Discussion about this post

User's avatar
FlyingPerson's avatar

I think the best way to think about the failure of the A380 in your mental model is that it is a consequence of “hub rerouting” and “regional spillover” you talk about in your piece.

People would rather fly through smaller airports closer to them, and not take connections. As air traffic increases, this becomes more viable, as you can serve more destinations directly from smaller airports without going through a hub. This also helps congestion at the mega airports, because it means these passengers don’t travel through them.

So it turns out that with where we are on the air travel growth curve, it makes more sense to do more flights from more airports. You start to see things like Boston to Copenhagen and London Gatwick, rather than Boston to JFK to Copenhagen or Boston to London Heathrow. The math pencils out on these routes with a smaller, more efficient aircraft like the 787 or the A320neo.

The success of the 737 is more to do with the similar effect this on the shorter haul domestic market. Folks would rather fly Vegas to Miami direct on a 737 at a slightly less convenient time, rather than Vegas to Dallas and then Dallas to Miami at a peak time via a big jet.

It turns out this effect really dampens the demand for an A380 size jet for big hub to hub routes with where we are in the growth of the industry. Will it stay that way in fifty years if we remain stuck with our limited airport capacity? Who knows. But the A380 was the wrong jet for the time right now.

(Also, even more in the weeds, the trade off of needing four jets to get the thing airborne really made it quite expensive to operate. There’s reason to think something like the 777X, which is a big jet still but with only two engines, might be the sweet spot of the available trade offs with current technology.)

Expand full comment
David R.'s avatar

One side comment, but is there anything that NEPA has not "been leveraged to oppose"?

Dense housing, check.

Mass transit in built-up areas, check.

Congestion pricing, check.

Solar farms, check.

Offshore wind, check.

Transmission corridors, check.

Nuclear power plants, check.

Passenger rail construction, check.

Passenger rail improvements, check.

Forestry rewilding programs, check.

Five years ago I'd have had a more nuanced view but at this point my take on NEPA is "kill it with fire" and laugh at the environmental scientists and environmental lawyers who cry foul.

Expand full comment
33 more comments...