Hacker News Reader

Comment by InTheArena | Hacker News Reader

The A380 was Airbus trying to out-American the Americans, by being the biggest plane, and by betting big on mega-hubs like Dubai, Heathrow, and LAX. There was a great paper that argued that Airbus could only do so because the risk of the decision was mitigated by government launch aid. Airbus's view of the market was wrong, and instead, we have the rise of more city pairs. Not small cities certainly - but right now, the three busiest airports in the world are ATL, DFW and DEN. None of which was ever a target market for the A380. Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown...

View on HN

> Airbus walked away from what made them successful to go after the "we are the biggest" crown...

But they have direct competitors for these types of routes too. A350, A321-XLR, the various neo planes. All of which are as good as Boeing’s options! (And even some which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220.) As an outsider, it seems like Airbus is in a fantastic spot, at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X and working on a new single-aisle plane.

The A380 decision was two decades ago now. The A350 was a result of Boeing wiping out the A340 and the first iteration of the A350. Airbus is in a good potion now that they did in fact go back to what made them successful. Mid range single deck two engine airframes.

> which Boeing doesn’t have, like the A220

What's hilarious is Boeing they almost killed the project.

Airbus was able to snag it for next to nothing, while Canadians were supposedly "hard at work" negotiating for NAFTA.

> if Boeing ships the 777X

Though even a 737\757 replacement is 10 to 15 years away with airbus getting more and more of the order book.

> at least until Boeing starts shipping the 777X

Is that expected to provide a serious upgrade over the A350-1000?

I wonder about statistics for hub vs pairs

Airlines line Turkish seem to do well, with their shinny new super hub in Istanbul.

There can only be so much pair to pair flight, so we will always have some hub airlines.

I took Nice to Manila last year. Friends of mines flew from random town in France to Abu Dhabi, through Istanbul. On my flight to Istanbul, I talked to passengers going to a random town in Egypt for diving & friends holiday.

And I also saw students (or at least young ppl) going to Japan on my flight. A stopover probably made the flight more fuel economic, hence cheaper, which is great for a lot of flyers.

I was also glad to stop midflight to wait at the warm water fountain with Chinese ppl (who were wondering why a gringo was having a warm glass of water), to stretch my legs, and to change and everything. More than 10 hours of a single flight is unbearable.

I have no doubt that city pairs flights are hotter atm, and you will always have flights between your home city and trendy destinations like the famous Montréal or the infamous USA from now on.

But for all of these reasons and more, I don't believe hub airlines are doomed.

It’s not just about hubs but about frequency as well. If given the choice flyers often prefer the airline flying 3 or 4 737s at varying times of day over the one big airplane.

which flyers ? I'm not sure they spread evenly

tourists all want the earliest and last flights to arrive early and leave late, and not waste a day of vacation

ppl who go on a weekend want the last trip on sunday that arrives not so late so that they can sleep, or the earliest trip on monday

And when you're going on a journey in the middle of the day, you're sometimes feeling alone in there.

Beyond offering more trips, there will still be that slots issues where you have to propose capacity at popular schedules.

You would see the same fare on all the flights, if capacity wasn't an issue for airlines.

So it's not an open and shut debate. Both types of planes should still exist.

Also, IMO, "Increasing the frequency" "at varying times of the day" with 737s only is another sign of the airline industry not really caring about what users want, because of the economics. Most travellers really want that Friday evening flight.

It's the same as with the luggages that are a premium and a nightmare to checkin with most airlines.

But it's unfortunately the system we want. We choosed to have profitable businesses, instead of costly public services like trains in Europe.

They have unlimited capacity anytime of the day, lose money, but are convenient. That should be a model again for airlines.

tourists and travelers are hardly a uniform group.

A young single person, is different from a family with kids, which is different from a group of young people on a party trip. A young single person can often have a bag ready and depart directly from work; a family with kids may want to depart in the morning to be there super early; a group of young people hungover from last night's bender may want an afternoon flight.

Not to mention, often you are picking between an optimal departure time and an optimal arrival time. For instance, I know people who love redeye flights to fly across the continental US, but I hate them because they mess up my sleep.

The A380 is essentially a really big bet on a one-size-fits-all plane, for travel segments that rarely are.

I'm not convinced that those airports being busiest is relevant here. Presumably most of the volume is domestic traffic, which was never going to be the A380s wheelhouse anyway.

Or maybe that's what you mean, and that Airbus has lost domestic US carrier sales by focusing on the A380? But they've presumably won long haul international sales- Emirates, Singpaore, etc

I don't know about Denver but ATL and DFW have been extremely busy airports for at least a couple of decades, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't have been taken into account.

And if neither of those airports is a "mega hub" than I don't think LAX is either. They have the gate count, the passenger count, and the Delta/American hubs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com