Air Travel

Question:

Wow, JF, great subject lines you got there… Have you really thought about implications ? (And yes, of course, white elephants are white elephants.)

Response:

> Wow, JF, great subject lines you got there… > Have you really thought about implications ?

I was expecting you to jump on this opportunity within minutes of posting it And yes, if the A380 does go down, it will most certaintly monopolise the news for quite some time. But I beleive that one reason the Titanic generated stories for so long was that it was "hidden" in the bottom of the sea and it took very long time to locate the wreck.

Response:

> > Wow, JF, great subject lines you got there… > Have you really thought about implications ? > I was expecting you to jump on this opportunity within minutes of posting it > And yes, if the A380 does go down, it will most certaintly monopolise the news > for quite some time. But I beleive that one reason the Titanic generated > stories for so long was that it was "hidden" in the bottom of the sea and it > took very long time to locate the wreck.

The unsinkeable Titanic went down on its maiden trip.  Would be like the first passenger flight crashing.  Sort of unlikely, I suppose. Except of course, this is more or less what happened with the 320 at Habsheim. (I wonder how far the parallel could be pushed.  There must have been overconfidence and wishful thinking in both events?)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ship like the Titanic had big huge innaugural sailings with much fanfare. > But > airplanes don’t have much in terms of this. I beleive that when UA had its > first 777 flight, there was a bit of a PR opportunity at the gate but > afterwards, it was just another plane with never any fanfare. (Since in > fact, > there isn’t much "special" about the 777, it is just a glorified DC-0 with > nice shape/proportions.) > I would have said a 767 with more air pumped into it.

Sure the 777 is a great plane to be on. No doubt – I love flying on the thing. But it isn’t any beauty by any standards I can think of. It’ doesn’t have the beauty and elegance of the A330/40. Properly due to it’s ugly tail that it shares with the 767. Well – that’s a matter of taste. I do think the entire matter is difficult to predict. The 777 757 and 767 as well as the 320’s, A330/40 that are some of the planes that have been introduced since the inauguration of the 747 didn’t have the popular appeal as did the 747 and the Concorde. They have certainly moved milestones technically. But they have moved no milestones in ordinary peoples imagination. Most people e.g. do not have a clue as to what FBW is all about. To move milestones in the imagination of people you have to come up with something with a popular appeal. That could be something that is much bigger or much faster than anything known before. In this regard does the A380 have a fair chance to be given a lot of free advertisement as happened when the 747 was introduced 30 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that for many ordinary people – after having traveled abroad – it will be an extra topic at the dinner table to tell that they have been on the A380 for the first many years. And no – an upgrade of the 747 does not count in this regard. Nik

Response:

>The ICAO regulation on evacuating everyone off the plane in 90 seconds with >50% of the exits inoperable is the primary reason we won’t see "sardine can" >configurations on the A388 for many, many years to come. Remember, the 747’s >exit door design was designed to get out all 650 passengers on an >all-Economy class out of the plane very quickly; it becomes MUCH more tricky >with the full-length upper deck on an A388.

I wonder if not being able to pack in pax would negate the claimed efficiency savings over the 747?  Time will tell, I guess.

Response:

> The A380 will probably go through the same evolution.  When it first > comes out it probably will be very nice to fly on, but after a few years > when the airlines decide they need to make some serious money on it, > it’ll revert to a more "normal" configuration.

From what I’ve seen of the A380-800’s interior layout, most of the Main deck and Upper deck space will be taken up by passenger seating anyway–hence the standard 555 passenger configuration. Any lounges, bars, casinos, execise areas, etc. will mostly be on a lower deck area right below the First Class seating on the Main deck. The ICAO regulation on evacuating everyone off the plane in 90 seconds with 50% of the exits inoperable is the primary reason we won’t see "sardine can" configurations on the A388 for many, many years to come. Remember, the 747’s exit door design was designed to get out all 650 passengers on an all-Economy class out of the plane very quickly; it becomes MUCH more tricky with the full-length upper deck on an A388. — Raymond Chuang Mountain View, CA USA

Response:

> My guess is that with all the talk of economy class syndrome, airlines might be > forced to increase seat pitch on all long flights. This will result in increased > airfares. The size and possible increased efficiency of the A380 might just > allow seat pitch to be increased without airfares going up – thus giving it a > commercial advantage. If I were Airbus at the moment, I think I’d be (secretly) > pressuring European governments to do something about minimum seat pitch in > long-haul flights.

Perhaps a not so-well-publicised fact but it’s certain European airlines (notably the 2 U.K. long-haul ones) that have tighter-than-normal seat pitch (30-31") as well as many charters based in the region (29" or less). Increasing seat pitch up for some of these airlines will in most cases bring them to the standards of most scheduled airlines (32").

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > (my prediction) > I bet that when the A380 is put into service, air travel will actually > be a > lot worse (for passengers flying economy class anyways). > Airlines like Singapore Airlines would have nice lounges, shower > facilities > etc. on the aircraft and would only let first/business class > passengers in. > Also, the areas of the aircraft like the grand staircase would also > only be > for first/business class passengers to use (to go up and down between > the > decks). > As for Economy passengers, there would be more seats, tighter pitch > and less > personal service.  They would also have to use conventional stairs > when > going between the decks.  Maybe the best they could do is just offer > them > access to a small duty free shop.

You’re forgetting that these "more seats" will be packed into a much wider fuselage than a 747, and there are two full length decks to play with. I doubt there would be much of a reduction in seat pitch, since there is a lot more room to play with. Scotty

Response:

Also, those airlines that fly the A380 would probably advertise a lot about how good it is to fly on such an aircraft and how luxurious it would be. Example: Singapore Airlines might advertise about having a piano lounge in the sky. And those passengers paying economy class may have high expectations on on the luxury and comfort of such aircraft.  Once onboard the aircraft, those paying economy class fare would be very disappointed and find out that a lot of the amenities available are for First/Business class passengers only. With passenger’s high expectations not being met, more air rage incidents would be bound to occur.  Maybe they would have some kind of "jail cell" onboard the A380 for those passengers involved in air rage?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> (my prediction) > I bet that when the A380 is put into service, air travel will actually > be a > lot worse (for passengers flying economy class anyways). > Airlines like Singapore Airlines would have nice lounges, shower > facilities > etc. on the aircraft and would only let first/business class > passengers in. > Also, the areas of the aircraft like the grand staircase would also > only be > for first/business class passengers to use (to go up and down between > the > decks). > As for Economy passengers, there would be more seats, tighter pitch > and less > personal service.  They would also have to use conventional stairs > when > going between the decks.  Maybe the best they could do is just offer > them > access to a small duty free shop. > You’re forgetting that these "more seats" will be packed into a much > wider fuselage than a 747, and there are two full length decks to play > with. I doubt there would be much of a reduction in seat pitch, since > there is a lot more room to play with. > Scotty

Response:

>….the term "steerage" was truly used as a derogatory manner back >in the early 1900s. (In refence to a recent thread where a passenger >was scolded by crew for using the term "steerage".)…. >…. I beleive that when UA had its first 777 flight, there was a bit >of a PR opportunity at the gate but afterwards, it was just another >plane with never any fanfare…. >….So, what will the A380 flights be like ? ….

Steerage derogatory? I have always believed that. The 777 LON-WAS inaugural was immemorialised in the "True Documentary" 21st Century Jet. Some American Passengers misheard the tannoy and thought they would be on an all girl flight. Seriously though (and this shows my age) I remember what was said at the time of the first ever commercial jet flight – on a Comet – that it would justify a footnote in history.

Response:

> Consider that so far, the A380 customers have announced configs ranging from > 525 to 555 passengers. Considering that I beleive the stated capacity is 650, > I would assume that there won’t be much pressure to have tight seat pitch > initially.

650 in what configuration? All-economy?  A 767-300 configured for Britannia (324+ pax) is very different from a 767-300 configured for CP/QF/AC et al (240-odd pax).

Response:

(my prediction) I bet that when the A380 is put into service, air travel will actually be a lot worse (for passengers flying economy class anyways). Airlines like Singapore Airlines would have nice lounges, shower facilities etc. on the aircraft and would only let first/business class passengers in. Also, the areas of the aircraft like the grand staircase would also only be for first/business class passengers to use (to go up and down between the decks). As for Economy passengers, there would be more seats, tighter pitch and less personal service.  They would also have to use conventional stairs when going between the decks.  Maybe the best they could do is just offer them access to a small duty free shop.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was watching this documentary about a great big ship that sank, complete > with the obligatory love story in it and the big diamond etc etc. > As a side note, the term "steerage" was truly used as a derogatory manner back > in the early 1900s. (In refence to a recent thread where a passenger was > scolded by crew for using the term "steerage".) > Now, back on topic… > Ship like the Titanic had big huge innaugural sailings with much fanfare. But > airplanes don’t have much in terms of this. I beleive that when UA had its > first 777 flight, there was a bit of a PR opportunity at the gate but > afterwards, it was just another plane with never any fanfare. (Since in fact, > there isn’t much "special" about the 777, it is just a glorified DC-0 with > nice shape/proportions.) > When the 747 was introduced, how much fanfare was there at the individual > airlines, and how long did it last ? While the 747 seems to have always kept a > certain amount of "special" with the customers, I have never felt that > "special" from the airline’s point of view, they treat it as just another flight. > I’d say that the only plane that does get a certain of "special" is Concorde > with the 2 airline providing almost dedicated facilities for those flights and > I would assume that the passengers of Concorde really do feel that the airline > does treat that flight differently. > So, what will the A380 flights be like ? Just another flight, or will they > have a "special" feeling to them ? If so, how long will it last ?

Response:

> My guess is that with all the talk of economy class syndrome, airlines might be > forced to increase seat pitch on all long flights. This will result in increased > airfares. The size and possible increased efficiency of the A380 might just > allow seat pitch to be increased without airfares going up

Consider that so far, the A380 customers have announced configs ranging from 525 to 555 passengers. Considering that I beleive the stated capacity is 650, I would assume that there won’t be much pressure to have tight seat pitch initially.

Response:

> As for Economy passengers, there would be more seats, tighter pitch and less > personal service.  They would also have to use conventional stairs when > going between the decks.  Maybe the best they could do is just offer them > access to a small duty free shop.

My guess is that with all the talk of economy class syndrome, airlines might be forced to increase seat pitch on all long flights. This will result in increased airfares. The size and possible increased efficiency of the A380 might just allow seat pitch to be increased without airfares going up – thus giving it a commercial advantage. If I were Airbus at the moment, I think I’d be (secretly) pressuring European governments to do something about minimum seat pitch in long-haul flights. Just my 2 cent guess Tom Johnstone Madison, WI

Response:

> Well… at the time, there weren’t that many ships crossing the Atlantic, and every > one was different.  By comparison, there’s well over 1,000 747s, over 300 777s, and

Weren;t that many?  i think you;d see a huge long list of maritime wrecks by the time the Titanic came about. Anyway, ship building was (relatively) easy so you had many ship builders.  Not much standardisation of ship types.

Response:

> Whats the deal with Le Bourget, Raymond? Is the runway too short?

It’s not the runways that worries me, it’s whether the taxiways are big enough to handle the turning radius of the A380-800. Airbus has tried to keep it almost the same as the 747-400 but you never know…. — Raymond Chuang Mountain View, CA USA

Response:

> >compare it more to a "slave ship" than "steerage" on an ocean liner. > LOL.  Especially after Thai configures it in 5-5-5-5 seating.

But will the upper deck have 4-4-4-4- seating or 3-4-4-3 ? Actually, I think that the A380 may turn out to be a most interesting plane to fly on long hauls because of the "necessary" wasted space such as the entrance hall and grand staircase, as well as the staircase in the back. This will give more opportunities to get up and strech your legs etc, especially the lobby area where there will be no seats (so nobody to disturb). And if an airline actually sets up some amenities below the main deck, it will also give some more places to visit. I compare it a bit to trans-continental trains where you not only have the restaurant car, but also a few cars with a snack bar, a bar car, the dome cars, and your sleeping car. But in VIA rail’s LRC trains, you only have your seat and the toilet to go to. Seems to me that the A380 may in fact be a bit less like the LRC with more options to move around. The current discussion on the blood clots might give the A380 a potent marketing advantage in this respect.

Response:

Well… at the time, there weren’t that many ships crossing the Atlantic, and every one was different.  By comparison, there’s well over 1,000 747s, over 300 777s, and even enough 330s and 340s to make seeing one a non-event.  When the ‘Britannia’ crossed the Atlantic in less than 5 days, it was news.  When 4X-ELB makes it from TLV to EWR in under 11 hours, all you have are 400 people mildly satisfied as they claim their baggage. Matthew – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ships like the Titanic had big huge inaugural sailings with much fanfare. But > airplanes don’t have much in terms of this.

Response:

>Well… at the time, there weren’t that many ships crossing the Atlantic, and every >one was different.  By comparison, there’s well over 1,000 747s, over 300 777s, and >even enough 330s and 340s to make seeing one a non-event.  When the ‘Britannia’ >crossed the Atlantic in less than 5 days, it was news.  When 4X-ELB makes it from TLV >to EWR in under 11 hours, all you have are 400 people mildly satisfied as they claim >their baggage. >Matthew > Ships like the Titanic had big huge inaugural sailings with much fanfare. But > airplanes don’t have much in terms of this.

The launch of a new ship is a Big Deal, even now.  The first voyage, or the first visit of a new ship to a particular port, can be a biggish deal locally. With commercial aircraft, it’s been big too.  I remember watching the first first Atlantic jet flight leave in 1958, and got to fly aboard a few inaugural lights myself later on. IATA rules used to allow one planeload of free tickets on inaugurals. This got to be interpreted loosely later on – I remember when I was a travel agent my boss got a free trip from Australia to Europe and back in order to go on a KLM inaugural to Budapest from Amsterdam, or something of the sort. The 747 inaugurals, mostly in 1970, were big things for the airlines concerned.  PanAm was first international, then AA, CO, DL, EA, NW, TW, UA etc,  domestic (I forget which was first.)  Pan Am had inaugurals on dozens of routes that year: I was aboard the first Australian service in October, which despite being twelve hours late was greeted by thousands at Nandi and Sydney. They had junkets for press and local dignitaries and the whole thing was big news. I’m sure there will be enormous publicity when the A380s start being delivered and put into service – I understand Singapore Airlines has sneaked ahead of Emirates in the delivery queue.  I would also guess there will be plenty of hoopla around 2004 when the first one flies, and a little later at the first public display at an air show. Robin Johnson

Response:

> I’m sure there will be enormous publicity when the A380s start being > delivered and put into service – I understand Singapore Airlines has > sneaked ahead of Emirates in the delivery queue.  I would also guess > there will be plenty of hoopla around 2004 when the first one flies, > and a little later at the first public display at an air show.

RE: "enormous publicity" There sure will be lots of publicity when the first A380-800 prototype is rolled out at the end of 2004. It’ll be REAL interesting to see if they can land the A388 prototype at Le Brouget Airport for the 2005 Paris Air Show. The even bigger question is what route will SQ use the A388 for its first long-distance route? Will it be SQ 318, the morning flight from SIN to LHR? Or will it be SQ 2, the SIN-HKG-SFO flight? — Raymond Chuang Mountain View, CA USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m sure there will be enormous publicity when the A380s start being > delivered and put into service – I understand Singapore Airlines has > sneaked ahead of Emirates in the delivery queue.  I would also guess > there will be plenty of hoopla around 2004 when the first one flies, > and a little later at the first public display at an air show. > RE: "enormous publicity" > There sure will be lots of publicity when the first A380-800 prototype > is > rolled out at the end of 2004. It’ll be REAL interesting to see if > they can > land the A388 prototype at Le Brouget Airport for the 2005 Paris Air > Show.

Whats the deal with Le Bourget, Raymond? Is the runway too short? Scotty

Response:

>Well… at the time, there weren’t that many ships crossing the Atlantic, >and every >one was different.

Actually, the Titanic had two sister ships, the Britannic and the Olympic. But what is more to the point, the first non-sail crossing of the Atlantic took place in the 1840’s.  This is just 70 years before the Titanic.  By the time the A380 flies, Jet Aircraft (starting with the Me-262) will be 65 years old. -Erik

Response:

> Ship like the Titanic had big huge innaugural sailings with much fanfare. But > airplanes don’t have much in terms of this. I beleive that when UA had its > first 777 flight, there was a bit of a PR opportunity at the gate but > afterwards, it was just another plane with never any fanfare. (Since in fact, > there isn’t much "special" about the 777, it is just a glorified DC-0 with > nice shape/proportions.)

I would have said a 767 with more air pumped into it. > When the 747 was introduced, how much fanfare was there at the individual > airlines, and how long did it last ? While the 747 seems to have always kept a > certain amount of "special" with the customers, I have never felt that > "special" from the airline’s point of view, they treat it as just another

flight. While the 747 and 777 were definitley great milestones in passenger air travel – I think the new aircraft that really deserved and got quite a bit of fanfare from airlines was the 707 (presumably also the DC-8, DH Comet) – because jet travel was a really major step forward at the time.  I’ve seen lots of old airline advertisements that really push the fact that they’re flying a 707 Jet on certain routes as opposed to the competitors that are still flying Electras and Constellations.  > So, what will the A380 flights be like ? Just another flight, or will they > have a "special" feeling to them ? If so, how long will it last ?

There will naturally be quite a bit of ceremonies in Toulouse, but I don’t think Airlines are giong to do much more than what happened on the first UA 777 flight.  The reason IMO is that the A380 is going to be one heck of an uncomfortable aircraft to travel in.  I can just imagine being crammed in an economy class middle seat for a Trans Pacific flight on an A380 – I’d compare it more to a "slave ship" than "steerage" on an ocean liner. – V.

Response:

I was watching this documentary about a great big ship that sank, complete with the obligatory love story in it and the big diamond etc etc. As a side note, the term "steerage" was truly used as a derogatory manner back in the early 1900s. (In refence to a recent thread where a passenger was scolded by crew for using the term "steerage".) Now, back on topic… Ship like the Titanic had big huge innaugural sailings with much fanfare. But airplanes don’t have much in terms of this. I beleive that when UA had its first 777 flight, there was a bit of a PR opportunity at the gate but afterwards, it was just another plane with never any fanfare. (Since in fact, there isn’t much "special" about the 777, it is just a glorified DC-0 with nice shape/proportions.) When the 747 was introduced, how much fanfare was there at the individual airlines, and how long did it last ? While the 747 seems to have always kept a certain amount of "special" with the customers, I have never felt that "special" from the airline’s point of view, they treat it as just another flight. I’d say that the only plane that does get a certain of "special" is Concorde with the 2 airline providing almost dedicated facilities for those flights and I would assume that the passengers of Concorde really do feel that the airline does treat that flight differently. So, what will the A380 flights be like ? Just another flight, or will they have a "special" feeling to them ? If so, how long will it last ?

Response: