Merged: QF 777s and other rumours

[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]

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.

[Keg]

I did ask to be corrected about the Beluga.

It looks nothing like a Beluga. It's a Dugong.

[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.

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

[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!!

Where would they all sleep anyway?

[alangirvan]

Is that 301 Quokkas?