PDA

View Full Version : A380 MEL-LAX weight restriction?


Nudlaug
11th Aug 2010, 00:36
Rumour has it that the A380 cannot take freight on the MEL-LAX run when full on passengers and at the same time burning more fuel than a 744? Can anyone shed some light on this?
Just a rumour and might be totally wrong, was just wondering.....

Capt Fathom
11th Aug 2010, 01:46
It burns more fuel, because it's heavier than a B744!

Going Boeing
11th Aug 2010, 03:14
It sounds like rubbish, the MEL-LAX sector usually has tailwinds thus allowing both the A388 & B744ER to carry a small amount of freight. However, there is very little airfreight going from Oz to the US whereas there is a large amount of airfreight going in the opposite direction but due to headwinds, neither aircraft type can carry freight in addition to full "pax plus baggage" load.

This is why QF "wet" leases a large number of freighter aircraft to operate US-OZ-Asia. Q. Why don't QF operate their own freighter aircraft? A. Because they can lease aircraft at a much cheaper rate.

CF's right - The basic weight of the A388 is approx 105 tonne heavier than the B744ER so it does burn more fuel, the important thing is the seat/mile costs. With full pax loads, the A388 has lower seat/mile costs but if the load is only 300 pax, it would be cheaper to operate a B744ER.

mustafagander
11th Aug 2010, 10:37
Nope, MEL - LAX is rarely a problem. It's LAX - MEL which hurts, especially if there are weather problems on the East coast of OZ. Tuesday's QF MEL - LAX, for example, had about 20 tonnes available. Pity about the windscreen wiper though!!

Red Jet
11th Aug 2010, 11:11
Just did LAX-MEL in the -300ER. 365PAX 18.5 tonnes of Cargo, 15 knots on the nose average and landed in MEL with 12.5T FOB, holding ADL as reserve. Thread drift, I know, but not a bad for a twin, ehh:)

B772
11th Aug 2010, 14:16
Red Jet. I thought the VA B777-300ER only carried 361 pax.

Red Jet
11th Aug 2010, 22:21
B772 - you are absolutely right. 4 of 'em were eeny, weeny little wee ones:ok:

Wod
12th Aug 2010, 00:12
15 knots on the nose average


Well below normal at this time of year if memory serves.
(which it decreasingly does)

Going Boeing
12th Aug 2010, 15:13
Red Jet, there is a very big B777-300ER fan club in the QF pilot ranks - your figures just confirm that the decisions made during the Dixon era have hurt QF (& its staff) big time.

Zeke
12th Aug 2010, 20:16
Going Boeing, with all due respect, most pilots are relatively clueless when it comes to network optimisation and fleet selection, but normally are masters of knowing the roster and leave system inside out for their own benefit.

VA could operate their 77Ws every day full, with cargo, and still post a massive loss. The 77W has a 15-20% higher fuel cost per seat over the A380 according to Tim Clark (President of Emirates).

So VA are flying a very expensive aircraft with less seats, at a higher cost per seat, with a similar revenue per seat, means that they are not getting the best yield per seat.

neville_nobody
12th Aug 2010, 21:07
The 77W has a 15-20% higher fuel cost per seat over the A380 according to Tim Clark (President of Emirates).

I'd want to see the figures and how they're calculated before believing such statements. I certainly wouldn't be taking some airline CEO's word for it.

I'd also be asking if any marketing agreements were in play with Airbus too:hmm:

dragon man
12th Aug 2010, 21:38
There are 2 things here that make me wonder, firstly i thought the VB 777s didnt have a freight door so how do they load 15 tonnes of freight (by hand?), secondly if the A380 is cheaper than the 777 per seat mile im sure it would only be when full. Flying around a 280 tonne empty weight aircraft with empty seats would send the seat mile costs thru the roof in my opinion.

43Inches
12th Aug 2010, 22:02
secondly if the A380 is cheaper than the 777 per seat mile im sure it would only be when full. Flying around a 280 tonne empty weight aircraft with empty seats would send the seat mile costs thru the roof in my opinion.

You could probably fly a Navajo across the pacific for less cost than either empty.

Aircraft selection is about finding the right aircraft for the route, you need to get the range and payload compromise suited to the market. The aircraft is purchased based on attaining an average of at least 80% load factors on reasonable yields. If you can not achieve that the aircraft you bought is too big and you should have got the smaller one (A330/767).

Frieght is a small part of QFs income (read latest anual result), their focus is high yield passengers. VOz try to subsidise their operation with freight so the 777 may be better for their ops, although any ops in and out of the US would be better served with dedicated frieghters due to the volume. The dedicated frieghters can offer a much lower cost to frieght customers as they don't have all the frills a passenger operation requires.


The 77W has a 15-20% higher fuel cost per seat over the A380 according to Tim Clark (President of Emirates).


Why did they order another 30 aircraft (777-300)?

They also ordered 32 additional A380, which means both aircraft are proving successful.

nitpicker330
12th Aug 2010, 23:45
Yeah the 77W is really bad........
That's why Cathay Pacific ( a company which just made a 6 months profit of 6.8 BILLION HKD ) just ordered 6 more...:D

And why we DIDN'T order the Dugong.:}

nitpicker330
12th Aug 2010, 23:49
dragon man i thought the VB 777s didnt have a freight door

All 77W's have exactly the same Cargo doors in the belly allowing a large sized container.

The CX 77W's carry quite a lot of profitable under floor Cargo on most long haul flights. Even JFK to HKG can uplift up to around 10 T per flight.

This from Air New Zealand:--

Cargo Containers - Product Overview - Products and Services - International Cargo - About Us - AirNewZealand - Continental Europe (http://www.airnewzealand.eu/international-cargo-containers)

Cargo Containers
ALF - LD6 (QuickZip Flexible Door)
AAF - LD26 (QuickZip Flexible Door)
AAP - LD9 (QuickZip Flexible Door)
DQF - LD8 (3-strap Door)
AKE - LD3 (3-strap Door)
AAU - LD29 (QuickZip Flexible Door)
AKH - LD3-45 (Fold-up Door)
Pallet Type PKC: 61.5" x 60.4" (with Extension Wings)
Pallet Type PAG: 88'
Pallet Type PMC: 96'

ALF - LD6 (QuickZip Flexible Door)


ID Code: ALF or LD-6
Aircraft Type: B747, B777
Internal Volume: 9m (318 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 140 x 310 x 152 cm
(55 x 122 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 293 x 147 cm
(115 x 54 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 3175 kg (7000 lb)
Tare Weight: 159 kg (350 lb)
AAF - LD26 (QuickZip Flexible Door)


ID Code: AAF or LD-26
Aircraft Type: B747, B777
Internal Volume: 13.0m (459 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 208 x 302 x 152 cm
(82 x 119 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 293 x 147 cm
(115 x 54 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 4626 kg (10200 lb)
Tare Weight: 159 kg (350 lb)
AAP - LD9 (QuickZip Flexible Door)


ID Code: AAF or LD-26
Aircraft Type: B767, B747, B777
Internal Volume: 10.6m (374 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 208 x 302 x 152 cm
(82 x 119 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 293 x 147 cm
(115 x 54 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 4626 kg (10200 lb)
Tare Weight: 220 kg (485 lb)
DQF - LD8 (3-strap Door)


ID Code: DQF (AQF) or LD-8
Aircraft Type: B767
Internal Volume: 7.2m (253 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 140 x 233 x 152 cm
(55 x 92 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 235 x 152 cm
(93 x 60 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 2449 kg (5400 lb)
Tare Weight: 132 kg (291 lb)
AKE - LD3 (3-strap Door)


ID Code: AKE or LD-3
Aircraft Type: B747, B777
Internal Volume: 4.3m (153 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 140 x 147 x 152 cm
(55 x 58 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 148 x 152 cm
(58 x 60 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 1587 kg (3500 lb)
Tare Weight: 85 kg ( 187 lb)
AAU - LD29 (QuickZip Flexible Door)


ID Code: AAU or LD-29
Aircraft Type: B747
Internal Volume: 14.5m (511 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 208 x 302 x 152 cm
(82 x 119 x 60 in)
Door Clearance: 293 x 147 cm
(115 x 54 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 4626 kg (10200 lb)
Tare Weight: 260 kg (573 lb)
AKH - LD3-45 (Fold-up Door)


ID Code: AKH or LD-45
Aircraft Type: A320
Internal Volume: 3.6m (127 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 146 x 149 x 113 cm
Maximum Gross Weight: 1134 kg (2500 lb)
Tare Weight: 88 kg (194 lb)
Pallet Type PKC: 61.5" x 60.4" (with Extension Wings)


ID Code: PKC
Aircraft Type: A320
Internal Volume: 3.6m (127 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: XX x XX x XX cm
(XX x XX x XX in)
Door Clearance: XX x XX cm
(XX x XX in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 1134 kg (2500 lb)
Tare Weight: 70 kg (154 lb)
Pallet Type PAG: 88'


ID Code: PAG
Aircraft Type: B747, B767, B777
Internal Volume: 11.1 m (400 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 207 x 301 x 152 cm (82 x 119 x 60 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 4626 kg (10200 lb)
Tare Weight: 120 kg (265 lb)
Pallet Type PMC: 96'


ID Code: PMC
Aircraft Type: B747, B767, B777
Internal Volume: 12.1 m (427 cu.ft.)
Limiting Internal Dimensions: 228 x 301 x 152 cm
(90 x 119 x 60 in)
Maximum Gross Weight: 5035 kg (11100 lb)
Tare Weight: 120 kg (265 lb)

apache
13th Aug 2010, 00:37
Actually, I think that you will find that there are two sized cargo doors for the front of the 777 and indeed the 767.
The LARGER cargo door will enable the aircraft, surprisingly, to take the larger cargo containers and pallets. This is the NORMAL configuration.
The smaller cargo door which is also the ONLY door available for the rear hold, will allow the aircraft to take the smaller containers, such as the LD8's and LD3's etc.
V-Australia have made the same f*ck up that happened at ANSETT many moons ago by some genius short term manager by ordering aircraft with the smaller forward cargo door. There was a figure being bandies around that ANSETT saved $100,000 per B767 by ordering the smaller door..... but lost $5million in revenue every year because of it.
The VA aircraft are now virtually useless to sell, as no-one else in the world, really, is stupid enough to buy aircraft with this option.
Why boeing keep offering it is beyond me!

nitpicker330
13th Aug 2010, 05:27
that's news to me.
The original 777-200's ( 4 'A' Market versions) that CX bought back in 1996 as launch customer of the RR version had small Cargo doors. The last 772 we bought ( B-HNL the very first test 777, N77701 ) was modified to the bigger doors when we bought it around the year 2001.
As far as I'm aware all 777-300's ( normal and ER ) have only one type of FWD and AFT Cargo door available and on all our 300's the FWD and AFT are the same size. Only the Bulk door is smaller.

I will ask the Boeing rep next time I see him.

B-HKD
13th Aug 2010, 10:43
Regarding the cargo door options available on the 777-300ER:

The FWD cargo door is only available in one size:

106 by 67 Inches (2.69 by 1.70 Meters)

The AFT cargo door is available in TWO sizes:

1. Standard: 70 by 67 Inches (1.78 by 1.70 Meters) Less $$$ As chosen by V-Australia, JAL.

2. Optional: 106 by 67 Inches (2.69 by 1.70 Meters) same as FWD cargo door. More $$$ Chosen by: CX, EK, ANA, TAM just to name a few of them.

Option two is by far the more popular and in the long term brings the most $$$. (Now V-Australia is not the only carrier to have chosen option 1. JAL did the same thing but then again, their not in the best financial condition at the moment :})

(The very same door dimensions and customer options are to be found on the 200LR.) Not sure if it is the same for the 200, 200ER, 300. But if anybody cares to know, just let me know.

Hope that clears it up :ok:

Zeke
13th Aug 2010, 17:11
I'd want to see the figures and how they're calculated before believing such statements. I certainly wouldn't be taking some airline CEO's word for it.

Like most large airlines, EK has a yield management unit that looks at aircraft types over all routes, and are able to produce comparisons like this....the president of the airline is only reiterating the information that is reported to them. To compile such data is rather dull career path.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/fleet%20planning/A380DXBLHRDXB.png

And why we DIDN'T order the A380.

CX was not looking at a VLA this time round, they chose an aircraft that can do the job of the A330/A340/777/773/77W the A350 (A350-900, A350-900R, A350-1000), with a proposed order of 30 plus 30 options.


All 77W's have exactly the same Cargo doors in the belly allowing a large sized container.

No

ernestkgann
13th Aug 2010, 22:54
Thanks for the chart Zeke. EK runs both -300s and -300ERs on the LHR route. Is there a difference in ASKM on each type? Also the chart is for DXB-LHR, a reasonably short route. You'd expect the ASKM to decrease for longer routes as a comparison between the 777 and the 380 because of the large difference in fuel burns. Listening to the fuel loads in LAX the -400s are taking about 40K more and the 380s around 70K in extra burn. Do you have the figures for that? Obviously the 330 couldn't make the direct route so isn't worth comparing.

neville_nobody
14th Aug 2010, 03:26
Do you have a DXB-SYD chart? That distance is within a few miles of the Pacific crossing and probably a more accurate comparison.

moutere101
16th Aug 2010, 01:48
You have me scratching my head! The ESAD on the day was ~7100nm. The L/R chart for the 77W shows a ZFW of ~216-tonne for that range . Your payload was ~52.8t which gives a DOW ~ 163t. The typical DOW of the 77W is in the 171 to 175t range. What am I missing?