QF A380 LAX-MEL Operations
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per seat, it seems the A380 is burning 10% less fuel, lifting about 30% more revenue payload, and supplying about 50% more floor area than the 744ER.
And it still has range/payload up its sleeve, I remember a few people on this thread previously say it did not have the range for trans pacific sectors....
Now does anyone have the 747-300 numbers......
And it still has range/payload up its sleeve, I remember a few people on this thread previously say it did not have the range for trans pacific sectors....
Now does anyone have the 747-300 numbers......
Plus we still have to find out if it can operate all year on the Mel/Lax run with the same loads as it does on the Syd or Bne/Lax flights...
Secondly....What has the figures for the 300 got to do with the flying brioche?
Thirdly..What has the floor area got to do with the price of eggs?
We all know that when the excitement has died down and the sales people get the marketing people to sit down and stop partying they will put as many seats in the thing that they can....just as they did with the 747.
Remember the upper deck lounge as well as the wide galleys in Y/C....they lasted for a long time didn't they?
If there is a spare space anywhere in the brioche they will want to put a seat in it or if they can re design the interior and put pax in places like the over head lockers the sales team will try to...if they can get away with it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is a spare space anywhere in the brioche they will want to put a seat in it or if they can re design the interior and put pax in places like the over head lockers the sales team will try to...if they can get away with it.
I was mildly disappointed with the thing. It reminded me of the word bland. And didn't I get a ribbing from the boss when I got back from work for not raving about it!
I was soooo impressed with the small sign at one of the walk up bars that said words to the effect "Achtung! Return to your seat after making your selection now!!"
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no aircraft interior designer, but on my quick bolt through the dugong, there didn't appear to be a lot more room to put extra seats anywhere with the current 4 class config. Drop it to 3 or even 2 class, that's another story!
If Emirates and SIA can do it then QF could do it with their eyes closed...
Wait until they sell the underfloor Cabin Crew rest to premium Y/C pax....for a premium $ of course and when they find out how well they sell add some other under floor pallets with bunks as well for a wad of bucks.
The motto with airlines is ..."Never say Never"
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba, Le Dugong uses (early days) around-about 80kg/Pax less fuel LAX-MEL compared to 744ER. = Huge efficiency gains. AND carries a whole lot more pax.
If you need to move a lot of people a long way - A380
If you need to move 2/3'rds as many a long way - 744
If you need to move 1/2 as many a long way - 777
(If you need to move an A380 load in 2 steps = 743)
QF have been doing it better than most for a long long time now. I reckon they know what they're doing.
If you need to move a lot of people a long way - A380
If you need to move 2/3'rds as many a long way - 744
If you need to move 1/2 as many a long way - 777
(If you need to move an A380 load in 2 steps = 743)
QF have been doing it better than most for a long long time now. I reckon they know what they're doing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
QF have been doing it better than most for a long long time now.
.Having said that the 748 was not on the horizon when the A380 was ordered.
I know the numbers are just plain off the cuff quotes but if you said say 215T V 170T of fuel, and Le Dugong caries only 450 PAX when Full, for its 25-26% more fuel overall, well thats only 28% more passengers. Assuming its full.
There must be a heap of other efficiencies involved here otherwise it would be a close call.
It would be good to see some serious factual debate not a slagging match on what the Q can expect from the A380 compared to its 744 and maybe 748 cousins when you look at real passenger / freight loadings.
J
"There must be a heap of other efficiencies involved here otherwise it would be a close call."
It can't be in the flight attendants then. I remember carrying 460 back from Frankfurt once (not unusual) with 14 flight attendants. Only around 50 more passengers on the 380, but an extra 8 flight attendants. Mind you they are saving by using QCCA employees.
I know which aircraft I'd rather be working on as a flight attendant!
It can't be in the flight attendants then. I remember carrying 460 back from Frankfurt once (not unusual) with 14 flight attendants. Only around 50 more passengers on the 380, but an extra 8 flight attendants. Mind you they are saving by using QCCA employees.
I know which aircraft I'd rather be working on as a flight attendant!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
When airbus 1st mooted the A380 it was delayed in design commitment for several years, because Boeing threatened to bring out a new 747 design (what we now know as the 748) which would make airbuses financial commitment in a new design untenable. So airbus cooled on the mega bus idea. This cycle happened several times until airbus eventually bit the bullet and actually started building the 380. So the Johnny come lately boys at Boeing decided to go ahead with the 748 design to compete with the mega bus. So far Boeing has been a little under whelmed with response and sales for the 748.
Le Dugong planned to burn 201T fuel on the 1st LAX-MEL.
Savings over previous 744 service was about 80kg/pax fuel.
Multiply that by 400+ pax by 3 or 4 transpacific flights per day (as more dugongs arrive) times 365 days a year and you will no doubt see the potential increase in efficiency. As for the 748, I'm sure it will be a great leap forward, but where the bloody hell is it - only Boeing knows, and they could have built it 10 years ago but chose not to. Airbus beat them to the ULH/bigpella market.
ps. It (A380) flies beautifully
When airbus 1st mooted the A380 it was delayed in design commitment for several years, because Boeing threatened to bring out a new 747 design (what we now know as the 748) which would make airbuses financial commitment in a new design untenable. So airbus cooled on the mega bus idea. This cycle happened several times until airbus eventually bit the bullet and actually started building the 380. So the Johnny come lately boys at Boeing decided to go ahead with the 748 design to compete with the mega bus. So far Boeing has been a little under whelmed with response and sales for the 748.
Le Dugong planned to burn 201T fuel on the 1st LAX-MEL.
Savings over previous 744 service was about 80kg/pax fuel.
Multiply that by 400+ pax by 3 or 4 transpacific flights per day (as more dugongs arrive) times 365 days a year and you will no doubt see the potential increase in efficiency. As for the 748, I'm sure it will be a great leap forward, but where the bloody hell is it - only Boeing knows, and they could have built it 10 years ago but chose not to. Airbus beat them to the ULH/bigpella market.
ps. It (A380) flies beautifully
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Back Seat driver..... or are you A380 front seat driver now?
So at 450 PAX thats all good, what about the avearge loading for the MEL-LAX-MEL runs. How does that stack up? I assume that the fairly full loads on the 744 were actually limiting the supply so they will actually increase total ticket sales despite a economic downturn.
J
PS: Dont get me wrong, its probably the right machine for now. I wonder if the 748I when it comes along will shave the costs more. It is started in the Everett factory, albeit waiting for workers to stop their mindless strike! And no I do not work for Boeing.
So at 450 PAX thats all good, what about the avearge loading for the MEL-LAX-MEL runs. How does that stack up? I assume that the fairly full loads on the 744 were actually limiting the supply so they will actually increase total ticket sales despite a economic downturn.
J
PS: Dont get me wrong, its probably the right machine for now. I wonder if the 748I when it comes along will shave the costs more. It is started in the Everett factory, albeit waiting for workers to stop their mindless strike! And no I do not work for Boeing.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
I don't know the answer to your question.
A little more history.
The 744ER's were purchased specifically for the MEL-LAX-MEL route because the 744 std had trouble carrying a good load home, particulary in winter (more headwind enroute) and often had to make a pitstop in syd for a splash and dash.
QF uses the ER because it is/was more efficient than the STD.
For exactly the same reason they are now choosing to use Le Dugong - it is more efficient than the ER. I'm not knocking the 744 - I loved it (as much as one loves aluminium tubing)
But it is quite simply
744 - Good
744ER - Better
A380 - Best
As for the 748 - If P.Abeles were still alive
He'd have probably bought a couple of those as well to go with the couple of everything else he bought. A little bit of everything didn't serve Ansett too well in the end.
I don't know the answer to your question.
A little more history.
The 744ER's were purchased specifically for the MEL-LAX-MEL route because the 744 std had trouble carrying a good load home, particulary in winter (more headwind enroute) and often had to make a pitstop in syd for a splash and dash.
QF uses the ER because it is/was more efficient than the STD.
For exactly the same reason they are now choosing to use Le Dugong - it is more efficient than the ER. I'm not knocking the 744 - I loved it (as much as one loves aluminium tubing)
But it is quite simply
744 - Good
744ER - Better
A380 - Best
As for the 748 - If P.Abeles were still alive
He'd have probably bought a couple of those as well to go with the couple of everything else he bought. A little bit of everything didn't serve Ansett too well in the end.
I remember carrying 460 back from Frankfurt once (not unusual)
Those infants can be demanding!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but when comparing to this capacity, the A380 has approx 46% more seats than the pacific 744.
When its starts going to London, the comparison will be with the 353 seat 4 class Kangaroo 744 which is closer to the 28% increase in capacity you mention, but would also have a different fuel burn.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks for the no-nonsense answers!
The bottom line is from what I see here is so long as the seats sold are proportionally higher all is good. I hope they are, its good for not just Qantas but the whole country!
J
The bottom line is from what I see here is so long as the seats sold are proportionally higher all is good. I hope they are, its good for not just Qantas but the whole country!
J
Hi A389-800 driver.
Can you please tell us what the QF Operating Empty Wt is for the A380 and the normal cruise planned MN (approx TAS).
Also what is the approx 1st hour cruise FF at MTOW??
I was told yrs ago for the B744 it was approx 14000kg/hr reducing to approx 9000Kg/hr at the end of a long haul(12-14hr flt)
I see earlier someone mentioned a min cost crz speed of 0.86M???
Thanks, Cheers.
Can you please tell us what the QF Operating Empty Wt is for the A380 and the normal cruise planned MN (approx TAS).
Also what is the approx 1st hour cruise FF at MTOW??
I was told yrs ago for the B744 it was approx 14000kg/hr reducing to approx 9000Kg/hr at the end of a long haul(12-14hr flt)
I see earlier someone mentioned a min cost crz speed of 0.86M???
Thanks, Cheers.
The A380 is a very efficient aeroplane compared to the older technology B744, however, it would be an extremely efficient aircraft if the wing & centre wing structure was designed and built for that fuselage size. It has been designed by Airbus with a capability to stretch the fuselage and consequently the wing and centre wing structure is much stronger (& heavier) than what ia required for the existing fuselage. The A380 has an empty weight approximately 80-100 tonne heavier than the B747-8I which effectively offsets its high technology efficiencies. I believe that the B747-8I is more efficient than the A380-800 but sometime in the future, the stretched A380 will be unbeatable.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 25th Oct 2008 at 11:24.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Twiggs...
Twiggs....I did not know that an aircraft burnt fuel at a different rate going to London than it does going to LAX....
While Twiggs has her maths wrong her main mistake is the difference between capacity and yield.
The Dugong (at present) is configured..
14P/72J/32PYC/332YC
747-400
14P/66J/40PYC/187YC
or
14P/52J/32PYC/255YC or 14P/50J/32PYC/255YC (Depending on configuration)
The noticeable difference is in the number of YC seats...which is surprising.
So in essence Twiggs is twisting the figures to show an overall increase of 46%.
PC is the same
JC is only increased by 6 seats
and the big surprise is that the Dugong Premium YC has actually 8 seats less than the 747-400 in it's Pacific configuration....
For all the increase in cabin space the difference is less than what you would imagine.
Especially when you think of the yield on the US run and why the company configured the 400 to have a larger number of Business seats in the first place.
They now have reverted to a larger YC area....I guess they will now tell us that is where the money is and not the business market....
Perhaps the reason could be that the Dugong in it's current form is weight restricted and the weight of the JC seats is an issue.Until they increase engine performance as they did with the 747 it might remain so...
What you are not considering when making this comparison is that on the LAX route, the 744 pacific always has had the least capacity of all our 744 aircraft with extra J/C seats and when they are set up as 4 class as well, their capacity will be down to 307.
This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but when comparing to this capacity, the A380 has approx 46% more seats than the pacific 744.
When its starts going to London, the comparison will be with the 353 seat 4 class Kangaroo 744 which is closer to the 28% increase in capacity you mention, but would also have a different fuel burn.
This has already been mentioned elsewhere, but when comparing to this capacity, the A380 has approx 46% more seats than the pacific 744.
When its starts going to London, the comparison will be with the 353 seat 4 class Kangaroo 744 which is closer to the 28% increase in capacity you mention, but would also have a different fuel burn.
While Twiggs has her maths wrong her main mistake is the difference between capacity and yield.
The Dugong (at present) is configured..
14P/72J/32PYC/332YC
747-400
14P/66J/40PYC/187YC
or
14P/52J/32PYC/255YC or 14P/50J/32PYC/255YC (Depending on configuration)
The noticeable difference is in the number of YC seats...which is surprising.
So in essence Twiggs is twisting the figures to show an overall increase of 46%.
PC is the same
JC is only increased by 6 seats
and the big surprise is that the Dugong Premium YC has actually 8 seats less than the 747-400 in it's Pacific configuration....
For all the increase in cabin space the difference is less than what you would imagine.
Especially when you think of the yield on the US run and why the company configured the 400 to have a larger number of Business seats in the first place.
They now have reverted to a larger YC area....I guess they will now tell us that is where the money is and not the business market....
Perhaps the reason could be that the Dugong in it's current form is weight restricted and the weight of the JC seats is an issue.Until they increase engine performance as they did with the 747 it might remain so...