Folks,
The major reason is quite simple, don't look for justifications. Don't try and make it complicated. Apply Occams Razor.
Over any stage length, the per seat (or fuel$$/AKTM) fuel consumption of a B777-300ER will be about 27 % (sometimes even better) than a B747-438, and the A-380, in the real world, is not much better.
That is comparing like with like.
If you go to the maximum ranges (Dallas - Sydney) the B777 does even better, pro rata.
There is a bleeding good reason why QANTAS major competitors now all have big fleets of twins.
The sad part is that the technical end of QANTAS (what is left of it) knows this all to well, after all, QANTAS was one of the world's first airlines to have an extensive EROPS/EDTO network, over the Pacific, long before any US, European or Asian carrier. ANZ was the ONLY other airline that was close to QANTAS in these developments, they have not chosen to forget.
The in-service fuel figure for various B787 are bettering "book", the projected figures for the B777X ( and Boeing always get pretty close to these in service) are outstanding, even compared to the present B777-200/300ER.
No 3/4-hole can ever get close, this is not news.
Quite simply, if QANTAS had carried the same AKTM as in recent years, in B777/787 on long range operations, instead of B747/A380, it would not have made the big losses it did, and the current profits would be correspondingly even better.
It ain't rocket science!!
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 17th Jan 2018 at 03:31.