From a friend of a friend of a .........
Any analysis on fuel burn alone should come with a health warning as cost per ATK more relevant which includes staff, maintenance, over flight etc. The capital cost also needs to be looked at as well. However I doubt whether this would improve the A380 case vv B777-300ER (the only model that one should compare due long range capability). In fact it would probably be worse. CX looked at the A380 years ago and decided from our analysis that it would not fit our routes as a B744 replacement. The decision then was to wait for a Mark 2 version and concentrate on the economics of the LR twin B777-300ER. It was not good enough to replace the B744 with a new aircraft which by our analysis would have same issues as the B744 across the Pacific (particularly westbound in winter 15+ hours) from west coast. Dumping payload to make it direct would be the norm by our calculation and we were mystified why QF would launch the A380 on the Pacific for that reason. Also weight and volume left for cargo after full pax is woeful. The other issue is that the Engine Out Critical Point requires extra fuel due suitable airports. At the time while we waited for B777 delivery the decision was made to get a bunch of cheap second-hand B744s as an interim which we could write off in 2 years after fitting out in our BFE. Today we can park these if we have to. The B777-300ER is a star. We got the first one in 2009 and will have 30 by end of 2012. With approx 300 seats 3 class this aircraft flies direct New York and back (15-16 hours) with full load and 10-20T cargo all year round with 2 engine fuel economy which is remarkable. It now has saturation of all our North America routes and is slowly migrating to Europe as well. The other issue to consider is that the A380 has great passenger appeal. It is super quiet and very spacious. I would think that if you just sexed it to just Sydney / Melbourne - Hong Kong / Singapore - London with very careful seat mix you might make money. Other concerns are, disappearing slots at London which in future needs a big aircraft to compensate. For this reason it is rumoured we might get a few if the price is right. I doubt it somehow. We have just taken delivery of 4 of our new B747-8F aircraft. There are ten firm on the way. This aircraft has a new wing which is very impressive and lots of other new technology. While it looks the same it is not a B744. We are commonly carrying 120 to 128 tons of cargo Hong Kong to Anchorage (10+ hours). The pax version which could be the one for us called the Intercontinental. It do direct New York with full pax and some cargo with about 50-60 less seats than the A380 on fuel burns per seat near the B777. "If it ain't a Boeing I ain't going" How often have I heard that from Boeing pilots! Frankly its bull. If you ask our revenue men the A330 is the best money making machine. You cannot beat it on short and medium haul. We have been buying them since the first delivery in Feb 1995 and we are still buying them till the A350 comes in 2016. They just keep getting better as Airbus make incremental improvements in weight, systems and fuel burn. They say they only want two aircraft theA330 and B777-300ER. The 5 B777-200 we have are orphans and the 26 B777-300 regional aircraft work well with 398 seats 2 class. We have some B777-200Fs on order. If Airbus deliver on the A350-800/900/1000 performance it looks very impressive. In fact Australia is the only place not to order them to date. Eight other world regions have gone for this 60% / 40% over the B787 bar 2. Those are about 50/50. We are getting 32 x A350-900s. With the push to 4 class aircraft on very long haul the B787 looks a bit small (about -40 pax less on small version and -80+ pax on bigger version). Airbus are touting the A350-1000 to beat the B777-300ER on fuel burn (-25%) with small increase in payload due to the lighter structure. I think Boeing want to offset this with new B777 version. Not being in HK anymore leaves me a bit out of the loop but I do talk with our Fleet people on how things are panning out. No doubt making poor decisions on fleets can be very costly and hard to reverse. It needs a very robust process involving every section of the airline. We left those days where engineering relationships with manufacturers and influential bosses heavily weighted into the process back in the nineties. (thanks to Rod Eddington). Today I must say knowing what is involved it is quite robust.