Airlines set to make millions from a380 at full pax capacity

[Dysag]

Economics lessons

I'm not giving them, even though I could. Suffice it to say that despite its present orderbook the 787 is not the long term answer.
The 787 is TOO SMALL. That means the cost per seat is TOO HIGH and its breakeven load factor is TOO HIGH.
It's the same problem that affected the 767-300: it seemed the best bet at first, but when it needs 85% load factor to break even at today's fares, FORGET IT.
The only way to make money is to minimise the cost per seat, thus reducing the breakeven load factor to below 70%, and achieve a load of 75%.
What's the point of the 787 if its breakeven load factor is 75% and it flies with 75%?
It's TOO SMALL, you will see over the next five years. Mark my words.

[The SSK]

Here’s an interesting factoid.

Only four airlines fly between Europe and Australia with direct, same-plane, single flight number services.

Qantas, British Airways, Virgin and … Air Austral

[Skipness One Echo]

Dysag your words are wise. Summon the village elders and saddle the horses. The airlines must be told at once. They kept ordering hundereds of B767-300ERs and went mad for the B787 even going as far as to closely examining the business case in minute detail over a long period. The fools ! All they had to do was order a massive fleet of the largest commercial aircraft available and they'll make millions. Dear me, glad it was as simple as you say!

[MUFC_fan]

The last I heard, the only airline benefiting from the A380 is Singapore Airlines while Qantas and Emirates are making losses on the A380s. Boeing got it perfect for the current market with the 787 and it shows in their order book.

I'm sorry, your comparing the A380 to the 787? That's like comparing Jo Brand with Megan Fox - it just doesn't compare! The 787 will be revolutionary for secondary airports. Places such as MAN will be able to fly to destinations only a short hop to LHR, AMS, CDG or FRA could deliver. However, the A380 will mean airports such as LHR and NRT can carry more passengers while not having to increase in size.

The 787 is TOO SMALL. That means the cost per seat is TOO HIGH and its breakeven load factor is TOO HIGH.
It's the same problem that affected the 767-300: it seemed the best bet at first, but when it needs 85% load factor to break even at today's fares, FORGET IT.
The only way to make money is to minimise the cost per seat, thus reducing the breakeven load factor to below 70%, and achieve a load of 75%.
What's the point of the 787 if its breakeven load factor is 75% and it flies with 75%?
It's TOO SMALL, you will see over the next five years. Mark my words.

I agree completely. What happens when the industry starts to grow as it is expected to do? What happens when the Toffs come to power in the UK and LHR really does burst? The reality is - no one expected the 747 to take off, (excuse the pun) but it became the revolutionary aircraft of the late 20th century. I'm not saying the A380 will follow suit but the airline industry will continue to grow. World economies will grow (not least China, India and Brazil), the industry will need the A380 and the A388 will arguably be the least popular - too small.

An interesting idea:

FR purchase 100 A389s, charge starting £20/€25 one-way on long haul services (STN-SWF, NYO-BKK). Taking into account the economies of scale, an A389 would be similar to 738 on a Canaries run wouldn't it?

Oh we can dream...

[BA 77]

I totally disagree with the idea that you need to fill a 787 to 75% to breakeven. A larger aircraft doesn't necessarily have lower breakeven load factors - the Embraer 170 only needs a 62% load factor to break even and I think you have forgotten the fact that larger aircraft = larger fuel burn (yes, I do understand that this is offset by larger passenger numbers).

If you stop and look at the figures, both the 787 and the A380 burn less than 3 litres of fuel per passenger per 100km in a typical 3-class layout. Having the same fuel burn per passenger means that the breakeven load factor is roughly the same (due to the 787s low maintenance costs, someone told me that the 787 has a lower breakeven load factor that the A380)

BA 77.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by BA 77

A larger aircraft doesn't necessarily have lower breakeven load factors - the Embraer 170 only needs a 62% load factor to break even

This is an utterly, utterly meaningless statement. If you tell us that the Embraer 170 only needs a 62% load factor to break even on a one-hour sector with an average net fare of £80 (for example), then that means something. Without specifying that data, it means nothing - can't you see that the breakeven depends on the revenue and the costs? It'd be like saying "aircraft X needs a takeoff roll of 2000 metres" without specifying the take-off weight, the temperature or the wind.

[mustangsally]

Years ago, an airline changed its schedule from A to B. I started with two departures leaving a 10:00 in the morning and 15:00 in the afternoon. The aircraft held 150 or so passengers each. The loads were running in the 75 to 80%. It then brought in a larger aircraft with just under 300 seats and ran just one trip per day at noon. Its load were now running in the either side of 70%. The trip was still making money but not as much when it was running two trips a day.

The flying public wants more choice. Three or four smaller aircraft operating several hours apart will bring more passengers than one large one.

Captain Eddie, (Rickenbacker) when Delta entered a market would add two flight leaving a half hour prior and half and hour after the Delta schedule. With this schedule Delta could not develope a market.

Large jets are nice, but Joe Public want to leave and arrive when he wants to and not when the airline says he can leave.

Leason from Marketing 101 day 3.

[stilton]

Large Jets will always be necessary and vital between major city pairs and especially at slot or growth constrained airports. It just depends on the market,saying the 'public wants more choice' may be true and relevant in domestic short haul markets such as the US but is not elsewhere.


If you are leaving London for Sydney and have the choice of two or three flights in a day that is perfectly adequate for most people.


I am not an Airbus fan but the A380 from all accounts seems, by all accounts a good Aircraft, economical and popular with Pilots and passengers. Future versions will only get better with development and I think it will be a long term success.


I did find it surprising however in a recent article the Pilot that wrote the report quoted a fuel burn of over 28000lbs / hr which seems high even for the size of the Aircraft, conversion error perhaps ?



Cyrano makes a good point, every operator has a different break even load factor, you can't just assign the same number for everyone.