Economy" seems to be a Virgin Atlantic thing and is basically their
business class. It includes much larger seats, premium in-flight
entertainment, nicer toilets, and a much better food and drink selection. The
section on the aircraft I've flown on is also much smaller (50 seats?) and
curtained off from the unwashed masses.

Agreed that a lot of airlines off an "economy plus" which is basically
slightly faster boarding and slightly more legroom and that this isn't worth
paying the extra for.

~~~
peteretep
> "Premium Economy" seems to be a Virgin Atlantic thing and is basically their
> business class.

Neither of these statements is true.

------
code4tee
It’s an interesting aircraft and nice to fly in, but commercially it was the
wrong plane with the wrong technology at the wrong time.

Boeing got some flack at the time when they canceled their own superjumbo
plans but history now shows they were spot on shifting their focus to the 787
and getting a head start on the efficient midsize long range jet market.

~~~
macspoofing
>but commercially it was the wrong plane with the wrong technology at the
wrong time.

I think the consensus is that it is the right plane, right technology at the
wrong time (it missed the 747-era, and too early for a future when 4-engine
jumbo-jets may make a comeback).

~~~
code4tee
It was built with ‘old’ technology when it was designed. For example aluminum
when new designers were using composites.

Airbus bet on a bigger airplane built with traditional techniques while Boeing
bet on a smaller airplane made with new techniques.

~~~
Xixi
That's not completely true: the A380 is using composite extensively, more so
than any aircraft built before (A330/340 or Boeing 777), although less than
either Boeing 787 or A350. The problem of the A380 really boils down to one
thing: it's too big.

Other than its size, the A380 is still surprisingly efficient despite engines
that are largely outdated (compared to 787/A350 engines). But double deckers
are very efficient by design, so maybe it's not that surprising. I think the
only airliners more efficient currently flying (in terms of fuel per
passenger, with normalized density/layout) are the A350-1000 and 787-10
(though one could argue the latter is more of a mid-range aircraft, so not
directly comparable). The 777-9 will also beat it. Even more surprising when
realizing that the A380 is in fact a shrink: there was supposed to be an even
bigger (longer) version, so it's overbuilt (read: overweight) for its size.

But empty seats (or seats sold at very high discount, or a low seat count
because the airline knows it's not going to sell that many tickets to begin
with) don't make it economically viable on most routes out there. Besides
Emirates only British Airways seems very happy with them. Even the 777-9 is
starting to feel like it's too big, with very few airlines ordering it. Even
the smaller A350-1000 is not raking in orders...

------
woadwarrior01
I got upgraded from business class to first class on an Emirates A380 flight
from Dubai to London a couple of years ago. Showering mid-flight was an
experience I'd never forget! Especially, the gauge in the shower which goes
down while the water's running (Lasted about 8 minutes, IIRC) :)

~~~
FabHK
There is (was?) a A380 flight with Emirates from Dubai via Bangkok to Hong
Kong, and back, and you could buy tix for that last segment BKK–HKG for about
200 USD, or 300 USD business, or 400 USD first.

Cheapest way to get a shower at 35k feet (without miles wizardry), I’d think!
(And who doesn’t want to shower on a 2 hour flight... :-)

~~~
mikejb
If you buy a First-class ticket, don't just enjoy the parts of the flight
itself, but also the optimizations around it. With my first-class flight from
Dubai to Munich it was impressively efficient:

I got picked up at my Hotel in Dubai, in a car with WiFi where I could have
worked, until the Driver dropped me at the first-class gate. No queues,
friendly staff, dropped my luggage and went through security within 5 minutes
of leaving the car. Went straight to the lounge, where I got drinks and could
have worked some more, until I got picked up for boarding. First class is the
last to board, to minimize waiting time in the airplane. Same idea goes on
arrival: First class leaves first. I got straight to passport control before
the 500 people from the lower deck were able to form a queue there. When I was
done, my luggage was already waiting for me, picked it up and met my driver to
get me home - again all within probably 5 minutes of leaving the plane. This
first class flight really was designed to enable the traveler to be most
efficient with their time.

That the luggage was ready was most impressive to me. At least Emirates marked
the luggage, and probably loaded it in a way that first&business luggage gets
out first, and fast.

------
ChuckMcM
One of the less obvious concerns about the retiring of the A380 would be the
write down of all the infrastructure that Airbus invested in to be able to
build these planes. It does seem like the "future of flight" is efficient,
smaller, twin jets rather than these 'super tankers' of the sky.

One of the interesting tours you can go on in Everett WA is the Boeing 'Future
of Flight' tour where you see the building where they are now building 777 and
787's but were originally building 747s. The adaptations to handle the smaller
aircraft are pretty creative but the costs larger tooling is just written off.
On a program that lived as long as the 747 has that isn't a big deal, but when
you've only made 20% of the planes you expected to make? I would think that
has to hurt your profitability.

~~~
WalterBright
It took a long time for the 747 to reach break-even, but after that every one
sold was a huge infusion of cash to Boeing. The 747 was an enormous bet-the-
company gamble, and it paid off enormously.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think you sort of have to plan for it to be like that. If you tried to pay
for all the tooling on the sales of the first 100 you would likely price
yourself out of the market. So somewhere an analyst has to say, "Our lowest
predicted lifetime volume is <a>, our expected volume is <b>, and our exceeds
volume would be <c>." and then look at how much per plane to charge to pay off
the tooling.

It sounds from the press coverage that Airbus is coming in below even their
lowest forecast lifetime volume, which my just be exaggeration on the press'
part, but if true it means some write downs are in Airbus' future.

~~~
johnm1019
I would not suggest pricing things in this way. The analysts should look at
what competing products cost, and where is ours unique and what advantage does
it give the airline. Convert that advantage over competing products to a
dollar amount. Add that to the price of the competing product. Subtract some
so you always win when the customer does their own cost/benefit analysis.

If you price your products based on your costs, you're either losing profit-
margin or sales (sales, because you're making the wrong thing at the wrong
price).

~~~
ChuckMcM
I like your description but it has challenges in the implementation when
hardware is involved, especially manufactured hardware.

To reason about pricing in a hardware world, I find it helpful to think of
dollars as a stream of units coming in for each sale, and a stream of units
going out when I am buying parts and assembling things. Then one can start
from time 0 (the initial start point), run the math over a period of time, and
then at the end compare how much money you have. If we think of the money
supply at time zero to be M0, and the money supply at the end to be M1, we can
make some initial statements like this:

If M0 > M1 then we have lost money over the time period.

If M0 == M1 then we have neither gained nor lost money (but we may have
acquired things that have some value so is isn't necessarily bad)

If M0 < M1 then we have gained money in addition to anything else we may have
acquired over that time period.

When building new hardware, there are four kinds of costs we might consider.
One is salaries, benefits, and office space for people who are designing that
hardware. The next is anything that we have to pay for _once_ but can reuse
during the manufacturing process (we will call that our non-recurring expense
or NRE). The third is the cost to by the parts that go into one of our
widgets. The final cost is the wear and tear on our equipment used to build
the widgets, we know that once those things wear out we will have to replace
them if we want to keep making widgets!

Now we can analyze the "life cycle" of our product. In phase 1, we look at are
first the money we pay out in salaries and NRE to get ready to make widgets.
Since there is no money coming in at that time, it all comes out of savings
(or the M0 starting value). We will call that the startup cost or $S.

In phase 1, each widget we sell nets us some dollars (revenue yay!). We have
to pay for parts (boo hoo), and we incur wear and tear on our equipment and we
will label those $C and $D. The time it takes for your equipment to wear out
is a guess, it could be 5 years it could be 20 years, but we need to guess
what it is. This will be our first guess where we probably don't know the
exact value. Remember it is the money we have to replace all the gear (we know
that cost) but we have to guess how much the _time_ it will take to wear out.
Given our time guess we will divide the cost by the time and that will give us
cost per unit time. The other thing we have flexibility on in phase 1 is the
price we sell our widgets for, we want to do all the pricing exercises that
you mention, but before we do those, we ll will take the cost of parts that go
into a widget (call it $C), the time it takes to make a widget, and the price
we want to sell a widget for $P. This slightly more complicated math lets us
write out a formula for money gained, or lost like this:

    
    
       $M = ($P - $C) / time to make - $D.
    

That is actually in units of dollars per unit time, but we can set the
variables and solve for $P to find out at what price we don't lose money while
in Phase 1, _if_ we can sell enough units per unit time.

Now we have enough things we can write some interesting reasoning about this.
If we sell our units so that they only cover the cost of production. Then at
the end we will end up with (M0 - $S) we'll have less money overall because
our startup costs are not recovered, but we will have a design that of a
widget. If the time period is less than the life time of our factory tools, we
will still have a factory that can make widgets.

We can also solve for a price and number of widgets, that is equal to $D
(assumming $M is zero you can move $D to the left hand side and see that $P -
$C / time has to equal $D. That tells us the minimum rate, of widget
manufacture and sales we need to keep up with the cost of wearing out our
factory.

Now lets throw a wrench into the mix. Lets say you didn't do any of this,
instead you just stuck your M0 money in a fund somewhere making 5% guaranteed
compounded annual interest. If you do that, you can come up with a number for
M1 (the ending balance of money) based on time.

Now after all of that, you can compare making widgets at a variable price $P
and reason about if you make more or less money over a time period $T than you
would make just sitting there with the money in an investment fund doing
"nothing"[1].

What I like to keep in mind when doing this sort of exercise, either on an
idea I have or when someone is telling me about theirs, is to evaluate if
there is a price $P where, at the end of a period of time, you have more money
than if you just sat on it. That extra money will fund additional ideas,
having less than I started with means if I do it long enough I have to go back
to work for someone else to trade my time and expertise for more money.

The amount someone is willing to pay for your widget that is greater than the
number where you end up with exactly as much money as you would have if you
did nothing, that is the "value proposition" for your idea. That is how much
"value" it has, over and above just investing in a fund. But, as you
recognize, you can just charge anything for a product, you want to charge just
a bit less, or have way more perceived value than the competitor's product. If
the number you get when you plug that price in to the above equations doesn't
leave you with the same or more money than the 'do nothing' choice, then you
need to look at the cost equation and figure out if there is some way to lower
costs so that it does. On the other hand, if the prices you can charge are
easily competitive and you still make more money than the do nothing option?
Then you need to figure out how to protect the advantage you discovered so
that you can make that money for a period of time before competitors copy you.

And of course it is all different for software only products. But that is a
much longer note.

[1] Yes the funds are invested in companies that are doing things but "you"
are not doing anything with your money.

------
sxates
My direct flight from San Francisco to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa A380 (in
premium economy) is a delight. I go out of my way to get that flight on that
plane. Room to stretch out and walk around makes such a difference. But I
don't know what the economics behind planes like this is - maybe it's not so
great an experience for the airlines as it is for passengers.

~~~
dk1138
I've had the luck of doing this flight in 1st class a few times. It is bar-
none the best flying experience I've ever had. There is little to no sound
pollution up that far. They have closets instead of overhead bins, so you have
tall ceilings that really open up the space. The bathrooms are huge. No
showers, but huge. It is the only flight experience where I've gotten off the
plane feeling more rested than when I got on.

------
taitems
Not an aviation nerd, but had a local one explain a particular A380 issue to
me. About once a month the main daily SYD/MEL to LAX routes had to turn around
and it was pretty much always the Rolls Royce engine (one of two engine
manufacturers for redundancy). And then it started happening on the other
engine as well. Can't confirm the frequency, but when I was talking to a
Qantas crew member about this over a year ago he nodded and said they won't be
purchasing any new A380s. He said he felt they were bought for the marketing
"me too" reason more than anything else.

EDIT: That being said I loved the A380, I frequently flew premium economy
intl. on it and even if you could wrangle the small (something like 20 row?)
economy section upstairs it felt less like cattle class.

~~~
grkvlt
That doesn't sound right (well, Qantas _did_ have RR engine trouble, as did
all RR engined A380s) as all A380 fleets have four of the same
type/manufacturer of engine (RR or GE, depending on the airline) and it will
be common across all the planes in the fleet. It doesn't make sense to have to
double up on maintenance costs, equipment and engineering staff with two
types, plus the added risk of a GE bolt/whatever accidentally fitted to a RR
engine causing an accident...

------
_ph_
I am not giving up on the A380 yet! :) While it might be more profitable for
the airlines to use the large 2-engined planes on more direct routes, air
traffic is still increasing. Yet, most international airports already are
operating at their capacity. So I wonder when the point is reached, where it
is no longer possible to add more flights to increase the passenger count.
Then, larger airplanes would be needed.

~~~
avar
At that point the A380 will be a 30-40 year old design, and won't be
competitive anymore.

~~~
nexuist
I think aviation probably has a huge time-to-market compared to almost every
other technology field; the B-52 first flew in 1952 and is scheduled to be
decommissioned around 2050 (!)

Aircraft bought today will be in service for at least several decades; it
wouldn't be profitable for airlines to dump cash into them otherwise.

~~~
avar
A380 development started in earnest in 2000, it first flew in 2005. It seems
reasonable that we could have a jumbo jet designed in 2035 fly in 2040.

The B52 is still flying, but a bomber doesn't need to be economical to operate
like an airliner has to. The US military can't be said to have a limited fuel
budget.

Sure, airliners operate for decades, but when they're bought they're state of
the art. The A380 isn't economical to operate now.

------
ggm
I think Airbus can survive this. The other aircraft are selling well. If they
have to write down sunk cost it won't sink the company. Boeing has basically
had to walk from the 747 and even the presidential flight will be using
otherwise available shells (I believe)

QANTAS didn't survey its passengers to make this decision. Had they asked the
recurring business flyer, I suspect the signal would have been different, even
if the economic decision was to walk.

I am a frequent QANTAS passenger. I know from all my experiences and peers
discussions, we prefer the 380 over almost any shell QANTAS flies.

I flew the original QANTAS 747 longhauls. They were fine for their day. They
are significantly behind the ball compared to the 380 experience. The 350 will
be a fine plane. the 787 is a compromised experience in the air.

(btw, it is QANTAS not Quantas: Its an Acronym)

~~~
tricolon
(It doesn't seem like it's an acronym anymore:
[http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en](http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history/global/en))

~~~
ggm
Yea. Looks like you're right. they prefer the Qantas branding, so I'm in the
junkheap of history.

I'll try and learn to use Qantas not QANTAS.

------
Animats
"Is there a market" has always been a big question for very large aircraft.
The C-5A flew in 1968, and there was talk of a civilian model. But nobody
wanted a commercial aircraft that big.

~~~
briandear
The problem is wingspan; those planes are difficult in the terminal area, the
wingspan on a 380 is at the maximum limit for many airports. So unless
airports get rebuilt, those large wingspan airplanes are going to be limited
compared to the smaller options. It’s a 262 ft wingspan. The C5 Galaxy is 223
ft; a Galaxy would “fit” fine at most airports, but the 380 is cutting it very
close. An Antonov has a 290ft wingspan which would make it impossible to use
as a normal passenger plane (although they’re very popular in Houston for
shipping oilfield equipment.) The 380 is a fun plane, but it’s of limited
usefulness beyond passenger load.

------
reacweb
When you increase the size of an aircraft, you reduce the discomfort
associated with weather conditions. If the occupancy rate is good, you also
increase fuel efficiency. To have good occupancy rate, you need to organize
and to have many airports supporting big aircrafts. This is only political and
Boeing is a very strong political influencer to harm competition. Like for
Concorde, when Boeing fails on technical, they use political tricks.

~~~
akerl_
“If the occupancy rate is good, you also increase fuel efficiency” is only
true if all else is equal. In this case, it’s not: the hop from 2-engine to
4-engine hurts fuel efficiency and adds to cost/complexity of the aircraft.

------
ulfw
Very sad, having flown the A380 many times and it even once saved my life due
to it’s masterfully engineered airframe and systems (uncontained engine
explosion, the only accident A380 ever had). It seems we aren’t able to build
anything great or unique anymore without it failing in the market (Concorde,
A380). More cattle class mediocraty flying on 737s from the 60s and 3-3-3
seating 787s etc

~~~
bobthepanda
Boom and others are trying to re-enter the supersonic space with smaller jets.

The main problem with Concorde was that it couldn't fill up seats at the
ticket prices being charged, and transatlantic subsonic flights were both more
comfortable at the equivalent ticket price, and at the flying time sweet spot
of 6-8 hours, which is long enough to just sleep and wake up in the morning.

Had SSTs come of age in the '80s and had a range closer to 6000nm, then they
probably would've taken off for transpacific flights. 6000nm from HNL gets you
to pretty much all of East Asia, Singapore, and the entirety of North America.

~~~
apapli
The accidents didn’t help either, right? I like the idea of Boom, but would
much prefer the engineering from either Airbus or Boeing.

I think all this talk “MVP” and startups so often in the same sentence over
nearly a decade now makes me worried that Boom won’t have enough resources to
achieve anything less than an exceptional job with regards to safety.

And my life isn’t worth risking to save a few hours of travel time by putting
it in the hands of a startup.

~~~
bobthepanda
The FAA doesn't hand out flight certifications like candy. I wouldn't be
worried too much.

Concorde's only fatal accident was a result of running over debris that
punctured the fuel tank and burst a tire, so it wasn't necessarily any issue
with the plane itself. Conveniently enough, this also happened near the EOL of
the plane, right before a recession and 9/11.

------
protomyth
I've found DJ's Aviation channel on YouTube to be a good source of information
on this type of stuff. He has a new video on this subject
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzvT71flRII&t=0s)

------
drallison
I flew on an Air France A380 from CDG to SFO a few months ago seated in
premium economy. It was an outstanding flight, comfortable and pleasant. I
would choose to fly on an A380 over most of the other long distance aircraft,
given the choice.

------
xnomad
I can't help think ETOPS are going too far. One day a big twin will fly from
Sydney to Santiago and develop double engine trouble and the 3-4 engine
minimum will be mandated again.

------
olliej
It is sad it seems to be dying - from a “wow that can fly” point of view - but
at this point it looks like the a380 was the wrong bet :-/

~~~
alistairSH
An Emirates A380 flies over my house on it's way to IAD most mornings as I'm
walking to work.

It really is an amazing sight. It absolutely dwarves everything else in the
sky.

~~~
Theodores
With one flying over my house right now I don't believe they are heading for
the boneyard any time soon. For London Heathrow there is no better plane for
the operator with not that many slots.

Nowadays there are budget airlines using budget airports with very long taxi
rides to somewhere useful. You can't argue with price. Yet right now we are in
an age of cheap oil that facilitates this. Had we not had the taps fully open
and the fuel taxed then maybe the A380 would be king and it be hard to justify
the budget flight model.

Brexit really is not helping the A380 cause. The wings are made in a part of
England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant could be
obtained. In the post-Brexit world where nobody in power cares about jobs it
is likely that Airbus rationalise production and give the formerly United
Kingdom the heave-ho. They can make all the A380's the world really needs and
call it a day in Blighty.

~~~
Symbiote
> part of England that was changed to be Wales so that an EU development grant
> could be obtained.

Is that true? I see the border was last changed in 1972, but that's well
before the EU and regional development funding was thought about.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England%E2%80%93Wales_border)

~~~
Theodores
I can't remember the Tory Brexiteer that signed it off, but it is essentially
the Wirral, as in Merseyside, not Wales as we know it. Sadly I am out of touch
with politics these days to have the recall of what went on as it was a while
ago when I paid attention to these things. There was a fiddle there though and
it wasn't way back in the 1970's.

------
tapland
I have the pleasure of a nice view overlooking Copenhagen Airport. It's at a
far enough distance that most airliners kind of disappear when doing their
final approach, and an A380 showing up really puts the size differences on
display. It looks like a huge whale or cruise ship floating over the
landscape.

------
ggm
How much of the problem is Rolls-Royce over promising and under delivering?

------
diebeforei485
In hindsight, it's telling that even the biggest A380 operator didn't actually
buy the plane themselves - they leased it through various special-purpose
vehicles which were then sliced into various investment portfolios. Goldman
Sachs is one investment bank that set up some of the structures for this -
[https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/G...](https://www.goldmansachs.com/s/2012annual/assets/downloads/GS_AR12_Client_Stories.pdf)

~~~
dboreham
Isn't this kind of financial engineering SOP for all sorts of large assets
since decades?

~~~
diebeforei485
Except that the issuer of the security is the lessor in this case, not the
airline. The airline can just give the plane back to Doric after the 12-year
lease period (which ends in 2020-2021 for the first batch of aircraft), and
let Doric deal with the investors.

This is in contrast to, say, recent deals by United Airlines Inc, where the
airline (or its related party, such as its parent holding company United
Continental Holdings Inc) was the entity issuing the security.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Is it possible to short these securities?

------
bdamm
The A380 and 747 are both remarkable aircraft, but I love my direct flights to
all major cities within 1000 miles, and many beyond that. Electric airliners
are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound focus, offering direct
flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know you wanted to go to,
until it takes 30 minutes to fly instead of 3 hours to drive. And with so many
airports linking up mass transit, the air travel network is almost an
extension of public transit. If you're like me and fly with TSA-Pre, showing
up at the airport 10 minutes ahead of gate call can become a regular and
reliable thing. Good times ahead!

For those of you in the Bay Area, this is like having a cheap ticket to fly to
South Lake Tahoe, or commuting from Santa Rosa to San Jose. Operators like
Surf Air might become commonplace. And the A380 and 747 had to die as
airliners came to realize this is the future.

~~~
0xffff2
>Electric airliners are likely to bring this ratio into even more profound
focus, offering direct flights to thousands of smaller cities you didn't know
you wanted to go to

(All) electric airliners are unlikely to exist commercially without a
fundamental breakthrough in energy storage technology. Even hybrid-electric
systems are only barely viable as a research area right now, and they are
decades away from commercial production.

I'm a researcher in this field, and I wish I could say otherwise, but the rosy
picture you paint is unlikely to be reality at least within the next 3-4
decades.

~~~
radicalbyte
Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen)
going to be viable for flying within a reasonable timeframe?

Whilst I expect that short-haul flights will be replaced by high-speed trains
we're still going to need planes for intercontinental travel.

EasyJet are hoping to have electric planes covering the London-Amsterdam route
in 2030: [https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-
ea...](https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1039041/flights-easyjet-
electric-plane-london-amsterdam-2030).

~~~
ars
> Are artificial fuels (i.e. hydrogen or something we can make from hydrogen)

There is no difference between a synthesized fuel and one pumped from the
group - it's the same molecules. What matters is your energy source to _make_
the synthesized fuel.

In any case hydrogen is a particularly bad fuel for airplanes. The best fuel
is actually the one we already use.

~~~
radicalbyte
By artificial fuels I mean ones created by us using renewable energy. If we
can create something similar to current fuels from a renewable source then
that would be fantastic.

