Hello,
The Boeing 747 and the Airbus A380 are big and fast, and are simply legendary in aviation. Why do so few airlines have the Airbus A380 and Airbus A380? Why are they "unpopular" with airlines? What makes them so inefficient and uneconomical?
(2 votes)
Loading...I would like to become a pilot. My dream is to fly an Airbus A330. I have a heart valve defect, though. It's not that serious. It's just a little leaky. I take blood pressure tablets, a low dose of 2.5 mg once a day, to avoid putting strain on my heart.
Hello everyone, In your opinion, who benefits from the Miles and More principle? Is it enough to take a flight about once a year? Thank you for your assessment.
I'm confused. Which Lufthansa tickets are refundable? Is this only possible with "Economy Flex"? Because it says here that tickets can be canceled in general (at least that's how I understand it): http://www.lufthansa.com/de/de/cancellation-and-reimbursement But when booking the ticket there is a "cross" next to "refund not possible". So do I have to pay almost €50…
Why can't you fly into space in a spaceship-like aircraft, like the X-Wing from Star Wars, as shown in science fiction films, but instead you always need a rocket? I know, of course, that Star Wars is fantasy, but I still wonder why you always need a rocket to get into space?
The two machines were designed for the so-called “Hub and Spoke” concept. This means that people first fly from a large hub to another and from there they get to a smaller machine that brings them to the final airport.
So, for example, you want to go to Washington, then you will first fly from Frankfurt to New York, then get around and fly to Washington with a smaller machine.
This means that mass transporters are needed for the hub connections, because they are flying to New York not only the people who want to go straight to NY, but also many others who want to go to Washington, Philadelphia, etc.
As Airbus developed the A380, doubted Boeing that this concept is still in the long term. Because people don’t want that anymore, they prefer the “point to point” strategy. So if you want to fly directly from Frankfurt to Washington without any detours.
This means that only a few more people are left for the FRA/NY connection than those who want to go straight to NY. However, on many routes you do not get the 747 and the A380 on most routes. And each empty seat reduces the profit and from a certain empty number of seats the aircraft flies with loss.
In addition, there are now wide bodies (large-scale aircraft), which are no longer soooo far from a 747 capacity but fly more economically with only 2 engines. The ETOPS guidelines (which determine the distance of an aircraft with only 2 engines must fly at most from an escape airport) are now very airline-friendly in modern aircraft with ever more fail-safe engines, so that most of the routes can be operated with a two-beamer without large detours.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I have another question. Why didn’t people fly direct flights so often? Why change? This is unnecessary
I just think there were no other options. Direct flights are only worthwhile from a certain number of passengers, and the number of passengers has risen steadily, so that at some point on many networks, nonstop flights can be made possible.
The biggest problem is that both aircraft have 4 engines. This means that you need a certain minimum utilisation to make no negative with the flight. Due to the Corona Pandemie fewer passengers were on the road, many Arlines made a thick minus and decided to use “smaller” aircraft (e.g. the A330, A350, 777, 787…). Lufthansa is now returning the first A380 machines to use them on routes with a lot of passenger traffic. In addition, with a fuel-efficient 787 or an A350, less fuel can be consumed on the same amount of passengers, which is cheaper for the airline and also acts well for the green image.
Two points:
Firstly, regardless of the number of engines: aircraft are only efficient and economical if they are fully occupied. Depending on the costing of the respective airline, approx. 80% utilisation will be achieved to make even profit. And you can reach these 80% on an aircraft with 300 seats more than on an aircraft with 500 or 600 seats.
Especially when you look at the general trend away from transfer connections to direct connections. On many direct connections there are simply not so many passengers that you can reliably get 2x per week 450 passengers together. But 2x a week 250 passengers, that often works. Flying less than 2x a week makes no sense for organizational reasons and if there should be more passengers, you can fly more often with the smaller aircraft. Or you are simply pleased that there are more interested parties than places and you can therefore ask for a higher price.
The second point is that four engines are simply more expensive to operate than two engines. Even if the combination has the same thrust… a Boeing 777 has about the same thrust as a 747-400! Once larger engines tend to be more efficient in fuel consumption, secondly maintenance costs often go “per piece” instead of by size – if you have to wait an engine, it does not change much to maintenance costs if it is twice as large. But if you have to wait two engines, the maintenance costs will naturally double.
At the same time, there is no need to get the extra costs for more engines anyway – thanks to ETOPS, two-engined aircraft can also fly long distances across oceans and no longer have to go “long on land” while the four-engines can fly straight ahead. So, no more advantage if you have four engines or no disadvantage if there are only two.
Thus, “very large long-haul aircraft” are an extinct species, because there is no longer the occurrence of turnstile to turnstile and they are not suitable for the more popular direct connections.
And four-engine airplanes are an extinct species because they have more engines than two-engines.
The B747 was one of the most popular – and most reliable – serial aircraft for a long time. One of the disadvantages is that aircraft engines have been developed which consume considerably less fuel.
The fact that they are now gradually patterned also coincides with the reason why the A380 was never popular and the production is stopped.
Times have changed. In the past, there were considerably fewer airports and the large aircraft were used to transport many people between the main large airports.
But times have changed. There are considerably more airports, and people demand direct flights from close to their place of residence and are no longer ready to take on long journeys or shuttle flights. This means that the airlines have problems on most routes to get their big planes full.
The big planes fly half empty or stand unused.
Too big and consume too much.
I would say this is the problem of using such a machine filled with man and goods regularly and efficiently. And of course, you also need the infrastructure to be able to wait and operate such a mash.