Hey guys, I'm a first time poster that the other day for the first time in my life saw a A380 up close and was kind of stunned by how huge it is. What are the operating costs of a A380? I imagine it must take a lot of fuel to keep something like that to stay in the air.
If I posted this in the wrong forum, please move this thread to the right one. As I said, kinda new to the site
The OP question is a bit basic, but it would be interesting to know after a few years of operations to what extent the 380 is actually living up to predicted operating costs overall (including fuel, maintenance, hours in the air per day and such) and how much of a cost savings / increase in profit it is making compared to alternatives on a given route.
Max fuel capacity - varying numbers available (not all the tank volume can be used at once), but on the order of 500,000 pounds. or the equivalent of 3 entire max-gross-weight A319s (fuel, airframe, payload) .
You are looking at a cost of circa £30 per seat per hour excluding landing fees and ground handling which vary from airport to airport.
Fuel accounts for approximately 40% of this cost (around USD 12000 per hour).
This is based on a 550 seat configuration - obviously at maximum density (800 economy seats) the figure drops considerably (to around £22) but the average cannot be significantly increased by the massive yield hikes on business and first-class seats.
So for a ten hour sector and 80% load factor you are looking at an average fare of at least £400 one-way per passenger to break-even.
I have heard that Emirates can operate 2 777's on a long haul cheaper than they can 1 380. Anyone know if this is true or is in just b.s. from a bus hater.
On a purely transporting kgs of fuel vs. kgs of payload basis yes. Anyone who has access to flight plans can easily demonstrate that. Therefore the myth of the 380 being the most ecological aircraft is bullocks. On a yield basis it is hard to prove, as the cost of crew, overflight/landing/parking fees, maintenance is not well perceivable for outsiders. Generally there is the understanding that if you fill the 380 with the intended prime passengers, it will be more profitable. If however you don't, or upgrade too many low paying customers, you lose profit faster than on a T7.
It also comes down to how much the 380 is still subsidised by AB for the over burn .....
I guess on trunk routes up to 9 hours the 380 makes money. Beyond that it gets harder.
As a pax I've flown all over the world, from DC-9, MD80, 727 (nice and quiet), 737 (uncomfy), 757 (impressive performance), 747, 310, 330, 340, DC-10, 767, 146, F-27, ATRs, 320 family many times, 777 is good up front; BUT the mamma IS THE 380...................
As a pilot I've never gone Seattle's products. I have to say though that the 380 will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to beat And whatever Glofish (hardened 777 pilot) might say; Emirates would NOT order 90 'frames without reason. And no Gloey, Airbus does NOT subsidise fuel. They don't need to
So how / why does Qantas do it on Aust - US and why did they drop SF and go to Texas which is even longer ?
'Cause its done in a 747-400ER.
Qantas management thinking was to maximise capacity as they cannot increase frequency as both LAX/SFO/SYD are all capacity limited airports. This was their logic in not purchasing the 777.
Whether this strategy has worked given the amount of problems the A380 has had is somewhat questionable.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 17th Sep 2012 at 23:03.
.
