Bloomberg: EK still in talks on 748I
This is why Glo stated the fuel burn per kg on these long sectors is the same for the 777 and the 380
A quick look at SFO v LAX yesterday- distance within 200NM of each other.
The 777 to SFO had an available payload of 41T for a fuel burn of 124T, so pretty much exactly 3T of fuel to shift 1T of pax or freight.
The 380 to LAX had an available load of 56T for a burn of 201T-3.6T/T of payload- so 20% more per unit.
So it will depend on how much revenue you get for that extra lift v cost of fuel.
A major rise in fuel cost (did someone say Iraq?) will SERIOUSLY effect the 380s efficiency- and THAT'S before we get the 777-8/-9.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents
All talk is referencing fuel burn HOWEVER no mention of amortization cost.
There is a point in the curve whereby the monthly lease/note cost over fuel burn takes on more importance ie... if the aircraft burns more yet the fixed financing bill costs so much less then so be it.
How strong a position is Boeing in with 50 available production slots on an aircraft that is dead and no potential buyers out there. How much would it be to shut down the line?
Many variable others than 'trip cost' without taking account of fixed cost.
It's a numbers issue and Boeing does not hold a strong hand..I would speculate that EK could literally steal these to a point where running them to Lahore and back makes money.
Doesn't mean it's going to happen but...
Just sayin'
f.
All talk is referencing fuel burn HOWEVER no mention of amortization cost.
There is a point in the curve whereby the monthly lease/note cost over fuel burn takes on more importance ie... if the aircraft burns more yet the fixed financing bill costs so much less then so be it.
How strong a position is Boeing in with 50 available production slots on an aircraft that is dead and no potential buyers out there. How much would it be to shut down the line?
Many variable others than 'trip cost' without taking account of fixed cost.
It's a numbers issue and Boeing does not hold a strong hand..I would speculate that EK could literally steal these to a point where running them to Lahore and back makes money.
Doesn't mean it's going to happen but...
Just sayin'
f.
Fliion you are absolutely correct.
Wiz,
You almost got there, but your math let you down. Since you used the actual DOW for the Boeing, maybe it should be used for the Bus as well. Wouldn't it look like this;
213.6 - 176.8 = 36.8t not 41t. The extra 200nm would be 25min, so 4t fuel, which would take the 777 to MTOW, so carrying 36.8t to LAX for 128.9t burn, or as you worked out now 3.5t/t.
The Bus carried 52t and burnt 201.3. But it was 11t under TOW. So chuck on another 7t revenue and 4t fuel, so 59t carried for 205.3, or 3.47t/t.
Do you think those in charge of route development might have some idea of their craft? The bus carries 57% more for the same fuel/kg on long sectors. So does the 748i.
To put it another way, the Bus is carrying 85% of its zfw to LAX while the 777 carries only 60% of its own.
Now nolimitholdem, you can put your fingers in your ears and chant na na na na as much as you like, but guess which one carries your precious cargo?
The Boeing does burn less kg/kg and carry more cargo to all Indian destinations though.
The Don
Wiz,
You almost got there, but your math let you down. Since you used the actual DOW for the Boeing, maybe it should be used for the Bus as well. Wouldn't it look like this;
213.6 - 176.8 = 36.8t not 41t. The extra 200nm would be 25min, so 4t fuel, which would take the 777 to MTOW, so carrying 36.8t to LAX for 128.9t burn, or as you worked out now 3.5t/t.
The Bus carried 52t and burnt 201.3. But it was 11t under TOW. So chuck on another 7t revenue and 4t fuel, so 59t carried for 205.3, or 3.47t/t.
Do you think those in charge of route development might have some idea of their craft? The bus carries 57% more for the same fuel/kg on long sectors. So does the 748i.
To put it another way, the Bus is carrying 85% of its zfw to LAX while the 777 carries only 60% of its own.
Now nolimitholdem, you can put your fingers in your ears and chant na na na na as much as you like, but guess which one carries your precious cargo?
The Boeing does burn less kg/kg and carry more cargo to all Indian destinations though.
The Don
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hotels
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing does burn less kg/kg and carry more cargo to all Indian destinations though.
New slogan "777s to India"
EWB,
DCI has been sent, recalled, then resent. Then recalled and resent. I also suggested a larger for the curry, and a brown beer for pudding. Hope that is ok.
The don.
DCI has been sent, recalled, then resent. Then recalled and resent. I also suggested a larger for the curry, and a brown beer for pudding. Hope that is ok.
The don.
Where did you get that DOW from, Don- it's very high for a 300ER.
Looking at todays 225, using 176 as a DOW, it carried 44T for a burn of 122, and was a ton over MTOW.
Using that ton and your figure of an extra 4 for LAX, it could have carried 41T for a burn of 126- a ratio of 3.07.
Looking at todays 225, using 176 as a DOW, it carried 44T for a burn of 122, and was a ton over MTOW.
Using that ton and your figure of an extra 4 for LAX, it could have carried 41T for a burn of 126- a ratio of 3.07.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hotels
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LoL, works for me.
We could maybe issue a slide rule with a 777 to 380, passenger/cargo/fuel converter so the Trip boys can see how much extra they are contributing to the profit share due to the fuel they are saving! The scale could be attached to a ring tone on the company phone that gives a hearty bugle call for each ton saved so the shorter the trip the more triumphant they would feel. Maybe even issue a new bag with a special slide rule pocket, note to AS.
We could maybe issue a slide rule with a 777 to 380, passenger/cargo/fuel converter so the Trip boys can see how much extra they are contributing to the profit share due to the fuel they are saving! The scale could be attached to a ring tone on the company phone that gives a hearty bugle call for each ton saved so the shorter the trip the more triumphant they would feel. Maybe even issue a new bag with a special slide rule pocket, note to AS.
Wiz,
You were close again.
220 - 177.2 ( DOW from OMC ) = 42.8 not 44t. So 126 burn for 38.8 (max TOW again) = 3.25.
198.6 burn for 58.3 = 3.4 for the Bus, but 9T under MTOW.
It doesn't matter how many times you work it, the results are the same. The Boeing today could carry 64% of its ZFW, the Bus could carry 92%. Someone way above our pay grade knows what an economical load is.
The Don
You were close again.
220 - 177.2 ( DOW from OMC ) = 42.8 not 44t. So 126 burn for 38.8 (max TOW again) = 3.25.
198.6 burn for 58.3 = 3.4 for the Bus, but 9T under MTOW.
It doesn't matter how many times you work it, the results are the same. The Boeing today could carry 64% of its ZFW, the Bus could carry 92%. Someone way above our pay grade knows what an economical load is.
The Don
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: S E Asia
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
380 vs 777 Economics
Gentlemen,
For us as Pilots to try to compare the relative economics and merits of the various types is an exercise in futility. There is no way we an even come close on the basis of fuel burn alone. There are way too many other costs involved which we are completely unable to assess -
Depreciation or Lease Costs - these will vary even by individual airframe, never mind fleet. And the cost of these will be allocated to individual routes or geographical area in some way using accounting conventions and company policy
Engineering - hourly, periodic, manpower, etc
Navigation/Overflight/destination handling -usually based on MTOW
Parking - also usually by weight or some other dimension
Crewing - salaries, accommodation, allowances, training. Some are overheads, some are variable costs.
Advertising/Promotion/Selling Costs - again, allocated to route by some accounting convention.
Catering - route specific, due to uplift at the other end
Share of the overall management "overhead" (DSVP cars, for example!)
The list goes on.... the above is not exhaustive.
The waters are muddied even more by the manufacturers, who will massage the numbers to their own marketing advantage - Cost per Available Seat Km will clearly favour the aircraft which has more seats. Trip cost will probably favour the smaller one, but Cost per Available Tonne Km on the other hand may favour the smaller airframe if its ability to uplift cargo is better than the bigger one.... It's a minefield, and I suspect there are very few people in the myriad EK departments who could really give an accurate number, other than a representative "average cost per block hour", or something similar. Then the revenue side of the equation is equally fraught with pitfalls in terms of assessing which type is optimal on a given route.
In short - don't waste your time and blood pressure by speculating on the basis of very limited information.
Have a look at Rigas Doganis' book, "Flying off Course", if you want an easily read intro to airline cost structures. And the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), also has some examples of airline costing models (excluding DSVP cars!) on its website (or at least, it used to - haven't looked recently).
Please forgive me if the above sounds like Grannies and Eggs - not my intention at all!
7B
For us as Pilots to try to compare the relative economics and merits of the various types is an exercise in futility. There is no way we an even come close on the basis of fuel burn alone. There are way too many other costs involved which we are completely unable to assess -
Depreciation or Lease Costs - these will vary even by individual airframe, never mind fleet. And the cost of these will be allocated to individual routes or geographical area in some way using accounting conventions and company policy
Engineering - hourly, periodic, manpower, etc
Navigation/Overflight/destination handling -usually based on MTOW
Parking - also usually by weight or some other dimension
Crewing - salaries, accommodation, allowances, training. Some are overheads, some are variable costs.
Advertising/Promotion/Selling Costs - again, allocated to route by some accounting convention.
Catering - route specific, due to uplift at the other end
Share of the overall management "overhead" (DSVP cars, for example!)
The list goes on.... the above is not exhaustive.
The waters are muddied even more by the manufacturers, who will massage the numbers to their own marketing advantage - Cost per Available Seat Km will clearly favour the aircraft which has more seats. Trip cost will probably favour the smaller one, but Cost per Available Tonne Km on the other hand may favour the smaller airframe if its ability to uplift cargo is better than the bigger one.... It's a minefield, and I suspect there are very few people in the myriad EK departments who could really give an accurate number, other than a representative "average cost per block hour", or something similar. Then the revenue side of the equation is equally fraught with pitfalls in terms of assessing which type is optimal on a given route.
In short - don't waste your time and blood pressure by speculating on the basis of very limited information.
Have a look at Rigas Doganis' book, "Flying off Course", if you want an easily read intro to airline cost structures. And the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), also has some examples of airline costing models (excluding DSVP cars!) on its website (or at least, it used to - haven't looked recently).
Please forgive me if the above sounds like Grannies and Eggs - not my intention at all!
7B
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the ra-ra 380 talks get's a bit thick
You can always check in with someone who lives in the real world...
Strategic Aero Research
Emirates™ A380 retirements will force asset value plunge
Second hand A380 market non-existent
Emirates 777X impact on gas-guzzling A380
Continued A380 wing angst
For all the gimmickry that Airbus aligns with the A380, the impending countdown to the arrival of the 777X at Emirates delivers some unwelcome news.
Putting aside the commercial superiority of the 777X family, the Emirates' hold on the A380 order book poses questions as to how the second hand market will cope with near-zero demand for used A380s.
Emirates will be handing back two-dozen A380s to Doric/Amedeo as well as expediting the retirement of the overweight and several-times-over-rewired A380s as it inducts more of the type around the time the 777-9X also enters their fleet in 2020.
Amedeo™s dubious order for 20 A380s is already in jeopardy because Emirates doesn't want them and Amedeo has failed to place even a solitary unit elsewhere. Once these ageing A380s come out of Emirates fleet * where will they go? Who will buy them? Will Airbus further underwrite a depreciating asset and thereby kill off interest in new-build A380s? And then there is the leasing market in general* after ILFC ditched the A380 order, except the Amedeo order¯, no leasing firm has ponied up to this toxic airplane.
Lets cut to the chase;* the possibility of the A380 getting new engines is nil. Such a move would kill any interest in the loss-making jet and would also compound Airbus™ financial capability to put a lid on the continued cost escalation to this $27bn-plus disaster. If Airbus does make the stupid move to give the A380 new engines, who exactly will stump up the cost?
Pratt & Whitney has no new large engine to offer. Its GTF engines are proving troublesome, GE will not be partnering with Pratt to provide an updated GP7200 engine and Rolls-Royce has eyes on new engines at the start of the next decade, which by all accounts would be too late for the A380.
Emirates™ savvy in commanding the near 50% of the entire A380 backlog speaks to its desire to access Europe (or threaten to dangle A350 and A380 orders) as well as making the most of its frequency-based model to use Dubai as a global transit nexus that could frankly be served with any large, long haul airplane the A380 has no exclusivity here.
Current A380 operators and customers have found that filling the A380 is not easy* and even on the rare flights that they have filled, they are not profitable.
Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways, British Airways, Air France, Qantas, Lufthansa, Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, China Southern Airlines all have succumbed to John Leahy Kool-Aid that it takes an A380 to compete with an A380” nonsense, only to discover that they have slowed, not sped up A380 deliveries and in the case of Virgin Atlantic, have continually deferred it until they can fathom what to do with an obsolete airplane post-2018.
Airbus has spent over $1bn trying to fix the wing cracks already.
Emirates is feeling the strain here as the biggest victim to this design flaw that is compounded now by the metal fatigue in the wing spars* this will impact operational life, cycles and values.
Emirates was shrewd to conduct sale-leaseback deals to cash in on the then high value exclusivity of the A380 back in 2008 because so few examples were in service at that time.
Fast forward to today, Airbus is struggling to even give them away because airlines are wising up to the fact that the A380 has old technology engines, it's not a money spinner even if you fill it (yield is king, not capacity) and that the limitation of use restricts deployment.
While the 777-9X will deliver a mortal wound to the A380, it is actually Airbus™ biggest customer (Emirates) that is shaping up to be its biggest nightmare with its biggest flop of an airplane and there is nothing Airbus can do about it.
That no one is even discussing this inevitability points to an abject
understanding of how fatally flawed the entire A380 program and process was when it was launched back in 2000.
Emirates will be dumping A380s as Airbus railroads the program into yet another brick wall.
Ben Rich, M.C.C.
Latitudes Unlimited
International Maritime & Aviation Consulting
Strategic Aero Research
Emirates™ A380 retirements will force asset value plunge
Second hand A380 market non-existent
Emirates 777X impact on gas-guzzling A380
Continued A380 wing angst
For all the gimmickry that Airbus aligns with the A380, the impending countdown to the arrival of the 777X at Emirates delivers some unwelcome news.
Putting aside the commercial superiority of the 777X family, the Emirates' hold on the A380 order book poses questions as to how the second hand market will cope with near-zero demand for used A380s.
Emirates will be handing back two-dozen A380s to Doric/Amedeo as well as expediting the retirement of the overweight and several-times-over-rewired A380s as it inducts more of the type around the time the 777-9X also enters their fleet in 2020.
Amedeo™s dubious order for 20 A380s is already in jeopardy because Emirates doesn't want them and Amedeo has failed to place even a solitary unit elsewhere. Once these ageing A380s come out of Emirates fleet * where will they go? Who will buy them? Will Airbus further underwrite a depreciating asset and thereby kill off interest in new-build A380s? And then there is the leasing market in general* after ILFC ditched the A380 order, except the Amedeo order¯, no leasing firm has ponied up to this toxic airplane.
Lets cut to the chase;* the possibility of the A380 getting new engines is nil. Such a move would kill any interest in the loss-making jet and would also compound Airbus™ financial capability to put a lid on the continued cost escalation to this $27bn-plus disaster. If Airbus does make the stupid move to give the A380 new engines, who exactly will stump up the cost?
Pratt & Whitney has no new large engine to offer. Its GTF engines are proving troublesome, GE will not be partnering with Pratt to provide an updated GP7200 engine and Rolls-Royce has eyes on new engines at the start of the next decade, which by all accounts would be too late for the A380.
Emirates™ savvy in commanding the near 50% of the entire A380 backlog speaks to its desire to access Europe (or threaten to dangle A350 and A380 orders) as well as making the most of its frequency-based model to use Dubai as a global transit nexus that could frankly be served with any large, long haul airplane the A380 has no exclusivity here.
Current A380 operators and customers have found that filling the A380 is not easy* and even on the rare flights that they have filled, they are not profitable.
Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways, British Airways, Air France, Qantas, Lufthansa, Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, China Southern Airlines all have succumbed to John Leahy Kool-Aid that it takes an A380 to compete with an A380” nonsense, only to discover that they have slowed, not sped up A380 deliveries and in the case of Virgin Atlantic, have continually deferred it until they can fathom what to do with an obsolete airplane post-2018.
Airbus has spent over $1bn trying to fix the wing cracks already.
Emirates is feeling the strain here as the biggest victim to this design flaw that is compounded now by the metal fatigue in the wing spars* this will impact operational life, cycles and values.
Emirates was shrewd to conduct sale-leaseback deals to cash in on the then high value exclusivity of the A380 back in 2008 because so few examples were in service at that time.
Fast forward to today, Airbus is struggling to even give them away because airlines are wising up to the fact that the A380 has old technology engines, it's not a money spinner even if you fill it (yield is king, not capacity) and that the limitation of use restricts deployment.
While the 777-9X will deliver a mortal wound to the A380, it is actually Airbus™ biggest customer (Emirates) that is shaping up to be its biggest nightmare with its biggest flop of an airplane and there is nothing Airbus can do about it.
That no one is even discussing this inevitability points to an abject
understanding of how fatally flawed the entire A380 program and process was when it was launched back in 2000.
Emirates will be dumping A380s as Airbus railroads the program into yet another brick wall.
Ben Rich, M.C.C.
Latitudes Unlimited
International Maritime & Aviation Consulting
He would have to be over 60 now? Did he retire?
The don.
The don.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Big Country
Age: 59
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once these ageing A380s come out of Emirates fleet * where will they go?
Then sell them back to EK for a couple of million apiece as a cheap sweetener to help persuade them to buy more 777Xs, like they did before. History repeating itself.
EK mgmt are such tight-fisted MFs they would still need something like that to persuade them to go with the obvious best deal but whatever...
OTTO destinations, where will all the two class high density 800 seat Dugong slave ships be going if not smelly india??
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of u guys really do need to get out more! Seriously, go to work, do your job and then get a life! Having flown both Bus and Boeing , they are both just aeroplanes! They are both global companies using global 'talent' not exclusively European or American. Why oh why would a nationality favour either? Lots of Europeans & other nationalities involved with designing Boeing and americans working for Airbus and subsidiaries. Airline execs have all the figures and know what works for their companies, both are great aeroplanes! Now go take up a sport, read a book or spend some 'quality' time with the missus and stop worrying whether the B or A has the biggest knobs... The answer just may be in the mirror!
And breathe.
And breathe.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: >FL310
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich was "asked" to "retire" by the talking horse during the purge of 08-09. Seems a blog he was writing offended some of the more sensitive types among other issues between him and Mr. Ed.
Great , now we get kicked outa Mayden and moved into a Dugong trailer park. The future looks bright.
The don
The don
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 94
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whiz,
seriously, if you think you have all the facts and all the insight why don't you join the bean counters?
we as pilots will never ever be able to calculate the real costs of a flight, thats why every airline has bean counters, it amuses me how guys like whiz start calculating efficiency of routes and airplanes, please stick to your flight director.
seriously, if you think you have all the facts and all the insight why don't you join the bean counters?
we as pilots will never ever be able to calculate the real costs of a flight, thats why every airline has bean counters, it amuses me how guys like whiz start calculating efficiency of routes and airplanes, please stick to your flight director.
Gore,
Having woken up one morning to find myself out of work because one set of bean counters couldn't count, I don't share your faith in their ability to not get it wrong!!.
Having woken up one morning to find myself out of work because one set of bean counters couldn't count, I don't share your faith in their ability to not get it wrong!!.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think they really care what someone on pprune says or thinks? You can crunch an many numbers as you wish, and may even be better than they are, but in the end, its pointless.
We get paid to move the metal, what ever flavor it happens to be. They get paid to do everything else. Period.
And MY airplane is STILL better than YOUR airplane!
We get paid to move the metal, what ever flavor it happens to be. They get paid to do everything else. Period.
And MY airplane is STILL better than YOUR airplane!