Merged: QF 777s and other rumours
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Drift Avoidance
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.
Reason why 777 rumours have subsided...........
People sniffing on the wrong side of Atlantic.
Pending A350-1000 order is the latest.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
and with the strike at present nobody is getting any!
J
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
777's
I heard its on , certainly running the slide rule over them seriously wrt 787 delays being much longer.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ACMS; 27th Sep 2008 at 16:14.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Do not expect to see the A380-800F until the A350XWB is in service.
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?
