AirwaySim
Online Airline Management Simulation
Login
Username
Password
 
or login using:
 
My Account
Username:
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
Buy credits
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

Author Topic: Airbus A380  (Read 7496 times)

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2011, 01:25:13 AM »
After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that.  
Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

It will be the same case with the 787. Most airlines are putting 9 abreast, but if you fly it with some of the airlines with only 8 abreast, you will like those better.

Offline broadbander

  • Members
  • Posts: 557
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2011, 03:52:13 AM »
Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

10th abreast on the 777 is becoming more common - even KLM has adopted it on its 777-300ER fleet. I believe KLM's 777-200ERs are still 9 abreast though, for now at least...
KLM 777-300ER cabin view

Offline Maarten Otto

  • Members
  • Posts: 1276
    • My photo site
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2011, 08:31:47 AM »
Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

GEnx

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2011, 09:47:36 AM »
Heck, even Amsterdam - New York, Paris - New York or Frankfurt - New York would support an 800 seat low cost service.

Offline JumboShrimp

  • Members
  • Posts: 5994
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2011, 12:50:38 PM »
Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

Is $120,000 the cost for the round trip?  Or is it in Euro?  Well, you have to account for some overhead.  But at that price, A380 would certainly become very popular...  Right now, there is no advantage for the passenger....  I can already fly to all the places it flies for the same price on other aircraft...

Offline Dan380

  • Members
  • Posts: 389
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2011, 02:50:12 PM »
Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

If it was really that simple, why haven't ANY low cost airlines even CONSIDERED ordering the A380? The answers my friend, are written in the posts above.  8)

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2011, 03:12:25 PM »
Also, the high upfront cost isn't too appealing to an LCC.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Online ArcherII

  • Members
  • Posts: 1935
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2011, 03:29:07 PM »
Actually, besides the NASA-esque initial cost of purchasing it, what the LCC really offer is frequency IMHO.

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2011, 03:57:47 PM »
ACtually Skymark is a LCC, but they are configuring theirs with an all Business class 2nd floor and an all premium econ 1st floor and they will have the lowest passenger count of all current A380 operators.

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2011, 05:21:32 AM »
Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

It will be the same case with the 787. Most airlines are putting 9 abreast, but if you fly it with some of the airlines with only 8 abreast, you will like those better.

But the A380 was also 10 abreast. So like for like 3-4-3 on an A380 is allows for bigger more comfortable seats than 3-4-3 on a B777 (and I presume most other things), and the airline can shoehorn in a good lot of people!

flightsimer

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2011, 07:41:24 PM »
But the A380 was also 10 abreast. So like for like 3-4-3 on an A380 is allows for bigger more comfortable seats than 3-4-3 on a B777 (and I presume most other things), and the airline can shoehorn in a good lot of people!
But your missing the point.

 The 777 was designed origionally as a 9 abreast aircraft and was marketed as such. However, the majority of the airlines started putting in slightly narrower seats and isles which allowed for 10 abreast. Even now, one of the major changes airlines want for the 777 in the future is having narrow fuselage walls so they can put the 10 abreast in with the safe comfort levels as the plane in 9 abreast.

The A380 is 11 abreast on the main deck when its in the full 840pax config. Emirates seat width on their current a380's, at 10 abreast, is only 18in in economy. Their 777's in 10 abreast is 17in wide. A 777 in 9 abreast has seats 18.5in wide.

The same is true for the 787. Boeing intended it to be 8 abreast but the 9 abreast option was for tour operators like Thomson or Thomas Cook, etc. But as it turned out, the majority of the regular airlines chose the 9 abreast and ironically, some tour operators are using 8 abreast.

So its not that the Aircraft is roomier, its just how the airlines have configured it.

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2011, 07:47:24 PM »
To put in in AWS terms, it's like the A380 has standard seats, and the 777 has HD seats. or maybe, the A380 has premium, and the 777 has standard seats. So yeah, the A380 is more comfortable, but not because of the plane. It's because the airline's config for the A380 is better for the passenger...
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline Wing Commander Chad Studdington

  • Members
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #72 on: July 14, 2011, 07:54:42 PM »
But your missing the point...

Surely the point is that it is blatantly clear that as costs go up airlines want more people on each plane, so 3-4-3 ten abreast is going to get more and more common? Therefore an economy seat that is just that one inch wider and that one inch more comfortable and that one inch more sell-able is going be better for the airline in question. If the 787s are being fitted out for 10 maybe it should have been made a little wider.

Offline alexgv1

  • Members
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2011, 08:20:36 PM »
Trust me, one inch makes a BIG difference  ::)
CEO of South Where Airlines (SWA|WH)

GEnx

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #74 on: July 14, 2011, 08:31:27 PM »
To put in in AWS terms, it's like the A380 has standard seats, and the 777 has HD seats. or maybe, the A380 has premium, and the 777 has standard seats. So yeah, the A380 is more comfortable, but not because of the plane. It's because the airline's config for the A380 is better for the passenger...

Well yes.. Yes it is because of the plane. You see, it is because of the A380's size that it is now much more economically viable to operate with more comfortable seats.

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #75 on: July 14, 2011, 08:35:23 PM »
If the 787s are being fitted out for 10 maybe it should have been made a little wider.

To what end?

If Boeing designed the 787 for 190829018094820948190824908124081092480928409184098240980911 seats per row, then the airline could always add an extra seat per row and make it "HD" seating instead of "standard", and they are back at their original problem.

The heart of the issue  is that airlines are willing to sacrifice passenger comfort for packing more seats in. Just because EK made a decision to have 10 abreast in the A380 and 10 abreast in the 777, that doesn't mean that the A380 is a better plane than the 787 in terms of passenger comfort (if just looking from seat width), it means that when choosing the A380 or the 777 in the configurations of EK, the A380 is a better choice from a seat width standpoint.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline BobTheCactus

  • Members
  • Posts: 1244
    • AeroBlogger.com
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #76 on: July 14, 2011, 08:37:28 PM »
Well yes.. Yes it is because of the plane. You see, it is because of the A380's size that it is now much more economically viable to operate with more comfortable seats.

Right now, it may be that way.

But:
1) if prices shot up and the airplanes were getting filled, I have no doubt that many airlines would immediately reconfigure to hold more pax, sacrificing comfort
2) the fact that the airlines choose to configure this way has does not mean that the plane itself is less comfortable, it means that the configuration is less comfortable. There is a big difference.
Editor of AeroBlogger
If you're interested in blogging on aviation 3x/month or more:
http://AeroBlogger.com/Write

Offline broadbander

  • Members
  • Posts: 557
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #77 on: July 14, 2011, 09:04:00 PM »
The A380 is 11 abreast on the main deck when its in the full 840pax config.

The 853 seat maximum for which the A380-800 is certified is achieved with 10-abreast on the main deck and 8-abreast on the upper deck. The emergency evacuation test of the 853 seat configuration, plus 20 crew members, was completed in 78 seconds. The regulatory authorities prescribe a maximum time of 90 seconds to evacuate all of the occupants from an aircraft. This means Airbus has 12 seconds to play with - perhaps they could look at 11-abreast on the main deck and boost max capacity above 853...

Upper deck (2-4-2) clearly shown on the video below. Main deck is not so clearly shown, but you can see it is 10-abreast (3-4-3) by the seat numbering on the headrests at about 1:35 in the video.
A380 evacuation test video

chrisadams

  • Former member
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #78 on: July 15, 2011, 10:07:30 PM »
They are planes. (Just a thought in case you needed to be reminded)  ;)

Wow well without you I don't know where my project would be..... ;)

Offline Meicci

  • Members
  • Posts: 821
Re: Airbus A380
« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2011, 01:30:28 PM »
The reply at the first page (A390 thingy) made me think about this;

What would be the absolute maximum size of an airplane? I mean, at some point, there must be a limit when the gravity beats the lifting force.

But is there any evidence or research that would answer this question?

 

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.

If you are using the latest version please turn OFF the compatibility mode.