Posted on 06/21/2017 9:01:23 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Airlines, it turns out, prefer the fuel efficiency of smaller planes like the Boeing 777 to the pack-em-in capacity of the Airbus A380. As a result, Airbus hasn’t scored any new orders for an A380 in more than a year.
Its big plan to turn things around? Launch a new version, make it cheaper to fly, and slap on some winglets.
This week at the Paris Air Show, Airbus announced the revamped “A380plus,” a refresh that packs even more passengers into the super-jumbo and tweaks the wing design. The upswept winglets found on most modern airliners boost fuel efficiency by eliminating turbulent air vortices at the wingtips, reducing drag and improving aerodynamics.
The winglets stand 15 feet tall, and the design includes downward extensions that add another 4 feet. They could improve fuel efficiency by a significant 4 percent and—along with other improvements—cut operating expenses by 13 percent.
...
he A380plus crams in 80 more seats by rejiggering the crew rest quarters and ditching the spiral staircase between the two levels in favor of a conventional one. The A380plus will carry 575 passengers in a four-class configuration.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
Agreed, Cathay is top notch.
Have flown their 777 from HKG to LAX, very nice!
BA’s 777 from BLR to LHR is nothing to write home about, it’s an older 777-200 within the crappy AV units, and the flight is usually overbooked.
Thai’s 777 from BKK to BLR was a nice ride.
In fact, the ability to maintain compatibility with current airport infrastructure was one reason why the Boeing 777-300ER became a hot seller. The other was the fact Boeing was able to get 7,800 nautical mile range out of that plane, and that made it a perfect replacement for the Boeing 747-400.
I have been a frequent flier for over 30 years. I have seen the airports become chaotic and the airlines become a miserable experience. I can’t imagine 575 passengers from one plane trying to pass through immigration and security and make their connections in US airports. It has become a nightmare even when flying 737s.
A319, 320, and 321 are like flying in a phone booth (if anyone remembers what a phone booth is). Not a good ride if you’re going to be more than about 90 minutes in the air.
If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going.
“Boeing is betting on smaller, longer range aircraft for point to point air travel.”
Actually their new 797 is going to be shorter range. Sort of a shorter range 787. They have market analyses that break down the demand for range versus capacity on a matrix. They look for holes and make products that fill them. Bigger is not always better. Neither is ‘longer range’.
Long range works for short hauls too, I would think. Quicker turnaround times if you don’t need to refuel as often.
But the point was; jumbos are restricted by the airports they can fly into. Typically, flying out of Indy, we have to fly to Chicago, Detroit, laguardia, or wherever to get on a longer range plane to go abroad.
With newer smaller LR aircraft, we could in theory, fly direct to a smaller airport.
I remember flying on a 737 out of Indy, direct to grand cayman. Granted, it was a travel club flight, but man, that was great. No layovers. Direct both ways. I think Boeing is betting on that sort of flying experience. It willl be up to the airlines to deliver it though.
But Boeing would sell more airplanes, airlines could have more direct flights, and passengers would spend more to flying to where they’re going than sitting on the ground.
Win - win.
I was on an AF A380 that had an aborted takeoff at CDG with subsequent cancellation of the flight.
Imagine 575 passengers having to reclaim their baggage and rebook their international flight and connections.
CUS and HEO, but of course, ZOI, and JWM but only when you ESAD
“Long range works for short hauls too, I would think. “
Not efficiently. Things are pretty tightly optimized. How long you spend at ‘cruising altitude’ changes the ideal targets for optimization. Airlines these days are trying to squeeze 1 and 2% more efficiency and you can’t get that hauling around large empty tanks and a plane optimizes aerodynamically for an altitude it spends very little time at.
Makes sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.