[swiftdiesel]

Recently I travelled in the Etihad A380 from Abu Dhabi to London and thoroughly enjoyed the flight. Seats wide enough unlike the pathetic B787 which I reckon is the worst for seat width; and the leg room here is good enough for me. The 'take home' memory for me was the NVH of the aircraft: it was the Hyundai of the skies if you know what I mean. Take off and landing NVH was almost nil and I'm not even exaggerating. I remember hovering over the London skyline for clearance at Heathrow and the pilot kept doing the figure 8 on the sky. Normally, such manoeuvres while descending induce a strong sense of free-fall in me but in the A380 it was nil. If I didn't look out the window, I wouldn't even have noticed his manoeuvres and the text book landing was noteworthy, especially in a windy airport like Heathrow.



I've travelled in 380s before and every flight has been enjoyable. But in this Etihad, I've become a fanboy and the bird I flew in was only a year old. Hope the 380 continues to soar the skies and Etihad is better than Emirates by a mile. The B787 is one I'll avoid like the plague.

[LPT2625]

What prevents our home-grown low-cost operator Indigo from inducting A380s in their fleet? If my understanding is correct, the A380 in an all-economy configuration can seat up to 800 passengers. This aircraft is the best choice for connecting our major hubs viz. Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Chennai.

(Mods: Please delete if inappropriate)

[swiftdiesel]

Originally Posted by LPT2625

What prevents our home-grown low-cost operator Indigo from inducting A380s in their fleet? If my understanding is correct, the A380 in an all-economy configuration can seat up to 800 passengers. This aircraft is the best choice for connecting our major hubs viz. Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Chennai.

(Mods: Please delete if inappropriate)

The A380 is suitable only for long haul operations. This flight will be too cumbersome to operate short hauls with multiple take offs and landings on a given day. Also, most airports don't have a clearance yet to operate this super jumbo. This will not be feasible, ever.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by LPT2625

What prevents our home-grown low-cost operator Indigo from inducting A380s in their fleet? If my understanding is correct, the A380 in an all-economy configuration can seat up to 800 passengers. This aircraft is the best choice for connecting our major hubs viz. Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Chennai.
)

Again, these planes are simply not economic on short haul flights. It requires a plane that can do many cycles a day, short turn arounds, good fuel consumption in short range operation etc. A 747 or 380 just isn’t viable. They were never designed for that sort of operations.

Also, apart from Mumbai and Delhi I doubt very much that other airports are suitable equipped to handle an Airbus 380. Just about all airports in the world that are on a 380 route had to make substantial changes to their infrastructure. The wingspan of a 380 is wider than anything else out there. It requires substantial changes to the gates and terminals as well.

Jeroen

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by swiftdiesel

Recently I travelled in the Etihad A380 from Abu Dhabi to London and thoroughly enjoyed the flight. Seats wide enough unlike the pathetic B787 which I reckon is the worst for seat width; and the leg room here is good enough for me.

Seat width, comfort etc. is not a function of the plane model but rather what configuration an airline/leasing company opted for. Other airlines may have 787s which are wider than the one you travelled.

The NVH and smooth ride I definitely agree, just last week flew on an Etihad A380 from Abhu Dhabi to New York and ride is exemplary.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by LPT2625

What prevents our home-grown low-cost operator Indigo from inducting A380s in their fleet

We have a long way to go before getting to an A 380 on short haul routes. The first step at congested hubs like Bombay is to get ordinary wide bodied flights - such as the A330 or the 787. Jet has made a start on the Mumbai Delhi route - though I am not sure if this is just a short term fix for planes that used to operate the Brussels Newark route which Jet dropped, and whether this will continue once they reintroduce longer routes.

If demand develops, I am sure Airbus can modify the A380 for short haul operations - Boeing had a short haul optimised version of the 747 that used to fly Tokyo Osaka a couple of decades ago.

[benbsb29]

I've never had the opportunity to travel in an A380, and going by the looks of it, it may even be that it would never happen. :( I am a fan of the A380, and hope that it continues to be in service for the foreseeable future.

[swiftdiesel]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Seat width, comfort etc. is not a function of the plane model but rather what configuration an airline/leasing company opted for. Other airlines may have 787s which are wider than the one you travelled.

Agree, the configuration differs with different airlines. Having said that, the problem of severe lower back ache I had was consistent on both flights of 787. Both travel experiences were a year apart from each other. The first experience was on an almost brand new 787 of Qatar Airways and the other was BA. I took the second flight a year later passing that earlier dismal experience as a one-off but history repeated itself again. Words cannot express the numbness on my lower back albeit stretching frequently during the flight. Boeing proudly claim the monetary benefits of 9 abreast seating config but the 777 from the same stable is so much more comfortable. Boeing sounds like they've re-invented the wheel with the 787 but ironically their 777 is still the benchmark.

What was the cause for my lower back ache? Basically, my bottom was spilling over the seat base (17") and then I read up on it to find out that the 787 has lowest (currently) seat width for the 9 abreast config. This configuration leaves very little room for airlines to play around with and I'm sure they're pretty happy with Boeing on that. Here's an article that echoes a similar sentiment: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/0...ying-on-a-787/

Well, some airlines are already trialling 10 abreast economy and it's dreadful to even think about it.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Hayek

If demand develops, I am sure Airbus can modify the A380 for short haul operations - Boeing had a short haul optimised version of the 747 that used to fly Tokyo Osaka a couple of decades ago.

I actually flew on that 747 Osaka Tokyo hop once! The 747 SR (Short Range) was purposely build for short range operation. So it wasn’t a modified regular 747. JAL was the only carrier in the world, some 28-30 SRs were build in 3-4 different versions if I remember correctly.

I doubt very much you can modify an existing 380 for short range operations. In order to deal with the high number of cycles (landings/take off) all the plane needs to be structurally strengthened. The fuselage, the undercarriage, the wings etc. That is not something easily done on an existing plane. It would also require new certification.

I am not sure how it would work if you take an existing 380 and just start using it on short range operation. If anything the life span of the plane would be greatly reduced and the complete maintenance and inspection program would need to be redesigned and re-certified as well, most likely

Jeroen

[myavu]

Existing A380 had did following routes already. So it is possible.

1. Guangzhou-Shanghai (2 hours, 20 minutes)

2. Bangkok-Hong Kong (2 hours, 40 minutes)

2. Dubai-Jeddah (2 hours, 40 minutes)

4. Guangzhou-Beijing (3 hours 10 minutes)

5. Sydney-Auckland (3 hours 20 minutes

It's like Delhi to Kochi or Kochi to Dubai or something like within 3.5 hours flight.

Airlines like Indigo can do this (if they want) by rotating flights between India & UAE and India within (Domestic). The UX itself can pull more passengers towards A380. What about an all economic configuration of 850 pax

Cheers!

Vinu

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by myavu

Existing A380 had did following routes already. So it is possible.

Sure it has been done and there are actually quite a few more examples. For instance in Europe. None of the A380 routes survives very long. It simply not economical in the long run. London Heathrow to Cologne/Bonn, a very short hop for instance.

There are all sorts of other consideration why a carrier might use it on some short haul. Initially various carriers used it on short hauls for training purposes. The only way to get crews quickly trained on landings and take offs, and more importantly, taxiing. Taxiing is difficult to simulate properly in most flight SIMs.

The aircraft in question where also used in long haul, so it was some sort of clever rotational system.

Whereas the A380 is certified to approx 860 passengers, I am not sure how many, if any fly in that configuration. Boarding and deplaning is likely to take substantial more time than the actual flight time!

Jeroen

[sparky@home]

This is sure terrifying!!!

Qantas Airways Ltd. said one of its A380 aircraft had a brief dive above the Pacific Ocean because of turbulence from another superjumbo plane.
The two Qantas jets were about 20 nautical miles apart in distance and 1,000 feet apart in altitude when QF94, flying from Los Angeles to Melbourne, was affected earlier this week, the airline said in a statement Thursday. The Qantas plane, which left Los Angeles on Sunday and landed in Melbourne on Tuesday, was two hours into its flight path when it was rocked by 'wake turbulence' generated by another jet. Passenger Janelle Wilson said she screamed as the plane went into a 'freefall nosedive… a direct decline towards the ocean' for about 10 seconds.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...787398195ae1f1

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by sparky@home

This is sure terrifying!!!



]

It must have been. However, what passengers experience and how bad it really was are two different things.

Read on what it was from the captains perspective:


http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2&opt=0

Also, when a plane hits really bad turbulence, nearly always crew and or passenger get hurt, sometimes pretty badly. Here no injuries were reported which is at least a suggestion it wasn't that bad.

But of course, that doesn't mean it was a frightening experience for a number of the passengers. A plane this big doesn't go from level flight to a full nose dive and recover back to level flight in the space of 10 seconds.

Mind you, wake turbulence can be extremely dangerous! Planes, big and small have crashed due to wake turbulence. It is unusual to have it occur during the cruise phase, because planes are usually properly separated.

Most wake turbulence accident tend to happen shortly after take off and or final stages in the approach/landing.

When its heavy, low and slow you will have a lot of wake turbulence. So if the plane ahead of you on take off, or on final is a lot bigger than yours, make sure you leave a lot of room!

And try and stay above their flight track. I have often found myself in my little Cessna/diamond/Cirrus behind a Boeing 737or Airbus.

When you are behind them on final you check to stay above their flight path. You monitorwhere they touch down and visually mark your touch point well beyond theirs. Upon touchdown they will deploy their spoilers and that dumps all the lift. Without lift, no wake turbulence.

On takeoff similar, you want to rotate well before the rotation point of the big plane in front of you and then also break away so you do not cross their flight path. Wake turbulence rolls out from the aircraft and drops down.

AtC does not like you requesting to break away from the runway centre line, but if you are behind a bigger plane, they will always approve because they know the score. The alternative is waiting a few more minutes and blocking the traffic. So if the tower told me I-am number two for take off, behind the 737, I would always immediately tell them I will need to break away from centre line after rotation to avoid wake turbulence. Never a problem anf they would tell me left, right, possibly start vectoring me right away.

Jeroen

In fact on the ground wake turbulence can roll onto a parallel runway!

[KiloAlpha]

At the risk of going a bit from the main subject - here is another (slightly long) article on turbulence in general. The author has discussed wake turbulence at length.

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/

[Jeroen]

Here you see what wake turbulence actually does to a plane on take off. They did not stand a chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlv16ETueU

Jeroen