Do the A380 and B787 Meet Their Design Specs?

[Locked door]

Hi,

Just out of interest, does anyone know if the two newest in service (yes - I know) airliners are meeting their design specs? Specifically, overall cost and fuel burn per seat kilometre?

I know it's a contentious subject, I'm not looking to start an A vs B debate and I'm not interested in opinions, just facts, preferably referenced.

Thanks in advance.

[misd-agin]

Read a statement by ANA CEO that the 787 was exceeding(better) fuel burn expectations.

[toffeez]

There are no design specs for overall cost and fuel burn per seat kilometre, and no reliable figures in the public domain.

Manufacturers negotiate confidential guarantees with customers, for example fuel burn on a fixed distance. These numbers are not "spec" because the manufacturer will take a margin for itself. It is very unusual for them to "miss" a guarantee. Then they will often try to blame it on the engine maker.

Other typical guarantees are empty weight and take-off field length. Cost guarantees are rare, except with regard to maintenance expenditure. The latter is often discussed directly with the engine manufacturer.

Plus: "exceeding expectations" means just that. What were they expecting? Certainly not for it to turn out like the brochure said. Probably they expected it to just meet the guarantees.

[sb_sfo]

As I recall, the first units out the door were on the order of nine tons overweight, and it was going to take until around line #90 to get all the weight out. Some of the ANA aircraft are unable to do the long-range flights that they were designed for, and they will be used domestically.

I have no citations handy for any of this, just stuff rattling around in my head from all I've read over the last few years.

Edit- here's a quote from FlightBlogger:

At last week's 787 first delivery, Satoru Fujiki, an All Nippon Airways
senior vice president, told reporters that the performance shortfall on the
early deliveries would slot the aircraft into a role of regional missions (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/787s-excess-weight-drives-mission-profile-ana-362517/), rather than long-range international flights, which will be flown with later built aircraft.
"The early 787s are actually much heavier than later-coming deliveries," he
said. "So, for those aircraft we have taken an option to introduce those
aircraft for domestic short haul and regional operations."

The comment was the first direct acknowledgement by ANA about the impact of
excess structural weight the early 787s on the mission profile identified for
the aircraft. Boeing has always maintained it would meet customer performance
guarantees, though it was the clearest indication that weight gain would define
the mission of the early aircraft.

- See more at: No split over similar-looking wingtips - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/10/excess-weight-keeps-anas-early.html#sthash.UCGEThf1.dpuf)

[keesje]

I know the GP7000 of the A380 beat it specs in two steps by more then 1%, confirmed by Airbus and updated in the specs.

[NSEU]

I was told the A380 didn't meet its weight specs for our airline (even though Airbus did some very impractical things to meet them... such as include lots of aluminium wiring). Airbus paid a penalty as a result.