[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 34 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: 1000x-1.jpg (58 KB, 1000x549)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
did it deserve to die the way it did lads?
>>
>>1296169
Not really, no, but it was inevitable.
It would have been great if the A380 was gradually phased out by another epic aircraft, a successor worthy of being the European flagship aircraft.
But instead, it will just gradually die out. No doubt, the A380 will keep flying into the 2030s, but once production ends in 2021, it will be sad.
>>
>>1296169
poor engineering, bad project management, and cucked by the 777x
>>
>>1296169
>hyper-reliance on a single camel jockey customer for the entire life of the program
Yeah, it kinda did deserve it.
>>
>>1296203
Stop talking about QANTAS like that.
>>
>>1296169
>never actually filled with 800 people
why?
>>
>>1296169
>make a giganigga airliner
>dont include a front cargo door option, making it useless as a freighter
>miss out on at least half a century of profits because you put all your eggs in one basket and thought your fatass plane would only ever need to carry passengers
at least boeing was practical and designed the 747 as a freighter from the start.
>>
>>1296169
Its a fantastic plane, the main issue was the massive infrastructure changes required to host the damn aircraft. And now that it is gone I highly doubt another Double Decker will take it's place, so its gonna be single deck for eternity boys and a lot of airports lost millions investing money for a plane that didn't even last 15 years
>>
This is what happens when organisations get to play with taxpayers' money without having to give a shit what happens. You get impractical vanity projects that don't actually serve any real purpose.

The A380 is like Europe's Space Shuttle, just nowhere near as cool. Read Appendix F.
>>
>>1296412
>design from the 50s
>fantastic plane
pick one
>>
>>1296455
What was '50s about it?
>>
>>1296456
the hull
>>
>>1296460
Explain how
>>
>>1296455

If it's such a shitty plane why were orders lined up out the fucking door!?
>>
Absolute unit of a plane.
>>
>>1296339
The lack of a front cargo door really had nothing to do with it being useless as a freighter. Physics made it useless as a freighter.
>>
>>1296514
Are you fucking retarded? It ended up selling less than 1/3 the predicted total.
>>
>>1296169
At least it's dying quietly and not like the Concorde. It was a bad idea in the wrong era though.
>>
No. but we are living in a faggot world which say no to these SuperJumbos just because of muh' fuel efficiency and environment
While more and more passengers use planes
>>
They should optimized the wing for the -800 instead of slapping the -900 wing on it
>>
>>1296680
>While more and more passengers use planes
They do this because flying is cheaper than ever which is due to things like fuel efficiency.
>>
>>1296549

Who in the!?

Who in the FUCK is this? They have 5000 Fucking orders right now!
>>
>>1296548
>physics
how? the 747 is still an immensely popular freighter. imagine if the A380 had the same advantages as it has. they could keep the production line open because they'd still be getting orders for A380 freighters.
>>
>>1297037
We're talking about the A380, not the A320 you fucking illiterate mongoloid.
>>
>>1297290
You are extremely and objectively wrong. The A380 reaches maximum takeoff weight well before it reaches maximum volume in a freight arrangement. You'd literally be flying a freighter with huge amounts of empty space in it.
>>
>>1296338
Insurance
Lack of demand
>>
>>1297037
This isn't the 737 thread, goddammit Jimbo
>>
>>1296680
Retard. The reason hub transport megaliners are dying out is because no one needs hub transport anymore now that even mid sized planes can cross the Atlantic.
>>
>>1297320
The role of hubs has diminished, but has by no means died, and won't any time soon.
>>
>>1296338
because it takes 10-15 minutes to board 80 people onto an ERJ-175. It takes forever to board 800 people.
>>
>>1297296
higher mtow than the 747 and potential to be even higher.
>>
>>1297433
Jesus fucking christ, you're an idiot. The A380 is incapable of carrying more freight than the 747 because of its design.
>>
>>1297454
hence i said they should've made it more like a full double deck 747 with a nose door, retard. you can load bigger stuff on the lower floor and smaller stuff on the upper floor.
>>
>>1297460
Shut you fucking mouth you retarded syphilitic cunt motherfucker. The nose door and floor is not the fucking issue. The wing, engines, and literally the entire design on the airframe are the issue.

Go to your kitchen immediately, grab a knife, and shove it into your jugular you inbred chimp.
>>
>>1297460
You seem incapable of grasping the fact that none of the things you're talking about are the problem. The whole design of the A380 precludes it from being a useful freighter. It's not just a door.
>>
>>1297464
got a little impotence issues there pal? just don't fuck up the airframe design in the first place. problem solved. if boeing could do it, so could airbus.
>>
>>1297476
Good job completely changing your argument to both state the obvious and simultaneously be 100% irrelevant. You're a real credit to our species.
>>
>>1297483
>at least boeing was practical and designed the 747 as a freighter from the start
right there in my first post, clearly stating that airbus could've designed the a380 for cargo use as well. why do i even waste time arguing with brainlets?
>>
>>1297489
The A380 could not have been designed as a cargo aircraft and a passenger aircraft. The frame is too large and there were not and are not engines in existence to overcome that.

No amount of your mental gymnastics changes the fact that your suggestions are effectively talking about a plane that isn't remotely close to what the A380 is. You're unknowingly talking about a completely different aircraft that bears basically no resemblance to the A380.
>>
File: antonov-225.jpg (157 KB, 1100x617)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>1297498
>The frame is too large and there were not and are not engines in existence to overcome that.
Didn't stop the commies.
>>
>>1297359
They're not dead yet, but they're in the process of dying, nicely illustrated by the discontinuation of the A380. How much more proof do you want?
>>
>>1296338
Weight problems (luggage), logistics for airports, etc.
Imagine if the Airbus A380-900 with all-economy became a reality.
>>
>>1297518
Yeah, but that's a one of a kind aircraft which was supposed to ferry the Soviet's off-brand space shuttle.
>>
At the time of the A380's first flight, there was a first documentary with an airbus engineer who said:
"we asked to airlines company around the world what they wanted.

Should not listen to them visibly ..
>>
>>1297541
>off-brand space shuttle.
lel

Though to their credit they did do an unmanned launch and landing with it.
>>
>>1297541
>Soviet's off-brand space shuttle
It was better than the first shuttle even after they realized the who STS concept was retarded. The Soviets actually had to build one themselves because they had no idea why anyone would actually do it.
>>1297473
>The whole design of the A380 precludes it from being a useful freighter. It's not just a door.
This. You'll never get the floor loading you need to be a useful freighter because it was designed for people. You can't remove the upper deck because it's integral to the load paths on the aircraft.
>>1296191
>No doubt, the A380 will keep flying into the 2030s
Longer than this, but in a high density, hajj charter configuration.
>>1296169
>did it deserve to die the way it did lads?
Yes, only because it is an ugly aircraft. The nose is absolutely terrible.
>>
>>1298186
>Though to their credit they did do an unmanned launch and landing with it.
Yes, I agree. As much as it was an off-brand space shuttle, it was better at being a space shuttle than thr Space Shuttle.
>>1298397
>It was better than the first shuttle even after they realized the who STS concept was retarded. The Soviets actually had to build one themselves because they had no idea why anyone would actually do it.
That was more because the Soviet Union saw the Space Shuttle and immediately realised that it was no space exploration craft, it was a military spaceplane and it was going to be used for military purposes. When the United States annouced that they were building a second launch facility at Vandenburg AFB for Polar and Sun Synchronous Orbits, the Soviet engineers realised that by the 1st orbit, the Space Shuttle would pass over Leningrad, Moscow and other major Russian SFR major cities.
It was this which lead to the political decision to order the construction of a Soviet shuttle, and that's how Burarn came to be.
You see, after Ronald Regan's Strategic Defence Initiative (a.k.a. Star Wars), the USSR took any threat seriously when it looked like the US were in a position to launch nuclear weapons from orbit, and that would have included orbital nuclear warhead platforms.

The construction of the Space Shuttle launch facility at Vandenburg AFB was cancelled after the Challenger Disaster, and all further military use of the Space Shuttle was also ended, however some Department of Defence missions continued with NRO satellites being deployed. However, the classified nature of many missions did lead to several issues. STS-27, for example had debris strike the thermal tiles on launch, leaving a part of the shuttle exposed. STS-27 survived, but the decision was taken to still re-enter. When the same decision was taken for STS-107, we saw the Columbia Disaster.

The Soviet Union knew that the Space Shuttle was a death trap, but the politicians ignore it.
>>
>>1296169
>Airlines wanted longer range, smaller wide bodies that would offer more flexibility in routes.
>Airbus builds a plane so massive that airports have to be retrofitted to accept it.

I mean Boeing at least had the sense to just say fuck it and just release an updated 747 as their competitor to the A380.
>>
>>1297379
Only because incorrect loading algorithms are used
>>
>>1296169

One of the most Climate Destroying planes in the history of aviation.

Fuck these gas guzzlers! Why do you think everyone jumped onboard the 737 Max!?

Fuel Economy = King
>>
>>1298454
Fully loaded, it would only consume like 3 litres per passenger per 100 km
>>
>>1298454
>Why do you think everyone jumped onboard the 737 Max

because less people are travelling between hubs in giant airlines to transfer to their destination and instead just fly direct in a smaller tube.
>>
>>1298454
>One of the most Climate Destroying planes in the history of aviation
Aviaton contributes not much in general.
Also, 1000 pax plane > 300 pax plane in terms of fuel per pax...
>>
>>1298454
>Fuck these gas guzzlers! Why do you think everyone jumped onboard the 737 Max!?
Actually, the 737 MAX will do more to destroy the climate than the A380, because what 1 A380 can do, you need maybe 4-5 737 MAXs (depending on layout).

The A380 allowed for more passengers for fewer flights, actually reducing the amount of fuel consumed per passenger, and making the A380 more competitive on price per kilometre compared to smaller aircraft.

What killed the A380 wasn't fuel economy, because a full A380 is more fuel efficient per passenger than a 787. No, what killed the A380 was the inability to fill planes up with those passengers.
Boeing sold covenience of point to point over the efficiency of hub and spoke, and in Europe, many of the major hub airports, like Birmingham, Heathrow, Paris CDG, Frankfurt, Cologne-Bonn, all of those airports have long distance and in some cases, high speed rail connections, where the idea is to take the high speed train from A to the hub airport, take the high capacity plane to the other transcontinental hub, get out and then go to B on the connecting high speed rail connection.
>>
>>1298471
>Aviaton contributes not much in general
It contributes enormously, especially given it is almost never used to transport actual goods, just tourists
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html
>Over all, the aviation industry accounts for 11 percent of all transportation-related emissions in the United States.
>>
>>1298483
Just 11% of 30%
That is nothing.
>>
>>1296169
Not with a bang, but with a whimper
>>
>>1297296
In which case could the A380 come back as a freighter should stronger engines eventually heighten it's MTOW?
>>
>>1298449
It's true that boarding can be optimized greatly, but it would still take a long time to load 800 people onto anything
>>
>>1299210
No.
>>
>>1298437
>That was more because the Soviet Union saw the Space Shuttle and immediately realised that it was no space exploration craft, it was a military spaceplane and it was going to be used for military purposes.
The only reason it ended up this way is because NASA had to beg for DOD money to complete the project.
>>
>>1296169
Airbus designed it this way instead of what it was supposed to be (aka A380-1000), so yes it deserve to die this way.
>>
>>1296169
Yes. Hub and spokes -system is fucking gay and no-one wants to take more than one flight to reach destination.
>>
>>1296579
its better to go out with a bang than a whimper.
>>
>>1298502
Small fractions start to matter when things start to add up.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.