Story time: I once worked on a bungee jump site in Greece and we had this kid who wanted to go bungeejumping but you need to be at least 50 KG in order to do the jump. He was only 49kg. So we told him to go drink a litre of water
@@FoundAndExplained Remembered my high school Greco-Roman Wrestling team members sweating, peeing & pooping still didn't make weight class tried spitting into buckets to lose a few ounces.
Well, every transportation project was advertised like this at first: huge rooms, restaurant, spa, business center... Only to become a regular fishpack economy liner.
@@Helperbot-2000 they didnt have the turboptop engines beeded to be able to actually fly. If it did, it would have been the concorde of the 50s and 60s, flying celebrities and rich asshats across the world.
@@Helperbot-2000 It may have flown, but JUST BARLEY, and it was empty too, no luxury stuff or passengers. The piston engines were too weak to move the beast, it needed turboprops to actually fly WITH passengers.
the issue is not the production itself but the inflexibility of such a large craft it would almost impossible to fill enough of it seat in any route that is not absolutely the most busy route and very few if any airfield could handle such a plane not to mention the running cost of such a beast of a plane no airline in there right mind would take such a risk instead of buying more wide body dual engine ultra long hualer instead.
One of the craziest concepts was from the 50s: The Saunders Roe 'Queen'. A 1000 seater flying boat, designed to fly from Britain to Australia, it would have had TWENTY FOUR Rolls Royce Conway engines and a wing so deep, engineers could stand upright in it and maintain engines mid flight.
As a little boy back in middle school, I drew this exact plane. Granted, my design had seven decks, but the principal was the same, AN-225 hangover design with six engines, funny to see a video about it now.
All these ideas of gyms, restaurants, beds for hire etc. are impossible. Every airline maximises every foot of space for bookable seats. The more people you can squeeze into a plane, the more profitable it becomes so why would you just set aside empty space just in case existing passengers might want to sleep or workout. Even if they could pay for it, it would be as profitable as just filling that space with extra seats. If there is extra space, the airline will fill it with seats, not these gimmicks. Even the Emirates showers are a useless gimmick as they rarely uplift extra water for them as it costs more fuel due to the weight. Doesn’t justify the cost.
True. Any such "cruiseship of the skies" would more likely be a rigid airship of some kind, as they would be able to function at a much lower cost than an airliner, and either option would require the installation of a significant amount of infrastructure.
This is the true and only way to make planes economic and "a little bit more" ecologic. One class planes. Comfy, no more, no less. Fat wallet not happy ? Buy a jet or use video conference.
well not possible on planes, as they are extremely space limited. these 'cruise ship' like amenities are not possible, when your entire business model depends on efficiency.
Yeah. I'd say that economic + business are the only two classes airlines will need. In fact, If it were me, I'd give priority to business class. Flying is no longer a luxury! Why don't they keep the passengers comfortable enough for long flights without useless gimmicks? A simple twin engine with business + economic is more than enough and it has been proven over the decades. Function over form!
As someone who flies often, I can tell you that cramming even more people onto those already cramped seats in economy would cause a revolt. An 8-12 hour flight in the seats shown here would literally be torture.
Can’t they just make the a380 upon request and not a product for mass production and high sales? Like make the a380 for long haul flights ,and you don’t really need a lot of them. Just exclusively for the long routes.
@@kalebgonzales4009 no. It wouldn’t be economically viable and no ones ordering them anyways. Not to mention maintaining the facilities, tooling, manpower, and supply chain just to have on ready.
Agreed. During this Pandemic Time, with so many countries restricting nonessential travel, airlines are retiring their A380s and 747s. The hub-and-spoke model these big planes depended on is being supplanted by point-to-point route networks, where you use smaller planes. And businesses are learning that it's cheaper and more productive to meet on Zoom. All that means lower passenger numbers for a long time to come. If anything, that means the trend is toward smaller planes, not bigger. If there's an opportunity for these super-duper-jumbos, it's in cargo.
The best prospect for a superjumbo would be as a high-priority cargo plane with a fast turnaround time to support high-volume use. Rapid air intermodal, maybe?
Exactly. An aircraft like that would certainly need many failsafe systems. I think the Boeing 747 had 4 backup safety systems for every system. 747 they said was a very safe flying jet
I find it really hard to believe even with the airline struggling before the pandemic that this many people fly in the world to any location at one time
It was also a damned dangerous arrangement, IIUC. The lift was very poorly guarded on the lower deck, and I've heard at least one member of crew was crushed to death under one. 😥 I seem to recall there's also a ladder that could be used (Though it might've been in the lift shaft ⚠) as well as an emergency exit up into the passenger gangway at the opposite end.
A passenger plane this size will likely never be realized as the A380 failure has shown. As the video briefly covers, a huge problem are airports themselves which can't be easily modified to handle a plane this big. That's why the 777-X has folding wing tips so it can fit without the airport modifications needed for an A380. I think the most realistic future passenger aircraft beyond tube and wing designs will be a blended wing body (or flying wing like the B-2 Stealth Bomber). With advances in computer modelling, LCDs negating the need for real windows and flexible materials like carbon fiber, such a plane could be built now within the same physical dimensions of a tube and wing design but carry more at a higher operating efficiency.
777-X has folding wings for a different reason. Airports can dock airplanes with bigger wingspan without any substantial problem. But space is scarce thus very expensive. Docking spaces are divided into categories, each category substantialy more expensive. 777-X falls into lower category thanks to wing folding. This saves a LOT of money to airplane operators. Chech out Mentour pilot ep about this, he covers this topic very well.
@@Makak0007 Thanks for the link. I also took a look at Captain Joe's video about this. ruclips.net/video/CVJodUengtk/видео.html. I still think what I said is true with respect to why a passenger plane bigger than the A380 will likely never be built. That is, it financially doesn't make sense to modify airports to accept larger planes. I think the operational cost savings from taking up a smaller slot is a secondary benefit to not needing a huge initial capital investment to modify airport taxiways, gates, runways, etc.
@@calvinl2149 Absolutely. And these immense investments prove to be prohibitive. Unless something dramatically changes in aviation industry, no A380 likes are to be successfully developed and sold. We can enjoy A380s until they are phased out in a decade or two probably without any foreseeable replacement. As for 777-X: this is a plane of regular sizes compatible with current infrastructure. What happened here is that they upgraded it to achieve higher fuel efficiency, mostly via extended wingspan. But they also wanted to keep the airport fees at the same level and since 777-X fell into higher (more expensive) category thanks to it's extended wingspan, the only solution was to make them foldable :-) Not sure what the airport fees exactly are but they must be very, very steep if it makes sense to add complexity and weight to 777-X and it still pays off. I am sure Boeing thought through all pros and cons very carefully and airplane operators even better.
I actually have a fantasy universe where these triple-deck aircraft not only took off (pun 100% coincidental) with gangbuster levels of success, but were mandated by Buttski law with all of these ultra-futuristic amenities as standard in all classes. The base models ended up putting basic and premium economy on the C deck, business class on the B deck, and first class on the A deck. Today's twin-deck aircraft combined the basic and premium economy classes onto the B deck and the business and first classes on the A deck.
@@IshijimaKairo Concorde meals were a non stop thing. A multi course meal from takeoff to landing and was delicious. I got to fly it when I was 13. They even took me to the cockpit. It was awesome.
These "newer" designs aren't really pushing the envelope of technology though. Think about WW2 and guns on battleships getting bigger. Those completely missed paradigm shifts in technology change such as guns -> missiles and aircraft carriers making battleships obsolete.
@@calvinl2149 Basically if you make 3 decked planes its both a fuel waste and too costly. it also sounds absurd and obsolete, think of the engine its gonna need.
5:33 Ah, the good old Mercator projection distorting reality. It makes it seem like the northernmost tip of Greenland is farther away from Paris than Cape town, or Buenos Aires, or LA.
@@trezapoioiuy The last A380 is being assembled as we speak. Although they haven't announced it Emirates is making plans to down size their fleet. On the other hand UPS is very pleased with the 8F. In addition the next generation VVIP is based on the 747. So the 747 is going to be around for years to come. Don't get me wrong, the 380 is a technical marvel. However, its a European vanity project that never should've gotten as far as it did. The only thing that prevented it from being a colossal failure was Emirates. PS: Before you go and accuse me of being a Boeing fan boy I don't think that the next generation 777 is going to end well for Boeing.
I think the era of double decker high capacity planes is over, A 380 will be the new Concorde soon. Aitlines are more interested in single aisle long range planes like NEO.
I think one day or another in the very near future, when the aviation gets back growing, the demand for larger planes will eventually come back. The number of slot restricted airports is increasing. For example, Air France decided to ditch the A380 but when the situation improves they'll be forced to add a couple "duplicate" flights to some destinations at essentially the same time (ie JFK, JNB, NRT, LAX...). In the case of Tokyo NRT paying Russia's super expensive overflight tax and NRT taxes twice. And there are several high density long routes that do not allow much freedom in the schedule, the most blatant example for AF is still being NRT : the airport closes early due to curfew and no one wants to land at 4 AM in Paris CDG so the schedule is always the same. The wiggle room between the flights' schedules won't be larger than an hour each way. So I see a small but firm and premium market for larger planes in the near future. Especially on the polar routes and 10/11+ hours flights as half a day flight times automatically forces you to choose between narrow time windows in the morning and the evening. Completely losing any interest in frequency offer.
🤣 Nick, I was just about to light up the comments saying "we've had double, and triple decks for years" I'm so glad you rectified this at the start. 👍😎👍MDS
Actually, this concept could work so long as they make a cargo variant, the reason the 747-900 is still being made is that unlike the A380, it has a cargo variant and the more cargo that shipping companies can move in a single flight the better. This makes it possible for Airlines to buy them because even though airlines might only want a small number, cargo companies will want more and thus make the research and development costs a worthwhile investment.
This idea reminds me of the Saunders-Roe Queen. If you don't know what it would have looked like, imagine a seaplane with a wingspan of 313 feet, five levels of seating (arranged into six-person compartments that could be turned into sleeping areas in the evening) allowing for a 1,000 passenger capacity, plus seven crew and 40 stewards, with 12 engines built in each of the wings. Had it gone beyond the proposal phase (which would have been unlikely due to the sheer size of that thing), it would have likely been the largest passenger airplane ever built, and if they were able to build enough of them would have made transatlantic plane tickets cheap at least a decade before the 747.
It would've been epic to "sea" (Sorry! 🙃) and I've often wondered why seaplanes aren't used for passenger services anymore, but I don't know if it would've faired all that well. We Brits are _great_ at making things which are _reasonable and practical_ of course...But _superlative proportions?_ I think experience suggests that might be something better _designed_ in Britain, but then passed to the Americans to actually _deliver_ it. 😇 And there might be a few issues properly refuelling the things, when you consider a British gallon is (Oddly enough) 1,3l (2 pints) *bigger* than an American one! 😳
@@dieseldragon6756 I think the death of the seaplane for commercial long-distance flights largely coincided with the introduction of jet airliners and also not wanting to have to deal with metal corrosion by seawater.
Yeah just think of the cost to build the plane maintenance cost and fueling exstended runways special constructed boarding tunnels hundreds of billions of dollars to put in this behemoth
@@pd4165 Maybe it's time for a supersonic delta wing type aircraft? I guess a bi-plane wing is possible but it would be tricky to get it to achieve the same order of efficiencies. The longer a wing is the higher efficiency it has, so there could be a continuation of the folded wings like the 777x but just taken further.
Airplanes bigger than we have today sadly do not make sense since the longest jet airliner flight is a little less than 20hrs, unlike ships where you can be at sea for months at a time, on a ship it makes sense to have a gym or a spa, not on an airplane. It's just for show and daydreaming
These aircraft would have been perfect during the late 1960s/early 1970. However in today's market, it'll most likely be a huge failure. I feel that these aircraft could allow airlines to experiment with seats. Anyways, I would love to fly on this giant aircraft unless if the airline stuffed a button of standing up seats. I've always loved high capacity aircraft. I once flew on a Singapore airlines A380 from Osaka to Singapore and I loved the experience.
I feel like these larger planes could have done better if they had focused on making them cargo planes. Most of the problems for them come from being used as pax transport planes but it is a completely different game when it comes to cargo shipping. The 225 (RIP) was a cargo plane and look how well it did.
“Would the airlines actually want to carry the extra weight of dumb bells?” They already do, and on a few flights I’ve ended up in the row right next to them! Cool concept, it’ll be interesting if it ever happens!
Talking about the 800 passenger aircraft during the depopulation and financial crisis era is a king of funny. A380 was a delight to fly on, but anything larger is a sci-fi.
Absolutely the plane is just too huge as well the construction cost maintenance and fueling would be astronomical high no plane manufacturer building would be able to build it it's such a beast the plane would be so big you'd need to build it out side or construct a special facility to build it and that would cost hundreds of billions in cash
Wow a large plane this will be perfect for the future but i thing we need a electrical engines because there are 6 engine it will become more louder and burn a lot of fuel
A triple passenger deck giant jet aircraft with no improvements on emergency exits and safety protocols? No way! Those monsters would be flying Titanics. (Doomed to crash on their maiden flights). 😮
Meanwhile in an alternative universe The secretary: NOOOO you can’t just buy large planes at large numbers their too expensive and you will bankrupt the airline NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The airline: hahaha large planes go brrrrr
Actually, at 6:01, another aircraft comes to mind; the Ilyushin IL-86 had the same features where the lower deck wasn’t solely for baggage. Indeed, it had the same purpose, which was to eliminate the need for a jet bridge or air stairs at poorly equipped airports.
a marriage between a Boeing 747, an Airbus A380, and an Antonov An-225 does sound like a mechanical nightmare in operation, but boy is it beautiful to look at
Not only does it have so many engines, Its large size makes it Impossible to park in airport Gates since non are built to park a plane of that size, with that problem comes another one, it may not be able to travel to Other airports since it will probably need a very long runway and as i mentioned where will it park? or will airlines Even buy it? not to mention Maintenance costs, and imagine the Drama and Controversy caused if one Crashes or fails, Specially on its First flight, it will be impossible to keep a plane of this size in the market.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
To save weight: dehydrate passengers before boarding; rehydrate after arrival.
Story time: I once worked on a bungee jump site in Greece and we had this kid who wanted to go bungeejumping but you need to be at least 50 KG in order to do the jump. He was only 49kg. So we told him to go drink a litre of water
@@FoundAndExplained Remembered my high school Greco-Roman Wrestling team members sweating, peeing & pooping still didn't make weight class tried spitting into buckets to lose a few ounces.
Funny!
@@takwaiwong8507 thats nasty
Hilarious.
Well, every transportation project was advertised like this at first: huge rooms, restaurant, spa, business center... Only to become a regular fishpack economy liner.
Take the bristol brabazon for example, while there were obviously multiple reasons, it was a luxury plane which completely failed
@@Helperbot-2000 they didnt have the turboptop engines beeded to be able to actually fly. If it did, it would have been the concorde of the 50s and 60s, flying celebrities and rich asshats across the world.
@@edgardox.feliciano3127 the fuck are you talking about? it did fly
@@edgardox.feliciano3127 - What is "asshat"?
Your words...are strange...
@@Helperbot-2000 It may have flown, but JUST BARLEY, and it was empty too, no luxury stuff or passengers. The piston engines were too weak to move the beast, it needed turboprops to actually fly WITH passengers.
Twin engines with longer ETOPS and far more efficient engines has pretty much killed anything with more than 2 engines
With new A380s being flown straight to the Breakers this will never happen.
unless you are talking about cargo
the A380 dies while the 747 flys on
@@kommandantgalileo nope in 2022, the 747 is gonna stop being produced
@@Boypogikami132 yeah but they won't be decommissioned for a long time unlike the A380
@@kommandantgalileogood point, I hadn't considered cargo.
I've actually never considered boarding times when it comes to those huge concepts and how much of a decision making factor it is for myself.
It wouldn’t bother me I’d wait till almost last and take my time
the issue is not the production itself but the inflexibility of such a large craft it would almost impossible to fill enough of it seat in any route that is not absolutely the most busy route and very few if any airfield could handle such a plane not to mention the running cost of such a beast of a plane no airline in there right mind would take such a risk instead of buying more wide body dual engine ultra long hualer instead.
3 deck aircraft able to carry more than 1000 passengers
Ryanair: make it 3000!
Make it 1 million
"Standing Room Only"; with 2 lavatories.
Economy everywhere
Ryanair makes money flying around a 100 passengers between 'second and third tier' airports NOT thousands flying between expensive large hubs !
@@grahamstevenson1740 The comments are some good natured ribbing of the airline industry; nothing serious.
One of the craziest concepts was from the 50s: The Saunders Roe 'Queen'. A 1000 seater flying boat, designed to fly from Britain to Australia, it would have had TWENTY FOUR Rolls Royce Conway engines and a wing so deep, engineers could stand upright in it and maintain engines mid flight.
you get a deck, you get a deck, everyone gets a deck.
Lol
Heh, oversimplifed fan I see
"Hey what's your name? You get a deck!"
I wish
Change a letter and you’ve got yourself some trans people.
As a little boy back in middle school, I drew this exact plane. Granted, my design had seven decks, but the principal was the same, AN-225 hangover design with six engines, funny to see a video about it now.
Would the deck lettering system have worked like it does for cruise ships where decks are lettered in descending order?
A seven-deck plane. Now that would be a sight to behold.
Antonov: *Joins the chat*
Antonov: *Eye roll*
Antonov: *Leaves the chat*
Yep
Still just a cargo plane though
doesn't really count
@@carlosandleon Until ryan air buy a fleet of them
@@CommyPlayz then they go bankrupt
as they need new tryes cuz the hard landing
Plans: let's make a 3 deck plane
The A380: maybe dont you will live a short life like me
20 years of development 15 years of service time.
godzilla had a stroke trying to read this
All these ideas of gyms, restaurants, beds for hire etc. are impossible. Every airline maximises every foot of space for bookable seats. The more people you can squeeze into a plane, the more profitable it becomes so why would you just set aside empty space just in case existing passengers might want to sleep or workout. Even if they could pay for it, it would be as profitable as just filling that space with extra seats. If there is extra space, the airline will fill it with seats, not these gimmicks. Even the Emirates showers are a useless gimmick as they rarely uplift extra water for them as it costs more fuel due to the weight. Doesn’t justify the cost.
Yep
everyhting will just be worse in the future
people packed into every square inch because profit
True. Any such "cruiseship of the skies" would more likely be a rigid airship of some kind, as they would be able to function at a much lower cost than an airliner, and either option would require the installation of a significant amount of infrastructure.
This is the true and only way to make planes economic and "a little bit more" ecologic.
One class planes. Comfy, no more, no less. Fat wallet not happy ? Buy a jet or use video conference.
well not possible on planes, as they are extremely space limited.
these 'cruise ship' like amenities are not possible, when your entire business model depends on efficiency.
Yeah. I'd say that economic + business are the only two classes airlines will need. In fact, If it were me, I'd give priority to business class. Flying is no longer a luxury! Why don't they keep the passengers comfortable enough for long flights without useless gimmicks?
A simple twin engine with business + economic is more than enough and it has been proven over the decades. Function over form!
I think the era of large planes is over, with most 747s and a380s getting de-commissioned. We might never get an era of large planes again
I agree
Antonov: *makes III deck*
Also Antonov: ALL OF IT WILL BE CARGO HAHAHAHAHA
As someone who flies often, I can tell you that cramming even more people onto those already cramped seats in economy would cause a revolt. An 8-12 hour flight in the seats shown here would literally be torture.
The 380 program was ultimately not that successful. This will never happen.
Can’t they just make the a380 upon request and not a product for mass production and high sales? Like make the a380 for long haul flights ,and you don’t really need a lot of them. Just exclusively for the long routes.
@@kalebgonzales4009 no. It wouldn’t be economically viable and no ones ordering them anyways. Not to mention maintaining the facilities, tooling, manpower, and supply chain just to have on ready.
Never say never, markets change and 2050 or 2100 might look very different to today
Very unsuccessful, actually
@NorthStars the Steagle but pretty much every other airline doesn't, and one airline isn't going to make a plane profitable.
"3 deck aircrafts don't exist"
BV 238: but did they
That looks like an antonov with a passenger conversion.
Edit: RIP 225
It's actually much better they build Antonov 124s and 225s and convert them as airliners.
@@driver76fan 225 cant be an airliner
ANOTOV
@@driver76fan 225s ans in you mean there is more than 1 225. well yes there is actually 1.5 but it still counts as 1 so it should be 225
@@oscar_bru8455 well yeah. If they plan to make another.
This dude and his channel like a future plane i love this channel
Thanks! I hope you sub ! Another video in a few hours
@@FoundAndExplained yes dude i subcribe because this video was awesome
Probably only a potential design for the Antonov replacement as a huge cargo plane. It will not become a passenger plane.
Agreed. During this Pandemic Time, with so many countries restricting nonessential travel, airlines are retiring their A380s and 747s. The hub-and-spoke model these big planes depended on is being supplanted by point-to-point route networks, where you use smaller planes. And businesses are learning that it's cheaper and more productive to meet on Zoom. All that means lower passenger numbers for a long time to come. If anything, that means the trend is toward smaller planes, not bigger. If there's an opportunity for these super-duper-jumbos, it's in cargo.
Or it can be a combi aircraft where there is cargo and passengers
@@amirkhalid5449 yes the online shopping that needs to be delivered overseas in 24 hours
The best prospect for a superjumbo would be as a high-priority cargo plane with a fast turnaround time to support high-volume use. Rapid air intermodal, maybe?
@@amirkhalid5449 9
I’m still waiting for the 314 Clipper video!!
Just imagine this thing crashing. 1000+ deaths
Exactly. An aircraft like that would certainly need many failsafe systems. I think the Boeing 747 had 4 backup safety systems for every system. 747 they said was a very safe flying jet
@@matthewb769 True
That's exactly what I thought
The only things that happen are pilot error or maintenance
To bring those down
I find it really hard to believe even with the airline struggling before the pandemic that this many people fly in the world to any location at one time
"Anotov 225 Miriya"
Damn man, these names are not that tricky and hardly deserve that kind of butchery
when they pronounced Breguet as bur-jent...
Mriya, not miriya
Seriously
Antonov 225 Mriya: *exists
This guy: "Anotov 225 Miriya"
@@dandcc9192 well, not anymore
L-1011 Tri-star had a lower level galley accessed by a lift/elevator. Cabin crew could have privacy there if they kept the lift door open.
It was also a damned dangerous arrangement, IIUC. The lift was very poorly guarded on the lower deck, and I've heard at least one member of crew was crushed to death under one. 😥
I seem to recall there's also a ladder that could be used (Though it might've been in the lift shaft ⚠) as well as an emergency exit up into the passenger gangway at the opposite end.
Out of all future concepts, this one looks most realistic out of them
A passenger plane this size will likely never be realized as the A380 failure has shown. As the video briefly covers, a huge problem are airports themselves which can't be easily modified to handle a plane this big. That's why the 777-X has folding wing tips so it can fit without the airport modifications needed for an A380. I think the most realistic future passenger aircraft beyond tube and wing designs will be a blended wing body (or flying wing like the B-2 Stealth Bomber). With advances in computer modelling, LCDs negating the need for real windows and flexible materials like carbon fiber, such a plane could be built now within the same physical dimensions of a tube and wing design but carry more at a higher operating efficiency.
@@calvinl2149 I mean it looks most realistic because look at the Boeing 2707, wasn't looking realistic.
777-X has folding wings for a different reason.
Airports can dock airplanes with bigger wingspan without any substantial problem. But space is scarce thus very expensive. Docking spaces are divided into categories, each category substantialy more expensive. 777-X falls into lower category thanks to wing folding. This saves a LOT of money to airplane operators. Chech out Mentour pilot ep about this, he covers this topic very well.
@@Makak0007 Thanks for the link. I also took a look at Captain Joe's video about this. ruclips.net/video/CVJodUengtk/видео.html. I still think what I said is true with respect to why a passenger plane bigger than the A380 will likely never be built. That is, it financially doesn't make sense to modify airports to accept larger planes. I think the operational cost savings from taking up a smaller slot is a secondary benefit to not needing a huge initial capital investment to modify airport taxiways, gates, runways, etc.
@@calvinl2149 Absolutely. And these immense investments prove to be prohibitive. Unless something dramatically changes in aviation industry, no A380 likes are to be successfully developed and sold. We can enjoy A380s until they are phased out in a decade or two probably without any foreseeable replacement.
As for 777-X: this is a plane of regular sizes compatible with current infrastructure. What happened here is that they upgraded it to achieve higher fuel efficiency, mostly via extended wingspan. But they also wanted to keep the airport fees at the same level and since 777-X fell into higher (more expensive) category thanks to it's extended wingspan, the only solution was to make them foldable :-) Not sure what the airport fees exactly are but they must be very, very steep if it makes sense to add complexity and weight to 777-X and it still pays off. I am sure Boeing thought through all pros and cons very carefully and airplane operators even better.
I actually have a fantasy universe where these triple-deck aircraft not only took off (pun 100% coincidental) with gangbuster levels of success, but were mandated by Buttski law with all of these ultra-futuristic amenities as standard in all classes. The base models ended up putting basic and premium economy on the C deck, business class on the B deck, and first class on the A deck. Today's twin-deck aircraft combined the basic and premium economy classes onto the B deck and the business and first classes on the A deck.
I miss getting a hot meal on a flight shorter than 4hrs.
When was that a thing?
@@concept5631 Concorde
@@IshijimaKairo -The boat or a pl--
Took me a second, thanks for clarifying.
@@IshijimaKairo Concorde meals were a non stop thing. A multi course meal from takeoff to landing and was delicious. I got to fly it when I was 13. They even took me to the cockpit. It was awesome.
me too fiyubgvhitel chàgé it wabt hit meal drjvé t s
Now that is one beautiful air liner.
I like these newer designs, we should always keep pushing the envelope of technology forward and not become complacent with older models. ..
These "newer" designs aren't really pushing the envelope of technology though. Think about WW2 and guns on battleships getting bigger. Those completely missed paradigm shifts in technology change such as guns -> missiles and aircraft carriers making battleships obsolete.
Will never happen as long as money is the only goal
@@calvinl2149 If aircraft had to give passengers a decent amount of space then larger planes would be doing better
@@calvinl2149 Basically if you make 3 decked planes its both a fuel waste and too costly. it also sounds absurd and obsolete, think of the engine its gonna need.
Just the thought of a A380 going down with all passengers into the sea.
5:33 Ah, the good old Mercator projection distorting reality. It makes it seem like the northernmost tip of Greenland is farther away from Paris than Cape town, or Buenos Aires, or LA.
Airbus A380, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing 747 has left the chat
The 11s and 747s are going to be "in the chat" long after those 380s are beer cans.
Not because of these concepts, but they are indeed leaving the chat
@@trezapoioiuy Not today though.
@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 the last 747 will be delivered in 2022
@@trezapoioiuy The last A380 is being assembled as we speak. Although they haven't announced it Emirates is making plans to down size their fleet. On the other hand UPS is very pleased with the 8F. In addition the next generation VVIP is based on the 747. So the 747 is going to be around for years to come.
Don't get me wrong, the 380 is a technical marvel. However, its a European vanity project that never should've gotten as far as it did. The only thing that prevented it from being a colossal failure was Emirates.
PS: Before you go and accuse me of being a Boeing fan boy I don't think that the next generation 777 is going to end well for Boeing.
Emerites smallest plane:
lmao
Nah global
*This thing starts existing* *Emirates * GIVE GIVE
Emirates*
I think the era of double decker high capacity planes is over, A 380 will be the new Concorde soon. Aitlines are more interested in single aisle long range planes like NEO.
This Aircraft: *Exists*
Ryanair if they exist and is in their fleet: _welp, off i go hard landing again_
If Ryanair have these in their fleet, they would *have* to be manufactured by -McDonnel Douglas- _Boing..._ 😋
Imagine this plane missing an approach or overshooting a runway
Imagine how many ambulances or morgue vehicles would be needed if one went down.
@@hendrsb33 don't even go there
I wouldn't want to...
"Disasters dont just happen, they are triggered by a chain of......" - Seconds from Disaster
vtoóls vetsíññ
love the design of the deck III, looks fantastic.
I think one day or another in the very near future, when the aviation gets back growing, the demand for larger planes will eventually come back. The number of slot restricted airports is increasing. For example, Air France decided to ditch the A380 but when the situation improves they'll be forced to add a couple "duplicate" flights to some destinations at essentially the same time (ie JFK, JNB, NRT, LAX...). In the case of Tokyo NRT paying Russia's super expensive overflight tax and NRT taxes twice.
And there are several high density long routes that do not allow much freedom in the schedule, the most blatant example for AF is still being NRT : the airport closes early due to curfew and no one wants to land at 4 AM in Paris CDG so the schedule is always the same.
The wiggle room between the flights' schedules won't be larger than an hour each way.
So I see a small but firm and premium market for larger planes in the near future. Especially on the polar routes and 10/11+ hours flights as half a day flight times automatically forces you to choose between narrow time windows in the morning and the evening. Completely losing any interest in frequency offer.
🤣 Nick, I was just about to light up the comments saying "we've had double, and triple decks for years"
I'm so glad you rectified this at the start.
👍😎👍MDS
Maybe you should do a video about air ships such as
Are there any room for airships ?
Double deck air crafts production already canceled because there are no buyers.
Actually, this concept could work so long as they make a cargo variant, the reason the 747-900 is still being made is that unlike the A380, it has a cargo variant and the more cargo that shipping companies can move in a single flight the better. This makes it possible for Airlines to buy them because even though airlines might only want a small number, cargo companies will want more and thus make the research and development costs a worthwhile investment.
They just rolled out the last 747 900 cargo plane out of the Everett facility just before Christmas 2022
777X : Finally A Worthty Opponent !
747 Left The Chat
380 Left The Chat
A380-1100: no u
Where the fuck is the logic with this comment? 777x is smaller than both 747 and a380 imao
Rodan enters chat
Macdonalds DC flying pencil : am i a joke to you? ( this is a meme alright)
I doubt this very much. The a380 was discontinued and lots of airlines are selling the aircraft because of cost.
*Antonov be like "y'all decks"*
“The Jack of all trades but the Master of none.” (4:39)
Nice F-35 reference
the gear design looks like an antonov 225's
It is
yes itbdise
This idea reminds me of the Saunders-Roe Queen. If you don't know what it would have looked like, imagine a seaplane with a wingspan of 313 feet, five levels of seating (arranged into six-person compartments that could be turned into sleeping areas in the evening) allowing for a 1,000 passenger capacity, plus seven crew and 40 stewards, with 12 engines built in each of the wings. Had it gone beyond the proposal phase (which would have been unlikely due to the sheer size of that thing), it would have likely been the largest passenger airplane ever built, and if they were able to build enough of them would have made transatlantic plane tickets cheap at least a decade before the 747.
It would've been epic to "sea" (Sorry! 🙃) and I've often wondered why seaplanes aren't used for passenger services anymore, but I don't know if it would've faired all that well. We Brits are _great_ at making things which are _reasonable and practical_ of course...But _superlative proportions?_ I think experience suggests that might be something better _designed_ in Britain, but then passed to the Americans to actually _deliver_ it. 😇
And there might be a few issues properly refuelling the things, when you consider a British gallon is (Oddly enough) 1,3l (2 pints) *bigger* than an American one! 😳
@@dieseldragon6756 I think the death of the seaplane for commercial long-distance flights largely coincided with the introduction of jet airliners and also not wanting to have to deal with metal corrosion by seawater.
4:34 it must be "Antonov"
Deck III looks beautiful. In its case 6 engines are must, I believe.
Yeah just think of the cost to build the plane maintenance cost and fueling exstended runways special constructed boarding tunnels hundreds of billions of dollars to put in this behemoth
@@kennyfox7055 Indeed, but in other hand, that's only a long term benefit via new jobs, investments, pax flow turnover increase, and so on.
Even if we ever got one,it will most likely be for cargo purposes as they will probably be gas gosolers..
@@IsaacW1109 yes but as of now a hybird will be the best as the rest are still so far experimental
This dude is honestly so entertaining, i honestly forgot how many videos of his i watched but it always helps me no matter what mood i'm in.
"...Breguet range equation."
French speakers: ...!
Very interesting content.
I clicked on the notification as soon as I saw it 🤣
notification squad!
@NoahPlayz Productions mee too
Channels like yours are great. There needs to be more alternatives to the mega projects guy lol
The discontinuation of A380 proved that the market prefers point to point, smaller and efficient aircraft than a giant hub and spoke aircraft
Was about to say the same since Airbus has pulled plugs with there A380 it doesn't seem advisable to go in for a triple deck Aircraft
Even the double decker AB380s are being mothballed for lack of use and high cost of operation. Maybe one day but no time soon.
Imagine the shouting 120kg gym guy doing his leg day in a plane like this, throwing the weights and such. Would be awesome.
Doubt it that's why the a380 and 747 are not being made anymore, airlines are going for smaller jets like 737 and a320
Airports right now: We need to build the 777X.. wings are too long
Airbus and Boeing with triple decker concepts: *Are you sure about that?*
Wings are already at maximum length...but tandem wings are possible.
It's the cost of building it as well maintenance
@@pd4165 Maybe it's time for a supersonic delta wing type aircraft? I guess a bi-plane wing is possible but it would be tricky to get it to achieve the same order of efficiencies. The longer a wing is the higher efficiency it has, so there could be a continuation of the folded wings like the 777x but just taken further.
True
Airplanes bigger than we have today sadly do not make sense since the longest jet airliner flight is a little less than 20hrs, unlike ships where you can be at sea for months at a time, on a ship it makes sense to have a gym or a spa, not on an airplane. It's just for show and daydreaming
These aircraft would have been perfect during the late 1960s/early 1970. However in today's market, it'll most likely be a huge failure. I feel that these aircraft could allow airlines to experiment with seats.
Anyways, I would love to fly on this giant aircraft unless if the airline stuffed a button of standing up seats.
I've always loved high capacity aircraft. I once flew on a Singapore airlines A380 from Osaka to Singapore and I loved the experience.
Assuming the 1960s and 70s had that level of technology, maybe.
but even than in 70s cost of fuel was getting high and demand was just not so high.
This may be the best replacement for the an-225
I feel like these larger planes could have done better if they had focused on making them cargo planes. Most of the problems for them come from being used as pax transport planes but it is a completely different game when it comes to cargo shipping. The 225 (RIP) was a cargo plane and look how well it did.
“Would the airlines actually want to carry the extra weight of dumb bells?” They already do, and on a few flights I’ve ended up in the row right next to them! Cool concept, it’ll be interesting if it ever happens!
That's a two and half deck plane, also please do a video on the cl-1201, the nuclear powered airborne aircraft carrier.
Bruh he legit uploaded this idea noice
Talking about the 800 passenger aircraft during the depopulation and financial crisis era is a king of funny. A380 was a delight to fly on, but anything larger is a sci-fi.
This aircraft need different infrastructure for airports like long runway, wide taxi way and huge parking appron.
Absolutely the plane is just too huge as well the construction cost maintenance and fueling would be astronomical high no plane manufacturer building would be able to build it it's such a beast the plane would be so big you'd need to build it out side or construct a special facility to build it and that would cost hundreds of billions in cash
If there was a sillier looking plane than the A380, this would be it.
*Antonov An-225 has left the chat*
Nice prof picture
@@gamergaming6604 ikr
@@planeboii5540 love the song btw
@@gamergaming6604 me too
@@planeboii5540 you never give me up
Can we get a deep dive on that Sky Whale Concept? She looks like a Naboo Star Yacht, and I bet she'll fly like one too.
Never going to happen with ever stringent emission regulations.
Will happen when they invent efficient zero-emission aircraft engines.
So when they finally let us use electrolysis and hydrogen as a fuel source.
Not to mention construction cost maintenance and fueling it would be a pain
Looks luxurious
Wow a large plane this will be perfect for the future but i thing we need a electrical engines because there are 6 engine it will become more louder and burn a lot of fuel
Just think of how it would cost to build maintenance and fueling it
hybred eñfges like hybr cars
5:13 That Airbus A2000 looks like a Boeing 747-400 with actually full second deck
A390 be like:
A triple passenger deck giant jet aircraft with no improvements on emergency exits and safety protocols? No way! Those monsters would be flying Titanics. (Doomed to crash on their maiden flights). 😮
u know dang well airlines ain’t gonna fly that
I agree- they are getting rid of the 747 and a380 because of that and fuel cost
The deck 3 would be insanely pricey to build maintenance and fuel
Well-researched and good looking video. All the ideas are very clear. Waiting impatiently for the 314 Clipper video!
More to come!
Meanwhile in an alternative universe
The secretary: NOOOO you can’t just buy large planes at large numbers their too expensive and you will bankrupt the airline NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The airline: hahaha large planes go brrrrr
I like your dedication. That's what made me love your channel.
Seeing as how the a380 is being discontinued I doubt we will ever see this
4:35 “Anatov” = ANTONOV...
Actually, at 6:01, another aircraft comes to mind; the Ilyushin IL-86 had the same features where the lower deck wasn’t solely for baggage. Indeed, it had the same purpose, which was to eliminate the need for a jet bridge or air stairs at poorly equipped airports.
Wishful dreaming! The current aviason climate doesnt allow this dreaming to become a reality.
This deck III aircraft is so cool, I hope there is a model or orthographic view of this one, it would be a great standout in my collection.
This plane is cool i wonder what ecnomy class look like ❤️
a marriage between a Boeing 747, an Airbus A380, and an Antonov An-225 does sound like a mechanical nightmare in operation, but boy is it beautiful to look at
Let me just say I like the little jingle at the beginning of your videos ☺️☺️☺️
Now even the A380 is becoming history, so there will not be a 3 deck plane coming any time soon!
747’s and a380’s are being phased out in favor of smaller aircraft. I seriously doubt we’ll ever see this.
I actually flew on a L1011 back in the day...one smooth and comfortable aircraft!
How does RUclips read my ideas? Not long ago I began to build a 3D model of a three-deck aircraft, similar to this only in my wings from the bottom.
That moment when he said "Bergent range equation"
*France has disconnected from the channel*
Opps! And I have a French girlfriend too
*France has chosen to pursue a far superior method* 😇
_Sound of TGV whizzing past..._ 🚄❤🔥💨💨💨😉
I remember this from Totally Spies!
1:04 Some planes have crew sleeping quarters in the lower deck. The current Air Force One also has two doors and two staircases there.
Not only does it have so many engines, Its large size makes it Impossible to park in airport Gates since non are built to park a plane of that size, with that problem comes another one, it may not be able to travel to Other airports since it will probably need a very long runway and as i mentioned where will it park? or will airlines Even buy it? not to mention Maintenance costs, and imagine the Drama and Controversy caused if one Crashes or fails, Specially on its First flight, it will be impossible to keep a plane of this size in the market.
make a video for worlds largest aircraft ever AN-225.
A380 and 747, We will miss you guy😓
This literally looks older than an A340 , like the front windscreen could at least be like the 787 or A350