A380 IS A GAS HOG (SUV of the AIR)

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

The A380 is a GAS HOG

some numbers

On a 6000 nm sector SIN LHR with average headwinds it burns 178000 KGS of fuel

It carries a maximum payload over that distance of 57000 KGS

It carries 471 pax in 3 classes

A B777- 300ER on the same sector burns 113000 KGS of fuel

It carries a maximum payload over that distance of 50000 KGS

It carries 350 pax in 3 classes

For the A380 to carry the extra 121 pax over the B777-300ER requires 65000 KGS of fuel
or about 530 KGS per pax.

The B777 burns about 325 KGS per pax.

For the non technical readers

1 pax plus Bags = 100 kgs
1 LTR of Jet fuel = 0.8 KG of Jet fuel
1000 KGS of Jet fuel costs approx 1200 US Dollars

This A380 Beast is another Brabazon, at 1200 USD a TONNE and going up standby for the cancellations!

Enviromentalists take note....The only thing that is green about this A380 is the zinc chromate primer paint on it.

[procede]

I'll bite.

Even if your fuel figures are correct, Singapore airlines only has 278 seats in a 777-300ER. So the fuel used per passenger becomes:

A380 (471): 378 kg/pax
B773ER (278): 406 kg/pax

Or using your way of calculating, the extra passengers on the A380 cost 337 kg/pax extra.

[rasobey]

If you find some way of fitting 471 pax on your 773, then you have a point. But if it takes 2 773s to transport the same number of pax the same distance, then the A380 wins.

Have I got that right?

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

The figures I have given are as accurate as they can be ...
They are real world numbers for real aircraft flying today ...
That is the shocking part ...This A380 aircraft has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of only 66000kgs!

A B777-300ER has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of 60000kgs
and a B747-8 a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of over 75000kgs

The A380 thing is just massively overweight! no wonder Airbus like to be quiet about the true figures. The A340-600 was the same... nobody buys that one now if they can get B777-300ERs. Experience in service killed that one.

Emirates has 355 in a 3 class B777-300ER aircraft
according to their timetable

[beachbumflyer]

The problem with the A380 is when you don't get more than 300 pax, or when the bad times come and you have to park it in the desert.

[Beavis and Butthead]

I think you're missing the purpose of the A380 WhoopWhoopWhoops. Rasobey's post is spot on. Whatever the configurations and subsequent fuel burn per pax figures, on high density routes where 400+ pax travel each day, it's far more environmentally friendly to fly 1 A380 than two 777s. That's why so many airlines have ordered it because it's cheaper.

Now if the A380 is only half full (or half empty for those that think differently to me :)) then you have a valid point.

[procede]

Maximum payload of the A380 is 90800 kgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380).

[Super VC-10]

When will these environmentalists realise that over 99% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year come from natural sources, not by man's activities. The less than 1% we contribute ain't gonna make a bit of difference.

*rant mode off*

[airfoilmod]

Loading becomes critical in "multiples" of an A/C max. capacity. If 660 pax want to leave Dubai on a specific day, I want two full 777 rather than one and a half full A380. Sell seats, not A/C. This discussion is valuable, I'm interested in both "sides". My allegiance is to Kerosene, not Badges.

[Taildragger67]

Well, one difference is that only one Brab was ever built, it was never certified for RPT service, it was never ordered by any airline and it never entered service. The A380 has been fully certificated, there are already at least 14 A380s flyable (including those which have flown but may be back in the coop getting kitted out) and four A380s are in RPT revenue service.

Mate I think your analysis of the numbers is appreciated, but it's a lost cause: the thing is in service and some carriers have now spent too much not to take it, eg. EK are just about to open a whole new terminal at Dubai based on the thing - hence Maurice Flanagan's angry comments when the big delays were announced a year or so ago. Airlines are already training crews and getting their stations tooled up for it. Airbus may or may not get to the 450-odd airframes they need to break even on the project, but I suspect that most (if not all) of those already ordered will fly.

[kbrockman]

quote : a B747-400 a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of over 100000kgs

BS, Max structural payload is a little over 67,000 kg according to Boeing.

Maybe you where thinking of the F series which actually can carry far more than 100,000kgs ?

A B777-300ER has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of 60000kgs



According to B again max payload is even bigger than the 744 at a tad over 69,000 kg.


380 aircraft has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of only 56000kgs!

Wrong again, according to official Airbus numbers ,after incorporating all the extra gizmo's and heavier Business and 1st class seats the max payload is a few kilo's shy of 85000kg.

[DozyWannabe]

Super VC-10:
Aside from the fact that 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd still like to see an argument that doesn't come from the 5% of scientists who are sponsored by the oil companies to deny and denigrate the global warming phenomenon.

And agreed, the A380 ain't going away. Every time the Yanks force us Euros to ground something they didn't invent first, we'll put something else up there to take its place. :}

[gengis]

Nobody is "forcing" you to ground anything. The oil price will take care of that.

As to all this argument between 777-300ER vs A380 payloads - just scan a copy of the loadsheet of both airplanes on a comparative sector and post it here. "Official" figures tend usually exaggerate - just the same way the "official" Cessna 172 book says it's got a ceiling of 13,000ft!

[scudpilot]

also.... I am sure that I heard that SQ were really pleased with Fuel Burn and that it was LOWER than advertised by Airbus....:ok:

[chornedsnorkack]

If you find some way of fitting 471 pax on your 773, then you have a point.

The way is very much there.

Air France is the launch customer of the same 777-300ER as is flown by Singapore. And Air France has 472 seats on 777-300ER. 422 cattle seats at 10 abreast. 36 Alize class "premium economy" seats at 9 abreast and 36 inchews pitch, and 14 business class seats at 7 abreast.

Singapore only accommodates 278, with more comfort.

Air France has ordered A380. How many seats will AF have on A380? 11 abreast on main deck of A380 is not narrower than 10 abreast on B77. And where will AF A380 have Alize class - upper or lower deck?

[A-Z]

Just wait until easyJet get hold of it :E

[spannersatKL]

WhoopWhoopWhoops I assume your salary is paid from a firm based in Chicago (formerly Seattle) and they are smarting after their own recent issues with their latest product? I am sure that people as canny as SQ know what they are doing having operated both the 773 and the 380 and know the exact gas milage they are getting.

[Big Tudor]

chornedsnack
That config is only used on the COI Caraïbes - Ocean Indién routes. The other 773 configs are 8/67/235 and 8/67/250. Shows you what AF think of the pax on the Caribbean and Indian Ocean routes though. :eek:

[aviate1138]

DozyWannabe said

"Aside from the fact that 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd still like to see an argument that doesn't come from the 5% of scientists who are sponsored by the oil companies to deny and denigrate the global warming phenomenon."

Aviate1138 says

Show me the actual proof [ not abysmally poor computer modeling] that global warming is anything other than a natural event? How can mankind's 3% CO2 production override Mother Nature's 97% [around 200 Billion Tons +].
Notwithstanding that ALL CO2 is but 0.037% of atmospheric gases. Water Vapour is around 4% and is many times more effective as a "Greenhouse Gas" [an oxymoron if ever there was one].
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam that the Al Gore's of this world are using to make shedloads of money at joe public's expense. Aviation CO2 output is about 0.17% of the total. Can you comprehend how little in the big scheme of things that is and how little can make so much impact on world temperature. Are aviation CO2 molecules specially labelled to cause an effect greater than any scientist would expect or is it possible that CO2 is not a poison [Greenies would say otherwise]

[c130jage]

Whoop whoop, I will speak more plainly than the above respondants.
You figures are Sh1t. where have you taken tham from?, I suggest you attend a basic math/statistics course and listen more carefully to the tutor. I also believe you are working or have worked for a large american constructor and are trying to spread muck on the Airbus product.
How can two boeing aircraft be more enviro friendly than one Airbus aircraft, bums on seats comparisoin disproves your theory.
However, you have to balance this with a half empty 380 and one full boeing.
If we kill all the cows in the world, methane production would fall by 50%, another ozone destroying gas, so perhaps you would advocate that.

[DC2 slf]

An obscure 19th century New York State lawyer named Chamberlain said:
"There are lies, and damned lies, and statistics"
(No, Mark Twain seems to have been mistaken when he attributed it to Disraeli)

[WindSheer]

Guy's cut the technical crap.....

Whoop whoop is either american, or flies the triple 7 for BA!!!

:confused:

[Fuel Boy]

I am at a loss as to how you get your fuel costings they make no sense.:bored:

The price in recent times may have increased, but to the levels you suggest.

FUELBOY

[Heli-phile]

Interested to see what KGS/hr consumption you base both aircrafts figures on. Can you advise, then its out with the calculator!!:eek:

[N1 Vibes]

why are you comparing 777-ER (a single deck a/c) with the A380 (double deck a/c) - a more "real world" comparison surely would be the 747-400? n'est ce pas.....

and in a few years you can compare the 747-8, until then I look forward to seeing your revised figures.

Regards,

N1 Vibes
(neither living/working in two-loose or see-addle)

[GordyOZ]

I'll stay out of the debate on whether the fuel burn numbers are accurate or not other than to mention that Airbus does have a history of overrating their aircraft fuel efficiency such as the A340-500 which has been a sore point with SQ and other carriers. But the fuel efficiency may not be so much of an issue with the A380 as the larger number of passengers going into airports where slots are very valuable such as LHR. Airlines simply cannot fly two aircraft if they don't have the slots. That is where the A380 shines.

[Gretchenfrage]

We just have to wait until the two aircraft fly the same route, the same day - and then the glory will be over (for which one i presume but do not know).
EK unveiled the 340-500s poor performance, when it flew the same route as the 777-300ER. On the ME thread there was two flightplans from LIDO posted lately to prove it.
I remember when i flew the MD11 out of JNB, with full load, and next to us was a 340-300, same load (we had to give numbers on r/t), flying very closesly the same distance. With three knots tail, they were stuck and we flew happily ever after. So much about how very much better the 340 was propagated.
It is in the field that they prove themselves. I would just want a flightplan for the same day SIN-LHR from both aircraft, full pax + remaining capacity in cargo, and then we'd be able to calculate per capita burn and per ton burn.

[scudpilot]

Whoop Whoop Whoop, you are very quiet now.....:E

[neville_nobody]

I've been told rough figures for the A380 are 12 tonnes an hour. The 747-400 burns around 10 tonnes an hour. So it burns 20% more fuel but doesn't carry 20% more pax!! :ugh:

I think you will find head to head a 777 will slaughter it over the same route.

[WindSheer]

I think you will find head to head a 777 will slaughter it over the same route.

Would I be right in saying that that is not neccesarily the reason these huge machines are designed.
I thought the purpose was to get a large number of passengers onto the ground, using just the one landing slot.

Anyone know the figures for a PA-28 passenger/mile. Because that would be just as relevant in this dispute!!

:confused:

[captjns]

This reminds of the gent who walked into a Rolls dealership and inquired about the mileage. The sales agent responded, if you need to ask then you can’t afford a Rolls.

[dh dragon]

Air France website shows Economy config as 3-3-3 on normal longhaul and 3-4-3 on Carib and Ind Ocean routes.Who is kidding who ?
:hmm:

[Hotel Mode]

I've been told rough figures for the A380 are 12 tonnes an hour. The 747-400 burns around 10 tonnes an hour. So it burns 20% more fuel but doesn't carry 20% more pax!!

Comparing SQs 747-400 with similar proportion of first/business/economy 12/50/313 against 12/60/399 the A380 carries 25% more pax even given the larger first suites. So fuel burn per pax is slightly lower for the A380.

[kbrockman]

Comparing SQs 747-400 with similar proportion of first/business/economy 12/50/313 against 12/60/399 the A380 carries 25% more pax even given the larger first suites. So fuel burn per pax is slightly lower for the A380.

Adding to that a 747 flying with a close to max. TOW will have to cruise a considerabel time at a lower initial altitude (think around FL290) before being able to stepwise climbing to higher, usually more favorable, altitudes economywise.

The A380 ,even with a close to max TOW, can very quickly proceed to the higher more economical flightlevels.
It is not uncommon for it to go straight to FL350 (in a relative short time) where it consumes about 12T/hr.

Just to compare ; the A380 has between 16 and 20 tons of fuel left after landing , IIRC,this is just a bit more than a regular 747 has left meaning the fuel consumption is really not that much higher on a 380.

Also when need arises and you're unable to get to higher flightlevels (let's say flying Europe-> US in the morning when most traffic comming from the US are clogging up the higher airways and you'll have to stay around 30000 ft or so) the supercritical wingdesign on the A380 makes only for a limited fuel penalty , on the older 747-200/300/400 the effect is certainly much worse.

Get to grips with it even if you're an avid Boeing supporter you'll have to concede to the fact that the 380 is a marvellous engineering accomplishment
and is by far the most economical thing flying these days (provided you can fill it enough on a regular base!!!).

The 787 and whatever else Boeing ,Airbus , ???, is going to come up with in the future is going to be hopefully at least as much a big step forward because if it's not the whole future of the airliner industry is going to look a bit bleak, hell we might even have to refer back to the old zeppelin if fuel prices keep rising like they are now today.

[Dani]

no, we just have to get back to the ticket prices from the Zeppelins, then the problems are solved :ugh:

[chornedsnorkack]

We just have to wait until the two aircraft fly the same route, the same day - and then the glory will be over (for which one i presume but do not know).

We have no need to wait. The A380 routes are already, and still, flown by B747-400 as well.

[slip and turn]

Well one thing is for sure: the A380 is a white elephant. I confidently predict I shall never find a reason to fly on one.

[airfoilmod]

I can't stop (unconsciously) comparing the 380 to the Spruce Goose.
The eight engined giant was built as a stubborn and assertive "Told you so" by an unhinged aviation great. The Airbus gives one a feeling similar to a camel (a horse designed by a committee). At a time when aviation had its wits, ETOPS developed (1990~). That was the time when others envisioned the 20 wheeled wonder from Toulouse. Hangar talk aside, aviation is almost always about profit and loss, so the jury will be out for a while (but I think not long). In the little ViperFan, money is no object.

PedantDetent:
(Yes I am aware the Hughes Hercules was built of Birch, not Spruce).

[Dani]

Slip & turn, very well possible that you will never fly one (me neighter).

The A380 will become a great success for sure. Latest with the increased costs of kerosin. Latest when EK has some hundert of them on the tarmac, other airlines are forced to order. There is simply no airline that can afford not to buy it, except maybe US majors, where there is a different route structure. There were times that US majors also didn't have 747s btw.

[parabellum]

Sorry Dani but I disagree, you are correct to say there is a market for the A380, problem is it is too small to generate enough orders for the type to break even on cost. Airlines simply don't need that many, even with the price of fuel going airlines still require flexibility.

Don't be fooled by the EK order either, that could all change as market requirements become more obvious.

[keesje]

Some airlines put 290 passengers in a 747-400, e.g. BA and ANA. Some will put 475 seats in a A380, some 650 (EK)

Determining the CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) is the marketing guys favorite toolkit (selecting low density configurations for the competitor : Boeings Randy's) & the big public believes it.

I think it would be more fair to compare an 11 abreast A380s to 10 abreast 747s looking at seat widths..

Lufthansa selected both the 747-8i and A380-800 and say the A380 is more fuel efficient (not that it says much..)


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/lufthansafuelburna380-747-8i.jpg?t=1210971209

[DC2 slf]

Air France website shows Economy config as 3-3-3 on normal longhaul and 3-4-3 on Carib and Ind Ocean routes.Who is kidding who ?
:hmm:
The AF 777 that took me JFK-CDG sure had 4 in the middle!
For some reason unknown to me I was more comfortable coming back in a 340. The 777 ride was about the worst I ever had (going back to 1939).

[18-Wheeler]

Adding to that a 747 flying with a close to max. TOW will have to cruise a considerabel time at a lower initial altitude (think around FL290) before being able to stepwise climbing to higher, usually more favorable, altitudes economywise.

A minor point - For a Classic maybe, but a -400 will go straight into the low 30's no problems. The big GE-powered LR's will go straight to FL350.

[chase888]

We still have to see the best of the A380.
SQ figures are pretty impressive compared to the 744, but remember it is still about 1% overweight.
What has allowed it to meet its performance guarantees is that during flight testing, it proved to be a little quicker than anticipated, so at guaranteed cruise, it needs less thrust, hence the good figures.
By the time they have got the weight right, and tweaked a bit on SFC, it really is going to be impressive.
8,500 miles range is just a matter of time.:D

[ZFT]

The 777 ride was about the worst I ever had (going back to 1939).

Whilst I don't go back that far, I do agree that the B777 ride is not the greatest. Noise levels are also appalling.

[Jay.Walker.DUS]

So, Slip and Turn, you'll forego flying in the most quiet and comfortable airliner currently cruising the airways because it wasn't built in Seattle?

Wow, that's really intelligent!

As for the economics of the A380. There is currently one operator of the aeroplane, an airline who's a long-time 747 operator too. They've publicly stated that the A380 has surpassed expectations and contractual guarentees with regards to fuel burn. And yet, we have people pulling out fantasy numbers from some hat trying to slag it off. That's very telling, mainly of the intelligence of the poster that is.

Why is that that Americans have such a hard time with anything not invented in the US?

As for the 777; worst piece of wide-bodied crap I've ever had the displeasure of being flown in. Give me a 747 or A340 any day please, hell even an A330 will do it even though it suffers from the same problem as the 777; not enough engines. As a passenger I really could care less if a 777 burns x % less fuel than an A340 carrying the same payload - I'm looking for comfort, and having 4 donks spinning does wonders for my comfort level!

[Geragau]

Talked to a former skipper of mine who had flown the A330, B744 and now the T7.....he has this to say: The B747 was originally designed for freight ( with the nose cone loading access ) and became very successful as a long haul pax aircraft; the converse is going to be true of the A380, it's designed as a mammoth long haul pax airplane but it is mostly likely to be very successful as a super freighter!

Anybody has any idea how the B748i is coming along? Boeing should make it more like the T7 with commonality in cockpit lay out and systems like the dreamliner..........commonality with the B744 sucks as everything seem pretty outdated!

[Dani]

Parabellum:for the A380, problem is it is too small to generate enough orders for the type to break even on cost.

Oh dear, here we go again. An aircraft, maybe one of the biggest challenge in modern industry, built with considerable delay, what became apparant to be normal (because also the competitor had the same problem), and already 300 pieces on order, and you guys are talking about an economic disaster.

How many orders on the 747-100 did we have in the first few years? How long did it stay in service (and will it still be, including the 800s). You are far to shortsighted to give me a reasonable explanation as to how it will continue.

In a decade or two we will see thousands of those vehicles (well, if we solve the energy problem...)

Dani

[glad rag]

http://www.a380.singaporeair.com/content/interior/index.html?videoType=suites


Just think, for the premium classes the era of luxury travel returns at long last........and for the rest of us it ain't too bad either......:ooh:

[point8six]

Geragau -
The 747 was designed from the outset as a passenger aircraft and freighter ( read Joe Sutter's book "747" -p90). Juan Trippe (PanAm) signed a letter of intent with Boeing in Spring 1966. Quite a bit of the technology stemmed from Boeing's bid for a very large freighter for the USAF contract, that was won by the Lockheed C5 Galaxy. Boeing's entry resembled the C5 except that it had a conventional tail as opposed to the C5's T-tail. It differed from the 747 design in that it had an anhedral wing.
Regarding the rumour about A380 fuel-burn, most new designs rarely matched the manufacturers' quoted figures - the MD11 being a good example. The 380 will need some 'tweaking' yet!

[parabellum]

Dani - You are dreaming!;)

It may well turn out to be the most technically advanced aircraft ever built and with the best fuel figures ever seen, no argument there.

Yes, several airlines do want it but in penny numbers, not in sufficient quantity to enable it to break even. For Airbus Industrie it is a mill stone around their necks, a Dinosaur. It has, without doubt, cornered a niche market but that is a very small niche compared to, say the B777 or the B787, despite the latter's delays.

Airbus thought they would replace the B747 and at the same time cater for natural growth with the A380. They got that wrong as the B777 has all but replaced the B747 along with some of the Airbus family. The A380 will come into it's own on high density routes where slots are at a premium, these do not equate to anything like the route structure of the B747-400 in it's hay day. The A380 is possibly a great aeroplane but a white elephant, nevertheless.

[Jay.Walker.DUS]

Parabellum

Quite a few of the airlines who originally bought the A380 in low numbers have since increased their orders. Do keep in mind that BA, to name but one airline, didn't go out and place an order for 57 747-400 on day one; the orders came in dribs and drabs(ish). Furthermore, we havn't seen the "real" A380 yet, namely the -900 version. Neither has the -800R (long-range) been launched yet.

Air traffic is still growing, and will continue to grow at a pace that airport and ATC development will be very hard pressed to match - if they can match it at all. As more and more people wish to fly, one solution is bigger aircraft.

It is also interesting to note that those airlines who have chosen the A380, with the notable exception of Lufthansa, have all said the 747-8I have no place in their future plans. SQ went one step further by saying the -8F does not offer sufficent savings over a converted -400 to justify the additional cost, bearing in mind that they have a rather large and amortised fleet of -400's which can be converted to freighters.

[Dani]

Jay, very true.

One other argument very often goes missing:
Airbus had to design a very large aircraft since Boeing could subsidize its smaller aircraft families with the gains in the 747 sector. This has gone completly, the 747 is phasing out. The 800 will be the last number. The numbers produced have decreased tremendously. If there wouldn't have been an A380, big shots like EK would surely have ordered a 747.

Now Airbus has competing models in all sizes, that's what they wanted. Every line is competing directly with its immediate counterpart. It's no coincidence that since Airbus started with the A380, also the other member of the family have increased orders.

Even if AI will never make profits with the A380 (not my guess), it still generated profit in the long run for the whole market for AI.

Dani

[parabellum]

Well, we are just going to have to wait and see but I won't be holding my breath! I stick to my belief that there is definitely a comparatively small market for the A380 but not enough now or in the future to make it a viable commercial proposition as a passenger aircraft.

[GMDS]

According to the logic applied here, you just make an aircraft bigger, then stuff it with more pax and - magic - the fuel/pax ratio goes down. You just created a green aircraft. However:
First you have to fill it constantly, because the backdraft is, that with lower loadfactors this equation turns awfully wrong for the mammouths.
Second: No one has ever completed the equation with the cost and impact of the infrastructure these things require. Up to now the airports have gracefully beared these cost, mostly payed by the taxpayer.
Third: These biggies stuff up operations on airports. Have you ever taxied behind a 380? I have. Not only you ride the brakes, but the runway and taxiway occupancy increases considerably, as they bumble along and take ages to get into the the booths. This might change when more normal crews and not chief-astronauts will operate it. Seperation will however become a much bigger issue inflight. Does anyone take this impact into the equation?
I am quite anxious to experience DXB once they'll have a greater number of mammouths......
It's a fascinating, though ugly, aircraft, i admit. But costwise, I predict a more pragmatic, disapointed verdict in a few years.

[keesje]

I think their will be a market for the a380 because:

more then 1300 VLA's were sold in the last 40 years
700 747s will need to be replaced in the next 15 years
air traffic is expected to more then double in 20 years.
most airlines continue to buy bigger versions of aircraft.
80% of long haul travel takes place between hubs.
Airbus has no credible competition in the VLA segment.
people continue to prefer to live and work in congested / city areas.
more and more hubs become slot restrained.I agree with Boeing that their will be a need for 1000 new VLA in the next 20 years.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/images/lg_new_deliveries_cmo07.gif


Just think, for the premium classes the era of luxury travel returns at long last........and for the rest of us it ain't too bad either......:ooh:

Indeed, don't forget to mention the amazing inflight entertainment system ;) !

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/krisworld.jpg?t=1211182905

[Admiral346]

GMDS,

I can't speak for other Airlines, but LH is running at least 3 flights per day FRA-JFK or FRA - EWR, additionally 2 MUC - JFK/EWR and just recently reinstated the DUS - EWR route. They are served either by 340 or 747. Now if there is to be growth in those markets, you need a new slot or a BIGGER aircraft. I can't see, how it would be difficult to fill an A380 on that route, maybe even two. This is also the reason I don't want to fly one, even though it would be very interesting technically. But going the same 3 - 5 routes all year would bore me to death...

Have you ever taxied in JFK? It takes a good hour from the RWY to the gate, the same to get out of there. If I wasn't too lazy to calculate it, I am sure I could prove you could walk it faster.

My point is - everything has it's place. The A380's is on high density routes with little slots available at DEP/DEST.

It will be a great success left in it's place and certainly won't replace my little CRJ on the MUC-FMO route...


Nic

[Dani]

All very good arguments for the success of the A380.

In adition to that, the US needs also desperetly bigger models within the US. It's not only that international routes that are overcrowded. The US traffic system is completly over its limits. Also airlines are rapidly consolidating themselves, which gives them the possibility to run bigger machines. Instead of using a 767/787 every hour from one coast to the other, they should use one A380 every second hour.

An A380 might be a bit less agile on the tarmac than a narrow body. But it still uses less ressources than two 767s.

Dani

[parabellum]

Keesje - "700 747s will need to be replaced in the next 15 years"

and so they already have, by the B777 family and to a much lesser extent the Airbus A330 and 340 family.

Dani - no one can fault your hypothetical argument but the sad truth is that even under the best of commercial circumstances the market for the A380 will never exceed enough airframes to make it a commercially viable proposition. The Hamster Wheel continues to turn, we will just have to wait and see!!!

[Dani]

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

[attributed to Thomas J. Watson, president of IBM, 1950s]

[airfoilmod]

Odd example to use to promote the 380. The first computers used vacuum tubes ("valves" in Britain). They consumed power at prodigious levels, required massive cooling systems and computed roughly at the level of a medium priced cell phone (to be generous). They also occupied a volume equivalent to a large Home. Are you suggesting that the 380 is a "pioneering" A/C? Developed as a "proof" of cutting edge technology? At best it is the result instead of "bigger is better". There are no breathtaking advantages to the 380 over other (arguably more flexible) A/C. It is a wonderful achievement; the end result, though, of an idea that was "cutting edge" in 1963, with the first blue lines of the 747.

[Dani]

No, I'm not refering to an old computer, but to the shortsightedness of some ppruners/Boeing manager/analysts - not so much of airline manager, they got it.

Dani

[airfoilmod]

Criticizing an A/C is short sighted? Any technology has its fans and detractors; I assure you the people who have 250M Euros to spend won't write checks based on cheerleading and fan base. This isn't a high school argument about whose football team is better. What as yet unimagined world changing impact is the 380 going to potentiate? Miniaturization? Engines that run on sea water? Sorry, all I see is a massive result of an exercise in current Technology. If it is wildly successful, that's fine with me. In the near term, our industry is looking at lighter loads, which means smaller aircraft. If you can teach people to love the 380, great. I'm waiting to see what Herb Kelleher does. Try to tell pax to congregate in groups of 430~ and fly at very specific times only, that would help your 380. (Charter?)

Airfoil

[Dani]

Hey, I'm no fan of A380 or any other aircraft in general (except the one I fly but that's something else). I'm talking about the economic and ecologic applications and implications. I would love to see a transport vehicle running on sea water, but as long as we don't have it, we have to go with something else. It would be great if everyone who wants to fly has his own private jet, preferably supersonic. But I think that's not possible. You see the prices of oil going up, that's because we use a tremendious lot of it (and because of speculation, ok), and the problems will only become bigger.

So, eighter you accept it or you will realize it later - until then, keep discovering...

[18-Wheeler]

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

[attributed to Thomas J. Watson, president of IBM, 1950s]

Myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote

[Dani]

"A380 IS A GAS HOG"

Myth.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4117222&postcount=42

[airfoilmod]

It may be the Internet, but why the instantaneous "gotcha" syndrome? Aviation is a massive industry involving dozens of mobile and rapidly evolving technologies; "New" Types are struck years before they enter the Fleet. The paradigm of Aviation, with all the hyper-tech, is that Market vectors, Weather, Resources (Fuel, Human) drive what is essentially an economic Guessing Game. Flying a Heading is Wisest until mid Route and the unexpected. Given how my family makes a living, you might think I'd be a rabid Boeing nut. Not so, the Real World is full of the unexpected.

Gas Hog? Don't be ridiculous, competition (a good thing) won't permit it.
Razor thin Fuel advantage? Maybe, but other factors drive acquisition and Bottom Line. I enjoy PPRuNe immensely, but at times the lack of respect and patience (not PPRuNe's responsibility) is annoying. We may be heading for some belt tightening as an industry/service provider, and I'd really like to see some Inter Flag cooperation and support, a little like yesteryear, maybe.

Airfoil

[Dani]

Agree on most of your argument, TnB.

But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!

That's just as ridicolous as blaiming the missing civil airports when there were only Boeing Clipper flying boats around and were quickly exchanged by land-borne airliners after second world war.

Dani

[Denti]

But the A380 was not built for such a reason. It was built to take 500 pax over crowded routes to crowded airports with even more crowded slot times i.e. LHR and it was designed to do it cheaper than a 744 can.

Actually it was build and certified to carry 850 passengers around. Of course that would be a one class layout and you cannot carry those nice first class suites around simple because you don't have the space to do so. It is each airlines decision how many seats you wanna put in that beast.

[c130jage]

Dani
But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!


Three actually.

[18-Wheeler]

But it's quite an unfair comment to compare the infrastructure for a 40 year old (fuel hog) compared to a brand new class of VLA, of which only 2 examples are in service yet!

True enough the Classics are a bit thirsty, but the -400's aren't.
They burn a little more than a 340-600 and are much faster, so I imagine the fuel burn per sector would not be a great deal more.

[Denti]

850 pax config? Yet to be seen.


You are right of course if you mean the current configs used out there. However it was used during certification flights and of course the evacuation testing done in hamburg. Actually evacuation trials were done after 71 seconds (iirc) and therefore they can increase pax load considerably in larger versions if airbus ever builds them, talk about a 1000 pax airplane.

If current operators put 400 less seats in there than they could it is their own decision and i would expect they have it calculated on that basis, but of course the per passenger fuel consumption has to be worse than in a high density configuration.

[Bolty McBolt]

From the airbus web site
Maximum ramp weight 562 tonnes

Maximum takeoff weight 560 tonnes

Maximum landing weight 386 tonnes

Maximum zero fuel weight 361 tonnes

Maximum fuel capacity 310,000 Litres

Typical operating weight empty 276.8 tonnes

Typical volumetric payload 66.4 tonnes



850 pax config?
I don't know the international standard for average weight of pax for weight and balance purposes. But I seem to remember 77KGs as a figure + luggage would give avaerage weight per pax at about 105 KGs plus.
850 PAX would be very close to 90 tonnes or probably greater considering the size of hand luggage carried and people are getting larger.
Math is not my strongest suite but I doubt we will see to many 850 seat varients being built.
But it is only an opinion and we all have one of those :ok:

[Dani]

Open your eyes. Now four

WOW! It's four! I'm so overwhelmed... :ouch:
That still doesn't give you the numbers needed to have the infrastructure built already. Just wait a few years, then every airport with a 10 000ft runway will also be able to accept an A380. To be A380-ready is a excellence-label for every airport.

Dani

[212man]

I shall ponder on that as I settle down into this seat tomorrow evening and sip my first champagne.....:E

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa50/S92ctc/DSC_0129.jpg

[Dani]

Quote by Bolty McBolt:
Math is not my strongest suite but I doubt we will see to many 850 seat varients being built.

Not only math is not your strongest point but also English, logic and aviation knowledge :rolleyes:

The key word lies in the word "typical", which means "in general", "normally". Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes. They would be high density machines like the 747s within Japan (if we remember). Eighter you fill the tanks or the cabin, that's how goes the saying. Also applicable to other airliners. You cannot have everything. So you choose what is best for you.

Also you have to consider that the present A380 is the first step in an evolution, there will be newer and more advanced models. And as you can see with the 747, the latest models have very few things in common with the earliest machines.

More to come...
Dani

[darragh]

Having just had a couple of trips on the A 380 in the last few weeks and also a couple in the 777, i will say this: the A380 is the most comfortable commercial plane to fly in by a mile! The economy ride is amazing! Quiet, great lighting, awesome entertaiment system and size of TV screen! The 777 on the other hand, Yuk! (And i am a big fan of Boeing) We also climbed straight to FL350 after take off!

[Bolty McBolt]

The key word lies in the word "typical", which means "in general", "normally". Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes.

Correct. An 850 seater would be heavier than the "typical weight" due to all the seats on board. I have reweighed many aircraft and I am quite ofay with the terms.

WOW! It's four! I'm so overwhelmed...
That still doesn't give you the numbers needed to have the infrastructure built already. Just wait a few years, then every airport with a 10 000ft runway will also be able to accept an A380. To be A380-ready is a excellence-label for every airport.


I think the point TnB made is that as it stands now a huge majority of the B744 transits happen at only 50 airports. The B744 was previously the largest pax transport aircraft in operation and the A380 has now replaced it in many but not all roles.(theoretically)
Seems like the A380 is a typical wide body airbus.
Good for certain roles but not equivalent to the Boeing counterpart/redundant.
Why on eath would an airport authority spend all the money to up grade its run way and terminal facilities for little return in traffic.
In OZ Melbourne (MEL) widened the run way and put extra air bridges in to handle the BIG bus but it stands to gain only 14 transits a week for the near future.
The airport fees will bee horrendous if passed directly on to the operator.
So before any airport becomes "A380-ready" market forces will dictate first, not a strive for "excellence" which is virtuous but plays little part in todays business models.


DANI
As you now seem to be the resident A380 apologist I will bow out of this thread as it seems you are emotively involved.
rgds
Bolty

[chornedsnorkack]

However it was used during certification flights and of course the evacuation testing done in hamburg. Actually evacuation trials were done after 71 seconds (iirc) and therefore they can increase pax load considerably in larger versions if airbus ever builds them, talk about a 1000 pax airplane.

79 seconds.

But this does not matter. Even if a manufacturer should demonstrate by testing that they can evacuate all passengers in 10 seconds, it is still not allowed to have more than 110 seats per exit pair. Airbus 380-800 has 8 exit pairs, so the seat count cannot be stretched past 880 unless exits are added. The evacuated configuration was 538 on lower deck, 315 on upper deck, so that if A380 is stretched, it shall need two extra exit pairs - for both decks. I do not quite see where the sixth main deck door would go. B747-800 has the same issue: as the -400 can have 539 main deck seats, a stretch would raise a need for sixth door pair.

[keesje]

chornedsnorkack: I do not quite see where the sixth main deck door would go. B747-800 has the same issue: as the -400 can have 539 main deck seats, a stretch would raise a need for sixth door pair.

http://thehoddlegrid.net/dump/1184822231hfKsei.png

[glad rag]

stretched -900 looks far better too, more in proportion...............:ok:

[chornedsnorkack]

See the problem? 380-900 has an extra, fourth door pair in upper deck - but where would an extra door pair go on the lower deck?

[Denti]

Nice vid from the evacuation test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY, from that it would appear its 77.4 seconds to evacuate 871.

I agree though, the additional door pairs are a problem.

[chornedsnorkack]

Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes. They would be high density machines like the 747s within Japan (if we remember).

Why of course?

Which airplane has the most seats?

NOT Japanese domestic. ANA had 594 seats on 747, but does not now have them.

The biggest plane now is Corsair 747-400. 587 seats. Including 558 economy and 29 premium seats.

And Corsair 587 seat 747-400s do fly long flights. Indian Ocean, I think.

The largest number of people carried by 2 engines is Japanese domestic. 524 seats on 777-300 non-ER, including 503 coach and 21 business class.

But Air France 472 seat 777-300ERs come close. And fly long distances, like Indian ocean.

[Dani]

Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes. They would be high density machines like the 747s within Japan (if we remember).

Why of course?

I was refering to the fact that the more traffic load you add, the lower the amount of fuel is acceptable for a given aircraft. The same aircraft can never fly as long with more passengers without increasing your max weights or increase performance.

A bigger or heavier A380 would certainly be able to fly long haul but shorter sectors than a lighter one.

hth,
Dani

[Dani]

I don't see any problem with any emergency exit door.

Are you guys aware of different types of doors? You could, for example, install a "dual row" door, where there could evacuate two people at the same time simultaneously. I remember those door types on MD-11s (?).

Another possibility is to place two doors next to each other, like on a A320 overwing exit.

Or is somebody of you in possession of hard facts that there are no additional doors possible due to structural or other reasons? They have to redesign certain fuselage barrels anyway, and they have to prove the new aircraft in real evacuations again.

Please share with me your doubts.

Dani

[Back Seat Driver]

Simple A380 figures based on average wind Component of 60 knots Headwind
Great Circle path SIN-LHR.
MTOW 569T.
80 Tonne payload.
An A380 will use around about 183 tonnes of fuel leaving 10 Tonnes reserve on arrival LHR.
These are just idealistic round figures, using IFPA.
ps. If you don't know what the IFPA is, I'm not going to tell you.:oh:

[Dani]

The rumour from the mob operating the A380 is that the floor in the cargo bays have not the strength to do same.

The apologist answers:

They are not talking about the underfloor cargo bays, but the ones on the upper deck. I don't think that the 74F can load anything on her upper deck (nor the 777;) ) so your comparison doesn't go a long way.

[Dani]

Neighter nor.

But obviously you all try to nail me down on my personality so it's a clear sign that you cannot handle my arguments :}

Otherwise - interesting discussion. I wonder why it has a 1 minus rating...

Dani

[Brakes on]

Whoop either is a troll in his own right or paid by someone to be one. The fact that he uses the wrong seating configuration for the 777 disqualifies his entire post.

[keesje]

I think the A380 is made for passengers & freight to fill her up.

The market has grown so hard that it is becoming increasing unneccesary / expensive to use passenger flights for freight.

The boys & girls from e.g. Atlas, Icelandair, Kalitha, Evergreen and the airlines dedicated freighters do it better, making fuel stops at smart locations, using cheap converted 747's etc..

IMO extreme fuel prices further make tons of nonsense in the belly an increasingly unattractive option.

[GMDS]

IMO extreme fuel prices further make tons of nonsense in the belly an increasingly unattractive option.


That is the heart of the matter, if you consider below effective cost/low yield passengers nonsense aswell. It will be the legacy of the locos and eventually of the flying pig.
The argument about better exploiting the rare slots in big hubs is true. Question is how many of these LHRs and JFKs will there be and this might determine the success of behemouths.
On the other hand the above argument plays into the hand of smaller equipment. If you can fill a 380 with enough break-even yield pax, good enough. Up to today most operators however fill their biggies with a lot of cheap fillers and this is hurting them now. Simply because even a small fuel surcharge does not cover the cost increase and the surcharge weighs more heavily on these low priced tickets and they lose that kind of customer.
The winners will be those airlines who can still generate a acceptable average yield. The common belief is that this is easier with big equippment, but imho it will be more difficult, see above. Especially with the flying pig, as it appears that filling it with good yield freight seems to be a problem. It is common knowledge that driving around in a half empty Hummer is less economocal than doing the same with a Camry.

[White Knight]

That's true GMDS, but you don't pay 'landing' fees at heavily constrained airports in a Hummer now do you?
As well as being cheaper per pax per mile, the 380 will only pick up the one landing fee instead of the two if you're having to double up services to carry the load - and those fees can be fairly exorbitant.. Plus only one uplift of fuel, catering etc etc.
There'll be a lot of 380's in the sky soon - I imagine here at Emirates they'll run them at a nice profit too!! Unlike the 773 that loses payload badly here in the summertime:E

[GMDS]

WK

With so many parameteres we can discuss in circles all day long, i know. You are certainly right aswell.

Just to add to the merry go round:

How much higher are the landing fees of the 380? (i don't know).

The whole point of comparison stands or falls with the assumption that you would fly either with one 380 or with two 777 or 330. Now no one will contest that the seat mile comes cheaper by using one aircraft only. What i am saying is that not many routes will require that. The majority of routes will be amply served with one T7. If you have a higher pax volume, experience shows that you'd preferably fly twice a day with a lag of a half a day. Passengers prefer that, at least the high yield customer we're all after. If slots are scarce, agreed the 380 is the solution, but i don't think enough airports will force you into that.

As to the payload restrictions of the 777-300ER. It is not as dramatic as that. Experience tells us that operating a aircraft right at its limits is the most economical way. Therefore the T7 is well installed on the JFK at EK.
It won't be long until the 380 will be able to demonstrate its qualities here. It will fly the same route as the T7, the same day and that will be THE outcome we all can bitch over then.

[White Knight]

Indeed GMDS - but I was referring to 773, not 773ER - big difference in capability.. In fact I believe EK got the ER specifically to carry payload on the 7 hour flights, rather than use it for ULR such as JFK.
I think too that with the big increase in passenger numbers then the 380 is a REQUIREMENT on many routes, especially out of places like LHR, JFK, FRA, CDG etc. No point having a second service if you can't get the slot - and traffic is growing everywhere.
Also the other benefit of economy of scale is that you can in fact reduce ticket prices and benefit by carrying yet more people. Ok, lower yield per person but if you can encourage an extra 50 people to fly who wouldn't have done so previously then you probably will end up making more money! Although I'm not aware of figures - being just an aviator:ok:

[Dani]

Thanks, TnB, I didn't think you were insulting me. I merely stated that my arguments rested unanswered. Otherwise - I'll come over when come again to SIN :ok:

Dani

[Brakes on]

Twitter,
As per the SQ website, the 777-300ER has 278 seats, not 350 as stated in Whoop's post. That's a difference of over 20% and gives the A380 an advantage of 7% per seat.
I haven't bothered to check the other numbers he used. I'm not wasting too much time on somebody who can't get even get that basic a number right.

[keesje]

Keejse
Quote:
The market has grown so hard that it is becoming increasing unnecessary / expensive to use passenger flights for freight.

The boys & girls from e.g. Atlas, Icelandair, Kalitha, Evergreen and the airlines dedicated freighters do it better, making fuel stops at smart locations, using cheap converted 747's etc..
Ok but if you have space in your cargo hold in these enlightened times of "ebay" why should you not make good coin from the capacity. As freight does not need flight attendants, meals, FF lounges etc etc


True but cargo doesn't board itself & needs infrastructure. Anyway if a lot of low value cargo makes the aircraft have to load additional fuel to carry it (& the fuel) on long flights, the balance may tip when fuel prices go through the roof..