Merged: QF 777s and other rumours

[c100driver]

In the paper today that QF said it will be increasing the A380 order beyond the twenty already signed up for.:eek:

[Jabawocky]

They should take 12 of them, sell the other slots and buy the 748

I reckon in the 450 seat config the 12 with the fancy first class will do, and the 748 will be cheaper per seat in the long run.

Just my wild half ar$ed guess. Anyone else think that may be a good option?


J

[ACMS]

Have you QF Airbus A380 lovers ever asked why CX has never bought the 380?

We can't be that stupid surely?

It must be because the 380 in it's current form can't carry anything worthwhile over a long haul and will cost a bloody fortune if it's not full.
ie it's a DOG.

:ok:


pssst..........and it's butt ugly.

[alangirvan]

So Cathay will be quite relaxed about having SQ fly A380s on SIN-HKG-SFO, and if SQ gets the rights to operate SIN-HKG-NYC what will they use on that? A380s will be operating SIN-LHR, DXB-SYD, MEL/SYD-LAX, all similar length routes to Cathay routes. MEL-LAX was one of the deciding routes for Qantas to choose the A380.

The original 777-200 non ER as chosen by Cathay is the aircraft that struggles to carry meaningful payloads over longer routes. Over shorter routes it carries a lot of extra weight compared with an A330-300 to carry only a few extra passengers.

[ACMS]

Well CX is a very profitable carrier, has been for decades and our experts crunched the numbers and the 380 cannot carry a decent load over the sector lengths we operate. LAX HKG with a headwind in Winter? Not even close, it would need a tech stop EVERY flight.

JFK HKG? ha!!, it would need an average 120 kt tailwind!!

If SQ get the rights it would be using a 77W

Overflight charges in Russia? HUGE.

Maybe HKG Europe might just cut it? It's a close thing aparently. But the 777-300ER comes way out in front for profit.

You may see CX order a few for LHR, but that's all we could use it for in it's current version.

Now if Airbus build a new version with a much bertter payload range then CX will buy it.

Hey no arguements about the original 777-200's we bought. They are "A" market 200's with less fuel in the centre tank and low weights. Ok to about 8 hours will a full load. ( 336 pax and 17 ton frt )

The 777-300's we have are lower weights too, CX were very savvy, they have a MTOW about 37 tonnes lighter than other Airlines 300's, but that's all we need around Asia, we then pay less landing charges.

[alangirvan]

Cathay's engineering experience is not in doubt. Quite a few years ago, when Cathay started doing LGW-HKG as a non stop with 747-200s, Qantas sent Engineering staff to Hong Kong, because Qantas operated their planes at the same weights as CX, and QFstaff could not see how Cathay were operating the sector as a non stop. Does Cathay face stronger winds flying over the North Pacific than Qantas does flying from the South Pacific? Usually flying West is harder than flying East. Yes, we do know that Qantas will be doing MEL-LAX with 450 seats rather than the 520 seats that we thought they were going to use when the A380 was ordered. 450 seats is still a meaningful payload, provided the First and Business Class seats are occupied.

Cathay would have been disappointed with the A340-600 between HKG and NYC, though the A340-600HGW would have been better. It may be the the A380-800+ that will suit Cathay.

[ACMS]

CX was not happy with the 346's

The 3 machines used up 25% of the maint budget!!

They were not good to JFK, the 77W carries a lot better payload, burns quite a bit less and does it a bit quicker.

Yes, a much heavier model of the 380 would suit us better, actually I should re-word that...........A 380 with a better payload range would suit us.

maybe if it was 20% longer it would look better too:ok:

However, best of luck to QF with their new baby:ok:

maybe I'll get a ride in it one day.

[Wod]

To take it a step further, all fleet mix and scheduling decisions involve compromise.

The fundamental one is frequency v. capacity. (3pw with big plane or daily with smaller for those who haven't played the game)

Provided your philosophy is consistent, it's possible for both CX and QF to prosper with different philosophies.

[ACMS]

yes yes, very true Wod.

But...........if Airbus can make a 380 carry 500+ pax and 30 tonnes of freight over 16 hrs then we WILL buy 100 of them.

Until then the economics don't stand up too well.

Unless you factor in "world pride at being a 380 customer"

[alangirvan]

It is not just a matter of comparing Qantas against Cathay on respective North American routes. Both carriers have more seats between their home base and North America than the North American carriers. The competition will be between Qantas A380s and VA 77Ws, and between SQ and CX ( if SQ use A380s on HKG-SFO). I suppose Qantas and SQ have good guarantees out of Airbus for the payload range performance of the A380.

[ACMS]

They'd better have............

[Beer Baron]

ACMS, are you saying that because Cathay hasn't ordered the A380 it must be a dud? The CX accountants who assessed it are better than the accountants at Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Malaysian, Qantas, Lufthansa, Etihad, etc, etc.
Many of these carriers will be flying the 380 between Asia and Europe and around Asia. How is Cathay so different?

Reminds me of how Qantas were so 'smart' in not ordering the 777 while every other major airline in the world was snapping them up.

[ACMS]

Yep, that's what I'm saying..........

[B772]

The current A380 is very heavy for the payload it carries. The wing is designed for a future stretch. Should this occur the economics will change considerably.

It now appears All Nippon and possibly Cathay may order the B747-8I. Emirates may also order the B747-8I for some routes (LAX and SFO) that are a real challenge for the A380.

The B777-200LR 'kills' Dubai to LAX and SFO, even HNL but the aircraft capacity is smaller than that desired by Emirates to LAX and SFO.

For those that are interested Boeing are guaranteeing the B747-8I trip costs over the range of the aircraft to be approx. 20% less than the A380. The seat mile costs are 5+% lower compared to the Qantas A380 configuration.

The B747-8I will be approx. 10% per seat lighter than the A380 and burn approx. 11% less fuel per seat.

I have been advised Qantas have reduced the passenger compliment of their A380 to 450. The resultant reduction in the seat and catering weights plus reduced potable and non-potable water will reduce the fuel burn trans pacific by approx. 3 tonnes in an attempt to guarantee LAX-MEL nonstop year round.

[BuzzBox]

Part of CX's business strategy is to create a strong network with HKG as its hub, providing lots of connections for pax travelling through HKG. To that end, they prefer providing a higher frequency of service with a smaller aircraft, rather than one flight a day with something like the A380.

As ACMS said, CX worked out long ago that there aren't many routes where they could make money with the A380 in its current form, severely limiting its flexibility. I haven't operated the South Pacific, but winds of 200 knots aren't uncommon over the North Pacific in winter. Westbound flights from North America to HKG are usually payload limited and very tight on fuel, resulting in tech stops more often than not.

[Wod]

Which brings us back to horses for courses.

Perhaps both carriers have made the appropriate choice for their networks.

You can't over emphasise the runway movement rate slot limitation which prevails in SYD and the absolute historic slot limitation at LHR as a motivator for QF. They can't readily ramp up frequency at those critical ports, so more seats per slot makes sense.

[ACMS]

Well lets see then, maybe you're correct:

1 A380 carrying 450 pax and zero freight over 12 hrs ( I'm told 12 hrs is at it's current limit with 450 pax and it can't carry any cargo with that number? )

2 777's carrying 600 pax and 71 tonnes freight over 12 hrs.

I'd still think the 2 ER's would come pretty close to matching or beating the
A380 in the end after you factored in overflight and landing charges and cargo revenue.

What does the whale burn over 12 hours?

[ACMS]

:ok:we'll see about CX's profit at the end of our financial year. Not only are the company quite good at figuring out A/C perf factors they are good at spinning the books.

I did ask to be corrected about the Beluga.

so: lets take 13 hrs then

2 777-300ER's burn about an average of 8 ( conservative ) tonnes a hour so FUEL burn 208 tonnes
Load of 600 plus 71 tonnes cargo ( 346 kg per pax )

1 A380 burn about 170 tonnes
Load of 489 plus zero cargo ( 347 kg per pax )

Which is better? depends on how much the landing and overflight charges are and how much revenue you get from freight. ( a bloody lot )

Interesting.


the calculations for the 777-300ER were:

MZFW 237.6
basic wt 172.0

Payload available 65.6 tonnes

301 Pax @ 100 kg = 30.1

Therefore Cargo could be up to 35.5 and the old girl would just be below
MTOW and would climb like an angel, fly smooth as silk and land like a fairies fart.:ok:

[Keg]

I did ask to be corrected about the Beluga.

It looks nothing like a Beluga. It's a Dugong. :ugh: :ok: :E

[ACMS]

Hey Keg, didn't QF go on about the 380 using about 3 litres per 100 km per pax the other day?

My figures come up with about 4.1, so I guess they are close.

But the 777-300ER uses 3.7 lt/100 km's, as good as if not slightly better than the 380. ( based on a 13 hr flight )

So what are they trying to spin?

That their Bus is the only Green machine?

tut tut QF:=


Roll on the 747-8i

[Beer Baron]

ACMS you may know your figures for the 777 but you must admit you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about when it comes to the A380. Your initial statement that; "I'm told 12 hrs is at it's current limit with 450 pax and it can't carry any cargo with that number", is complete garbage. The first commercial route for Qantas is MEL-LAX-MEL. Sector time LAX-MEL is 15:25, so if we give 30mins to taxiing then you still have a 14:55 flight time. A hell of a lot more than 12 hours!!!!

So to run through your comparison on the 12 hour sector, with room for 3 hours more fuel there should actually be room for nearly 40 tonnes of freight if MTOW is the limiting weight.

Now I don't have an A380 performance manual in front of me and clearly neither do you, so we will have to believe that those who have spent billions of dollars on the machine know more about it's abilities than we do.

[ACMS]

You told me yourself that the 380 burnt 13 tonnes per hour.

So, if you are correct then so are my figures.

What I need to know is exactly how much cargo can the 380 carry over 13 hours WITH A FULL PAX load of 489 in EK config?

Then we will know the end result.

As I said earlier, I still think the 2 ER's would come close to matching or beating the 1 380.

You guys need to spill the beans re- basic wts, MZFW's and work out exactly how much cargo it carries.

[ACMS]

Ok then. lets compare LAX MEL

1 777-300ER's burn 120,000 kg's 301 pax.
MZFW restricted a tiny bit by fuel uplift to 223.5
Minus basic 172.0 = payload of 51.5
minus 30.0 ( for 301 pax ) gives us a cargo uplift of = 21.5

So 2 777's figures are:
1/ burn off 240.0 or 305,000 lts
2/ 602 Pax
3/ 43.0 cargo

arriving at a figure of 507 lts/pax PLUS 42 cargo
1 A380 burn 193,000 kg's 450 Pax ( Qf config )

I can't quote cargo amount BUT the QF people have reduced the pax to 450 JUST SO AS TO MAKE THE FLIGHT. So I can assume very little cargo. To be generous lets assume 20 tonnes
So the A380's figures are:
1/ burn off 193.0 or 245,000 lts
2/ 450 pax
3/ 20.0 cargo
arriving at a figure of 546 lts/pax PLUS 20 cargo

So, where have I gone wrong?

Now if EK squeeze 600 into the 380 in an all econ config they could squeeze 400 into a 777 and it would match or beat the 380 AGAIN.

[ACMS]

Well if you re-read my posts above I did say that any final comparison will depend on the overflight and landing charges. The 380 would lose money half empty ( 245 pax ) for sure and 1 777 would kill it ( 245 pax ).

So, yes I say that POSSIBLY 2 777's are better than 1 A380.

I don't want to start comparing 2 330's to 1 777. Off the top of my head the 330 would possibly win.

[Beer Baron]

ACMS you seem intent on trying to prove a very precise point using rubbery figures and hearsay.

You proclaim, "QF people have reduced the pax to 450 JUST SO AS TO MAKE THE FLIGHT", reduced it from what?
It didn't happen, the reason there are only 450 seats on the A380 is because it is a 4 class aircraft. When Qantas put 32 Premium Economy seats on the 744 they had to pull out 60 Economy seats. So without P/E class there could be 480 seats on the A380.
Or if your story is correct then why are they getting the same configuration on ALL their A380's. Surely if 450 pax is required solely because of LAX-MEL then the A/C heading to Europe would be in a different configuration, just like the Pacific and non-Pacific configured B744's they have now.

Your clams and stats are full of holes.

[ACMS]

Really/ full of holes?
So provide me with the QF basic wt, MZFW MTOW, projected fuel burn and lets dance. :ok:

My figures are pretty close and you know it.


The figures for the 777 are about 99.9% accurate. I have provided actual current weights from my manuals and checked the last 10 HKG JFK flight plans to average the fuel burn on a 15 hr flight. ( 8.1 tonnes/hr )

the 380 figures are from a guy that flies the 380 in EK, they may be a little skew wiff but I have asked for more accurate data. Based on his MZFW and DOW the 380 can lift about 66 tonnes of payload ( 366-300 ) and the 777 can lift 51.5 tonnes of payload. ( 223.5-172 ) on a 15 hr trip.

so....1 A380: 66 tonnes equates to roughly 450 pax and 21 tonnes cargo
2 777-300ER's: 103 tonnes equates to 602 pax and 43 tonnes cargo.

The 380 will use about 245,859 lt's of Jet A1----------546 lt/pax
The 2 777's will use about 305,732 lt's of Jet A1-------507 lt/pax

Like I said, it all comes down to 1/ cargo revenue, 2/ overflight and landing charges and 3/ crew cost.

It's interesting to crunch the numbers and maybe the cost of 2 777's far out weigh the benefit of better payload and lower fuel burn? Don't know. I do know QF aren't stupid and neither is CX.

Horses for courses as someone alluded to earlier.


So you tell me....................instead of rubbishing my research come up with figures of you own and tell me which is better?

[moa999]

kybosh on the tripler here
Qantas pushes Boeing on 787-10 stretch (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/24/316419/qantas-pushes-boeing-on-787-10-stretch.html)

[B772]

I fail to see the reason for all the comparisons being made between the B777 and the A380. The aircraft are poles apart category and range wise.

As far as payload/range is concerned I have heard mixed views on the A380, especially over LAX-MEL. I must admit the A380 payload of 66 tonnes looks to be on the "skinny" side. (B747-8F is expected to be 140 tonnes).

No doubt we will hear from QF pilots after the aircraft goes into service.
Tim Clark says the endurance of the EK A380's is 13-13.5 hours. (Flight Int 29 July - 04 Aug 2008).

Boeing information shows the following.

The B747-400 can do LAX-SYD (416 pax)

The B747-400ER can do LAX-MEL (416 pax)

The B747-8I is expected to do LAX-KGI (468 pax)

The B777-300ER can do LAX-KGI (368 pax)

The B777-200LR can do LAX-Rottnest Island (301 pax)

Unless you need the longest range airliner available (B777-200LR) the B777-300 appears to be the most efficient.

[JetRacer]

B772 wrote:

The B777-200LR can do LAX-Rottnest Island (301 pax)


I'd like to see that!! :eek: :confused: :}

Where would they all sleep anyway?

[alangirvan]

Is that 301 Quokkas?

[B772]

First and only time I went to Rottnest Island in the 1980's I ordered a fish meal expecting a local catch. Turned out to be some thing frozen from New Zealand.

[ACMS]

just trying to point out that the new QF Jolly Green Giant as they call it isn't that green at all:=

It can't carry that much at all considering it's HUGE MTOW.

[Kipper797]

Qantas Engineers have been saying Jet Star to get 15 777's as the 787 is late and the only expansion in the Qantas group is Jet Star these days. More bad news for Qantas . Great to see the all and almighty AIPA sitting on it's hands and doing nothing for Qantas Mainline yet again.

[Wingspar]

Whether it's actually green or not doesn't matter.

If the argument carries some weight then you can expect them to suck it dry in a marketing context. You can't blame QF or any business for not trying that especially since anything green nowadays is looked upon favourably.

It is hard for a competitor to argue the point and this thread is an example of that.

[ACMS]

Yes I know it's the only aircraft you can stick 489 pax inside 3 class or 604 1 class.

Just seems a lot of weight to lug around for not a lot of extra profit/environmental benefit, if any.

In QF's case the A380 in 4 class is better than their 747-438ER in 3 class on the LAX run.

But if you compared lts/pax the 4 class 380 is about 552 lt/pax and a 4 class 777-300ER would be about 545 lt/pax. And it could carry some freight on top of that number which the 380 cannot.

Anyway, doesn't matter, I'm sure it'll be a wonderful Aircraft for the Pax and crew to ride in. Should be lots of room to run around in. :ok:

[flybull]

Let's stick to the thread topic...


Reason why 777 rumours have subsided...........

People sniffing on the wrong side of Atlantic.

Pending A350-1000 order is the latest.

[Jabawocky]

:ok:Bottom line is unless GE Cap lease some to QF or Boeing to "loan" to QF they are not going to happen any time soon:ugh: and with the strike at present nobody is getting any!:ooh:

J

[B772]

flybull - Welcome to PPrune.

A380-800 driver. The A380F may never be built. After all the cancellations there are no orders for the model and Airbus has ceased development work.
(As you may be aware one airline is expected to cancel an order for the passenger version before the end of the year)

The A380F is 81 tonnes heavier than the B748-8F but is only expected to carry 10 tonnes more payload. The A380F was designed for 7.9 lbs/cu.ft cargo. The B747-8F is designed for 9.9 lbs/cu.ft cargo.

[AnQrKa]

ACMS,

If your fleet decisions are made with the same outdated approach taken by the people who write your SOP's, then its no wonder everyone is getting the A380 except CX.

[ACMS]

really mate....................good one :bored:

[aulglarse]

604 pax? read somewhere max pax on the 380 was 863 in single class layout, due to floor load limit.

[Wod]

A380-800 driver

I think you are wrong. The big jets have always had surplus space underfloor after all pax bags have been accomodated.

Couldn't sell 'em otherwise.

The more the pax the less the freight of course.

[Wod]

A380-800 driver

Point taken. 863 does look a bit of an ask.


Petty point, which doesn't affect your argument, but crudely 100kg per person is pax + bag, so 604 leaves 6 tonne for freight. Which is no big deal. Your 863 point stands up.

[aulglarse]

apologies for the incorrect pax number..it's actually 853.... according to the EADS site.
AS SOME OF YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, THIS CAN'T BE MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE.

[Wingspar]

The 'A' model of any aircraft is never very good!

[ampclamp]

I heard its on , certainly running the slide rule over them seriously wrt 787 delays being much longer.

[Zeke]

ACMS

Your 777 figures are inaccurate. The catering on the HKG/JFK trip is 4900 kg, you need to add that into account (note in the CX W&B manuals below the basic weight table says "These figures INCLUDE standard operating crew 2/14. These figures DO NOT INCLUDE the Weight & Index adjustment for catering or Unit Load Device (ULD)").

When you next operate a HKG/JFK flight with a crew of 2/14 and no catering please let me know and I will change my comment about your figures being inaccurate.

Your range numbers for the A380 are also out. The aircraft as part of the technical route proving flights flew JNB/SYD direct, and SYD/YVR direct at max weights. If you are suggesting that it did SYD/YVR in 12 hrs, the A380-800 must be by far the fastest civil airliner about. AC schedule their 777 over the SYD/YVR route in 14 hours.

CX has made no decision regarding a VLA, and has publicly stated it will not do so until around 2010. CX is still adding second hand 744s, and new 744ERFs to the fleet. The current push is to add capacity for the new freight terminal.

flybull

I understand QF is still talking to both sides of the pond, also discussing a follow on order/options for 16xA380s. SQ and EK are also apparently negotiated follow on A380 orders.

aulglarse

The limit is set by the number of people exited during the evacuation test, that is the physical number of seats and passengers they used in the certification. It is not a floor loading limit. The A380 is operating well below its maximum limits. It has flown and landed at over 600,000 kg as part of the certification work for the freighter version which will have a MTOW of 600 t at its highest option.

When the A380-900 is launched, it would be possible to extend the maximum number passengers by 110 people per deck. The rules normally allow an addition of 110 people per pair of Type A exits added without need for a retest.

B772

747-400F
OEW - 163,732 kg
Max structural payload - 112,627 kg
Cargo volume - 27,467 cubic feet

747-8F
OEW - 191,089 kg
Max structural payload - 134,173 kg
Cargo volume - 29,426 cubic feet

A380-800F
OEW - 250,607 kg
Max structural payload - 151,440 kg
Cargo volume - 33,139 cubic feet

Relative to the 747-8F, the A380-800F
OEW - 59,518 kg higher
Payload - 17,276 kg higher
Volume - 3,713 cubic feet more

The A380-800F will carry its maximum structural payload out to 5,600 nm, the 747-8F to 4,300 nm. At 5,600 nm the A380-800F lifts 38,000 kg more payload over the 747-8F. However as you would no doubt know, many operators cube out before they reach their payload limit. The A380-800F basically has the same fuel burn as the 747-400F, carries 35% more payload, and 20% more cargo volume.

Work continues with some aspects of the A380-800F. The A380-800F fuselage material is due to make its appearance around 2012, that will enable EK to fly DXB-LAX direct. Do not expect to see the A380-800F until the A350XWB is in service.

It is also expected that the Trent 900 and GP7200 will get engine tech insertions as a result of 787 engine development by RR & GE. RR has previously done similar with the Trent 700 and the RB-211, and the GE has done similar GE-90 to the CFM-56. This will bring the current A380 engines to the same level of efficiency as the GEnx on the 747-8.

[ACMS]

ok then.......forget QF comparison.

Back to the EK comparison

2 x 777-300ER's on a 13 hr DUB JFK trip burn 210.6 t or 268,280 lt
Payload for both = 121 t ( I've upped the wt to dry op wt )
602 pax ( 3 class )
60.8 t cargo

= 445 lt/ pax

1 x A380 on the same 13 hr flight burns about 169 t ( according to A380-800 )
or 215,286 lt
Payload = 66 t
489 pax ( 3 class )
17.1 t cargo

= 440 lt/pax

So, the 380 just edges out by a wisker the 2 777's for fuel economy but is not close to the amount of cargo or pax carried.

So, as I said it comes down to the economy of 2 A/C instead of 1 and how much revenue you get from an extra 43.7 t of cargo.


Nighty night.:ok:

[Zeke]

ACMS

You would need to remove several rows of seats from the 77W or add a lot more seats to the A380 if you compare the aircraft with the same product within the same airline. You would also need to add a fair bit of weight to the 77W to get the same level of IFE/Showers/bar etc as they have on the A380.

EK will have 3 A380-800 configurations, 489 for ULH, 517 for LH, and 600 for regional. The ULH aircraft will be deployed in time on the A340-500 routes, like DXB/SYD (DUB is Dublin not Dubai).

SQ have similar products in the 77W and A380 (the suite product on the A380 is somewhat bigger than the first class 77W). The 77W has 278 seats, the A380 471 seats. If you use the fuel numbers you came up with, the 77W is 482 l/pax, the A380 457 l/pax.

You then need to do the numbers again at realistic load factors, EK is just under 80% (about 79.8), not 100%. Tell me an airline that is getting 100% load factor for cargo, most average around 50-60%. Cargo is generally unidirectional.

Tim Clark has already said the A380 is burning between 15-22% less fuel per seat than the 77W. If anyone was to know what the EK fleet is doing, he should know. That is coming form the man who has one of the biggest 777 fleets in the world.

[Wizofoz]

Do not expect to see the A380-800F until the A350XWB is in service.


Err... I wouldn't expect to see the A380-800F until someone ORDERS the thing!!!

BTW, as you guys seem to have all the numbers, how many airframes are AB going to have to sell to break even? I'm sure the A380 will make money for some of it's operators (It damn well better for EK!!) but will it ever have been a worthwhile endevour for it's builder?