View Full Version : A380 - Costs of a Go-Around?
bealine
1st Jul 2009, 22:04
A BA Captain, FO and myself watched in amazement yesterday at LHR as one of the lumbering "Fling Pigs" - Airbus A380 - aborted its landing and climbed out again to "Go Around", a procedure which took around 10 minutes before she landed properly.
"Crikey - that will be expensive!" exclaimed the Captain.
Has anyone got any idea as to the likely fuel bill for an A380 "Go Around"?
Just Curious!
One Outsider
1st Jul 2009, 22:23
The same or less than a 744. Less noise too.
But then who cares?
Mad (Flt) Scientist
1st Jul 2009, 23:27
Substantially less than the cost of NOT going-around would be my guess.
kenhughes
2nd Jul 2009, 00:56
According to Airbus's own figures:
A380 economics (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/economics.html)
fuel-burn: Despite its ability to carry 35 per cent more passengers than its competitor, the A380 burns 12 per cent less fuel per seat – reducing operating costs and minimising its effects on the environment at the same time through fewer emissions. The A380 burns fuel per passenger at a rate comparable to that of an economical family car.
The A380 burns 12% less fuel per seat. At 525 seats, that means it would burn 12 x 5.25 = 63 times less fuel per hour, or 6.3 times less fuel in 10mins.
So it actually saved money by going around. (Plus what Mad (Flt) Scientist said). QED
The A380 burns 12% less fuel per seat. At 525 seats, that means it would burn 12 x 5.25 = 63 times less fuel per hour, or 6.3 times less fuel in 10mins
So it actually saved money by going around. (Plus what Mad (Flt) Scientist said)
I have to question the maths on this, if what you are saying is correct then would it not make sense for an airline to continually go around until in handsome profit ?
The comparison is that in a like for like situation if the competitor could occupy 525 seats then the fuel burn would be 12% cheaper. Thus the penalty of a go around would be the same for its nearest competitor less 12% - we then have to build in variations on occupency etc etc but that is their claimed ball park figure.
I am confused at what your saying ken, there is no saving as there is a fuel cost penalty for going around - its just a little cheaper than had it been one of the competitors aircraft - your post implies they have a saving by going around.
parabellum
2nd Jul 2009, 12:47
At a guess, between 4.5 and 6.5 tonnes.
bealine
2nd Jul 2009, 21:26
Thanks for the replies!
I have to say, Mad (Flt) Scientist's reply gave me a chuckle - more so than the wealth of Michael Jackson jokes doing the rounds at the moment!
Seriously, though, at 296 - 298 gallons per tonne, that's not doing much for the carbon footprint.
At today's price of 601 USD per tonne, that is an extra cost to Emirates of between 2704 USD to 3906 USD, but of course as Mad (Flt) Scientist said, a tiny fraction of the cost of not going around! :hmm:
One Outsider
3rd Jul 2009, 02:42
What is the point of asking the question in the first place? Or using the particular phrases in the first place?
Asking about, or commenting on, the costs of a go-around is at best misguided.
kenhughes
3rd Jul 2009, 04:22
Sorry Jofm5, if was an (obviously unsuccessful) attempt at humour.
Like the car I once had with so many petrol saving devices on it that I had to drain the tank every 200 miles.
bealine
3rd Jul 2009, 08:32
What is the point of asking the question in the first place? Or using the particular phrases in the first place?
Asking about, or commenting on, the costs of a go-around is at best misguided.
As I said in my original post, "Just Curious!"
The "Throw Away" line "Christ! That's will be expensive!" prompted me to think how expensive.
Sorry - questioning and investigating has always been the sign of superior intelligence - I'll know not to ask EOne Outside" in future!
Asking about, or commenting on, the costs of a go-around is at best misguided.
I can't understand what is "misguided" about my question - it's not exactly ammunition for those with evil intent is it?
A question asked in the question forum, and some of you cannot be bothered to be civil.
I for one am interested in the fuel burn and the cost.
Clearly I must be misguided.
:ugh:
2close
3rd Jul 2009, 10:21
I know personally of a student pilot on QXC who very significantly infringed a rather large international airport at the approach end, coming well within minimum separation distance of the centre line, and caused a number of aircraft to be broken away from approach.
Whilst there is obviously a great deal of artistic licence in the picture painted it was described as being like a squadron of Spitfires breaking off. ;) (Obviously not but it creates a humourous picture).
Cost to 1 airliner - Big enough! :ooh:
Cost to 5 airliners - Ouch!! :sad:
Look on student's face on landing - Absolutely bloody priceless!!! :eek:
Seriously, knowing the cost of go arounds is quite important as, safety reasons aside, it helps instructors explain the reasons for staying outside CAS without proper clearances, by adding meat to the bones of the rationale.
PS. Permanently misguided and often simply lost!!!! :confused:
parabellum
3rd Jul 2009, 12:26
As a rough guide. In the charter operations, the cost of one diversion, causing substantial disruption, could wipe out the profit from the next six charters.
Brakes on
4th Jul 2009, 22:21
parabellum,
The question was about a go-around, not a diversion. I do hope that, with your background, you know the difference, or your company is paying a lot of unnecessary expenses for fuel etc. ;)
parabellum
4th Jul 2009, 23:44
Yes, thank you Brakes on! I do know the difference but just threw that in for a bit of additional info.:ok:
javelin
5th Jul 2009, 14:43
A full A330 with 325 pax on in warm conditions will use between 1200 and 1500kgs for a missed approach, radar circuit and land..............
Yes, I was surprised too :eek:
So, add, multiply and divide and I guess the 380 will do about 4 tonnes given larger circuit etc etc.
That is why I can usually justify a little extra on the PLOG, especially eastbound.
I was taxiing at the time and saw the GA, but didn't see the cause (and speaking to GMC at the time as opposed to TWR). Was it a blocked rwy?
NW3
I cannot get too excited about these things. Yes the A380 will burn a lot during a go-around. It also burns a lot of fuel just to taxi to the terminal. But then again, it carries a lot of people paying a lot of money.
So no big deal, it's all relative. An A380 go around should not hurt the company more than an A318 doing the same.