Will passenger aircraft get much bigger?

I personally do not believe we will see anything bigger than the A380 for many, many years, perhaps ever. Furthermore, I believe the A380 will have problems being a commercial success. The trend for the last 25 years has been towards smaller airplanes……2-300 seats is where the action is, IMHO. 767-787, A330-A350 sized airplanes are the future.

Those arguments can be opposed by other that have the same reasoning: Boeing sold more than 600 B747-400 in 20 years. Now the passenger volume has more than doubled, and Airbus would be totally happy to sell the same 600 A380. Note that when the B747-400 came out, it wasn’t purchased due to range any more. It was capacity.

Boeing does Airbus the favor of slowly scrapping the -8I project, cancellation can be expected within this year depending on overall market situation. Very unlikely they will ever restart it, so Airbus is the only one there.
Before an aircraft bigger than the B777-300ER get available, at least 10 years will pass. After the B787 Boeing must put its attention on the Single Aisle market, like Airbus.

And airlines get bigger. In a few years we’ll have three big airlines in Europe, probably only three network carriers in North America and no one knows how it develops in Asia.

In the end, many arguments can be said for or against the A380.

The two story Airbus A-380 can seat up to a huge 960 passengers (in an all economy configuration) but will aircraft keep getting bigger? Will we see aircraft carrying 1500, 2000+ in years to come? Will designers keep designing more ambitious projects or will they keep this as a maximum on safety passenger grounds?

I personally do not believe we will see anything bigger than the A380 for many, many years, perhaps ever. Furthermore, I believe the A380 will have problems being a commercial success. The trend for the last 25 years has been towards smaller airplanes……2-300 seats is where the action is, IMHO. 767-787, A330-A350 sized airplanes are the future.

I think there is a better example than the Hudson River incident (bearing in mind whilst the plane was physically floating, the rear of the cabin was under a few feet of water, but overall once the landing was made safely the pax had quite some time to evacuate) and that is the Air France – Toronto incident, whilst not at the maximum permitted capacity for the aircraft type, the individual aircraft was full and all evacuated safely, old grannies and all 😀

I think this little article is interesting on it…

FEA – Life and death played out for real – almost
Flight International (22Aug08, 505 words)

EXPERIENCE MAX KINGSLEY-JONES LONDON

LIFE AND DEATH PLAYED OUT FOR REAL – ALMOST

In the wake of the tragic 1985 British Airtours Boeing 737 accident at Manchester in which 55 people died following an engine fire on take-off, Cranfield University undertook a detailed study into aircraft evacuations on behalf of the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

The research effort in the late 1980s, led by Professor Helen Muir, saw a retired Hawker Siddeley Trident used for a series of evacuation trials with volunteers – including on one occasion, me. Most of the 60 participants for my trial were (poor) students who had been paid £10 ($20) to turn up, with the promise of a further £5 for each evacuation in which we were in the first 50% to escape – with the cash bonus handed over as soon as we had run down the ramps outside. For already competitive young people, this cash bonus was to prove as compelling an incentive to escape as life itself.

Wearing numbered vests for analysis purposes, we were allocated a different seat for each run to ensure that each participant had at least two chances to be within the first 30 people to get out and claim their £5 bonuses. The available escape exits were also varied to add to the realism.

Each time the evacuate command came the desperation to escape quickly was quite alarming as volunteers battled to be the first through the exits. On at least one of the runs I found myself being carried with the throng across the seats and crashing against a bulkhead. I then struggled to pull myself through the narrow passage way into galley area and out into the fresh air. Some around me were less fortunate, being crushed under seats or in the corners of the cabin between the sidewalls and the bulkheads, with no chance of that extra fiver.

Beating the odds

After two runs I was rather pleased to be £10 up – having probably beaten the odds on at least one of the evacuations – and found myself sat next to the over-wing exit for the next one. But as the evacuate command came and I turned to remove the hatch, I was faced with a marshal signalling through the window that this route was unavailable (as it would be if the fire was on that side of the aircraft). So instead of being first in line to safety I now had 40 people in front of me, and faced little chance of another £5. As I headed down to join the melee a whistle blew signalling that the trial had been aborted after people had became wedged in aisles and were being crushed.

While I am told that in trials where there was no financial incentive, volunteers were more co-operative and escaped in an orderly manner, sadly the fact is that the behaviour on my trial was a closer reflection of reality. That is why ever since, I’ve always worked out two alternative escape routes from my seat before every take-off.

Source: Flight International

As I stated, “Could it ever”

You can’t. But improving the certification process would mean using GenPub

All we can hope for is that on the pax list there are enough sensible people that DID pay attention to the evac procedure, enough dinner ladies to shout and guide you (If you can’t see the floor lights) and then launch ppl out of the door feet first…..and a whole lot of luck.

re the Hudson incident, the crew of that must have done their duty exceedingly well. The pax walking out onto the wing were not in panick mode as far as I could see.

I think there is a better example than the Hudson River incident (bearing in mind whilst the plane was physically floating, the rear of the cabin was under a few feet of water, but overall once the landing was made safely the pax had quite some time to evacuate) and that is the Air France – Toronto incident, whilst not at the maximum permitted capacity for the aircraft type, the individual aircraft was full and all evacuated safely, old grannies and all 😀

The reason I personally didn’t think aircraft could get much bigger was passenger safety, no matter how many back up systems etc an aircraft may have they can still crash. I can’t see people being keen to ride on an aircraft if they hear of one crashing with 750+ fatalities!

Just curious how you would propose to get people into a real-life “emergency” state of mind for a practice drill?

As I stated, “Could it ever”

You can’t. But improving the certification process would mean using GenPub instead of employees. This also has problems.

(a) They’d want paying.
(b) Security of letting 300+ non employees onto an Aircraft plant.
(c) The evac would fail. The A/c would need FAR more doors, which means far higher production cost / more expensive aeroplanes/ higher fares. It aint gonna happen.
Doors and windows are a structural nightmare on an aircraft, the extra beefed up doublers around the frames for a start. The doors (Each one)themselves are as expensive as a decent family car.

All we can hope for is that on the pax list there are enough sensible people that DID pay attention to the evac procedure, enough dinner ladies to shout and guide you (If you can’t see the floor lights) and then launch ppl out of the door feet first…..and a whole lot of luck.

re the Hudson incident, the crew of that must have done their duty exceedingly well. The pax walking out onto the wing were not in panick mode as far as I could see.

Just curious how you would propose to get people into a real-life “emergency” state of mind for a practice drill?

The same way they currently do, offer the first 50% out a financial incentive. Isn’t that what they do?

For the record I wasnt saying they couldnt build a triple decker. I just dont think it would be successful. Theres still if’s and but’s about the A380’s success and thats a double decker. I’m also curious about how long it would take to mass evacuate a triple-decker during emergencies too. 🙂

Yes, top deck evac. would be a problem. 2nd deck is a problem anyway…so is 1 deck. There are hundreds of ppl cramming out of 6 doors, you need a reverse bouncer to launch them through the door in order to get it moving.

All evac. certifications are fatally flawed. Get a selection of company employees (Ppl who are familiar with the A/c, not the average chav/pikey that is likely to be unaware where all the exits etc. are because they never pay attention to the Vids etc.) to sit in the A/c.
Rehearse it 3 or 4 times (Having been pre-warned to turn up for work in slip-on shoes). Then evacuate within X minutes in front of the Cert board.
I’ve done two so far, and that is exactly what happens.

Doesn’t reflect the real situation, but could it ever?
When your underpants are on fire, your mind doesn’t think properly.

The only “incident” I’ve been involved in was a smoke filled cabin (It wasn’t smoke – it was a cloud of condensation caused by a pressure difference) but a great many people immediately panicked and reached for their possesions and duty frees! NOT procedure!

I’m also curious about how long it would take to mass evacuate a triple-decker during emergencies too. 🙂

Just think of how steep the top slides would be! It’s be like the Barclaycard Advert slide!!!

For the record I wasnt saying they couldnt build a triple decker. I just dont think it would be successful. Theres still if’s and but’s about the A380’s success and thats a double decker. I’m also curious about how long it would take to mass evacuate a triple-decker during emergencies too. 🙂

haha I’d like to see them try. 😎

If the market demands it, the engineering will be sorted out to make it happen.
Engines are getting more powerful with every design……on present platforms this means they make the engines smaller to save weight. There is no engineering reason that the same technology can’t be put to say a 150 inch fan. (Apart from the fact that it would need a steep gull wing design to get the bottom of the lump a safe distance above the ground. Or a high wing A/c, which makes a lot of work for the Apron erks, gives a dark cabin, and the undercart has to come from the fuse.

As for the 380 carrying 960 pax. The present airlines don’t want to do that, they can generate a similar revenue (While the gimmick lasts) from the existing layout…….but carrying far less weight thus less fuel used.

I suppose you could always do away with the cargo deck and sling a few deck chairs out…:D

haha I’d like to see them try. 😎

Im not sure planes will get much bigger because with that comes alot of problems.

Triple-decker? 😀

Well Boeing did some research into this when devoloping the 747-8. They concluded that the way the industry was going, airlines would be more interested in efficiently delivering a higher frequency of service, than moving as many passengers as they could in 1 or 2 flights per day. Hence the 747-8’s capacity was not increased by much from the 747-400.

Which is also largely due to the fact that the basic B747 design couldn’t be enlarged much more before a truly new design is necessary. And doing that the product wouldn’t have been very competitive. So Boeing made the reason the conclusion.
Well, Boeing acted of course smart, as a second A380-like product would mean disaster for industry (like DC-10 and L1011 made both airframers suffer, when would have been a worthwhile investment).

The A380 and its growth variants are the maximum which can possibly achieved within the current limitations given by the basic design principles and the infrastructure.
I doubt there will be a demand for anything larger in the mid term future (until 2030). It is still unclear if the A380 is a success. Many say yes, some say no (that is: not people on forums, but people that know the industry).

Well Boeing did some research into this when devoloping the 747-8. They concluded that the way the industry was going, airlines would be more interested in efficiently delivering a higher frequency of service, than moving as many passengers as they could in 1 or 2 flights per day. Hence the 747-8’s capacity was not increased by much from the 747-400.

Im not sure planes will get much bigger because with that comes alot of problems. There will be things like weight issues, engines requiring more thrust which could lead to more noise.. and of course airports will have to expand and the NIMBY’s will hate that and try to block any kind of expansion.

The two story Airbus A-380 can seat up to a huge 960 passengers (in an all economy configuration) but will aircraft keep getting bigger? Will we see aircraft carrying 1500, 2000+ in years to come? Will designers keep designing more ambitious projects or will they keep this as a maximum on safety passenger grounds?

Unlikely, the airports have been designed with airplanes sized between 80m by 80m. A plane can not be larger then that, without severely restricting the number of airports it can operate from. It is not just the space at the gate. It’s also the width of the taixways and runways, the turns in taxiways, the proximity of (light)poles near taxiways etc.

The An-225 already is larger then 80m x 80m. However, that is a special case as it was not designed with commercial operations in mind.