B748i or A380 order?
You are absolutely correct nitpicker. It does only carry 14 1st compared to your 777s 6 and only 76 compared to the 53. And it does burn more fuel.
A trip to LHR using cx website lowest sector prices available of HKD 9500 for Y class HKD56910 for J and HKD 92500 for 1st looks like this:
extra 6 in first = HKD740000
extra 23 in J = HKD 1308930
extra 166 in Y = HKD1577000
total= HKD3625930 or USD 467853
This is the extra on a return flight, so the 380 would burn about 110t fuel extra on that so reduce the extra amount by USD110000, so only an extra USD 357853 for the same slot/crew etc costs. The 380 would only be carrying about 17t of cargo per sector so you could reduce that by whatever extra cargo the 777 can carry.
Now when fuel gets to USD 4250 per 1000kgs it will only make as much as a 777, so I can see your concern here.
No wonder EK is taking those poor old 777s off the ULR flights and replacing it with the 380, how could they afford not to?
The Don
A trip to LHR using cx website lowest sector prices available of HKD 9500 for Y class HKD56910 for J and HKD 92500 for 1st looks like this:
extra 6 in first = HKD740000
extra 23 in J = HKD 1308930
extra 166 in Y = HKD1577000
total= HKD3625930 or USD 467853
This is the extra on a return flight, so the 380 would burn about 110t fuel extra on that so reduce the extra amount by USD110000, so only an extra USD 357853 for the same slot/crew etc costs. The 380 would only be carrying about 17t of cargo per sector so you could reduce that by whatever extra cargo the 777 can carry.
Now when fuel gets to USD 4250 per 1000kgs it will only make as much as a 777, so I can see your concern here.
No wonder EK is taking those poor old 777s off the ULR flights and replacing it with the 380, how could they afford not to?
The Don
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki
Age: 48
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon People
WHO GIVES A S*&T.........We've got Bigger Problems.
Both machines make less money than the 777 and the A350XWB. For any of the A380 fans out there, the only reason Emirates has them is because they NEED them, we are in passenger numbers for now and the future nothing compared to these Middle Eastern Carriers, NOTHING. FUEL IS NOTHING to them. As for the Eu carriers.....REALLY....You think THEY built it and they won't use it???It's a European pride thing. Even if it does not make business sense they would still do it, I mean look at the Concorde.....Moneymaker??????
As the 747-8i. Well...........The total order numbers says it all.Boeing might as well just shut the production down for the -8i
As for the guys that believe in Cargo. If you're ever in a Big cargo station like DXB,PVC or even FRA, just take the time and ask any of the handlers how much the Middle Eastern Carriers charge per kilo. You will understand that with half our rates there is no way we can compete against these people therefore buying a machine just to carry MORE freight makes no sense whatsoever. The middle Eastern Carriers have 99 problems but fuel ain't one.
I hate to say it to our fellow aviators but unfortunately the beancounters have it right and NO we haven't missed out on any boat. Unfortunately people want cheap tickets(that's why we need them beancounters), it boils down to that, and only the ME carriers can provide that with unnecessary equipment and equipment of luxury, so WE need to make money by saving. I'm sure someone else will splash on everything I've just said but at the end you'll see, it's ALL ABOUT THE $$$.
And I don't give a S!&T what we fly as long as they pay the salaries and all allowances. A fleet of Cessna 172's I say.
Peace Out.
Both machines make less money than the 777 and the A350XWB. For any of the A380 fans out there, the only reason Emirates has them is because they NEED them, we are in passenger numbers for now and the future nothing compared to these Middle Eastern Carriers, NOTHING. FUEL IS NOTHING to them. As for the Eu carriers.....REALLY....You think THEY built it and they won't use it???It's a European pride thing. Even if it does not make business sense they would still do it, I mean look at the Concorde.....Moneymaker??????
As the 747-8i. Well...........The total order numbers says it all.Boeing might as well just shut the production down for the -8i
As for the guys that believe in Cargo. If you're ever in a Big cargo station like DXB,PVC or even FRA, just take the time and ask any of the handlers how much the Middle Eastern Carriers charge per kilo. You will understand that with half our rates there is no way we can compete against these people therefore buying a machine just to carry MORE freight makes no sense whatsoever. The middle Eastern Carriers have 99 problems but fuel ain't one.
I hate to say it to our fellow aviators but unfortunately the beancounters have it right and NO we haven't missed out on any boat. Unfortunately people want cheap tickets(that's why we need them beancounters), it boils down to that, and only the ME carriers can provide that with unnecessary equipment and equipment of luxury, so WE need to make money by saving. I'm sure someone else will splash on everything I've just said but at the end you'll see, it's ALL ABOUT THE $$$.
And I don't give a S!&T what we fly as long as they pay the salaries and all allowances. A fleet of Cessna 172's I say.
Peace Out.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're all assuming the A380 would fly full loads all the time, which agreed, it would make more money than the 777 on a per flight basis.
...however, the 380 costs a lot more to purchase. Do your figures include higher lease/"mortgage" payments? Higher overflight and landing charges?
What do you do with an A380 between longhauls? Send it on a MNL turn? How about the additional costs of buying and running sims, paying to keep more manuals, maybe another fleet office, crew and engineer training etc?
...however, the 380 costs a lot more to purchase. Do your figures include higher lease/"mortgage" payments? Higher overflight and landing charges?
What do you do with an A380 between longhauls? Send it on a MNL turn? How about the additional costs of buying and running sims, paying to keep more manuals, maybe another fleet office, crew and engineer training etc?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is meant to increase density on a given route. Fly more pax there with less metal. The point would be to send it to LHR and replace a couple of 777 rotation, or simply increase the seat offering on that route without the need for more frequency or slots. It is a given that it wouldn't be bought without a careful study of the loads, CX isn't and cannot be a 'build it and they will come' airline like EK.
Yes, it costs more to purchase/finance and operate. That's because it is bigger and thus able to generate more revenue... Business 101. The question is whether that extra revenue can be tapped in CX's case.
Note, however, that the costs of crewing the aircraft is fairly similar to that of a jumbo or a 777, the only difference being the few extra girls in the back. Except you now have 500 pax to share the price of one set of crew instead of 300.
Given they can find 3 or 4 daily long haul trips to send them on, there might not be a necessity to have them sit on the ground or MNL turnarounds, given careful planning. Then again a few regional trips would be needed for crew training, just like with the 744 in its heydays.
Note that our competitors in the area, who have all bought it (in obvious delusion, some will say), seem to do rather well on regional routes. No doubt the 9th floor dwellers will have noticed some big Singapore, Korean, Malaysia and Thai tailfins wading around under their windows.
Simulator costs depends on the size of the fleet. After a certain number of crews is needed, then the cost is just the same as buying a sim for additional 777s, slightly less even since the point is to use less crew for a similar amount of ASK. If the fleet is too small, then it might be better to outsource training. I'm sure QF or BA would be happy to oblige.
The maintenance might be the only major extra cost involved, in terms of training, tooling and parts, but then I presume HAECO and TAECO will be wanting to get on nicknames bases with the bird anyway since they are becoming quite popular in the area.
Then there is the PR factor. The A380, thanks to Airbus' mediatic tapage, has become quite famous amongst the otherwise unknowledgeable flying masses. Now, CX is not one for one-upmanship, but I believe our customer base is very much one that wants the best, biggest, newest and shiniest. A quick look around HK says a lot that way.
My limited(/quasi-inexistant) knowledge and experience tells me there is room for the A380 (or 748i for that matter) in CX, but it all comes down to vision and risk appetite, none of which I believe CX management and owner possess a lot of.
Yes, it costs more to purchase/finance and operate. That's because it is bigger and thus able to generate more revenue... Business 101. The question is whether that extra revenue can be tapped in CX's case.
Note, however, that the costs of crewing the aircraft is fairly similar to that of a jumbo or a 777, the only difference being the few extra girls in the back. Except you now have 500 pax to share the price of one set of crew instead of 300.
Given they can find 3 or 4 daily long haul trips to send them on, there might not be a necessity to have them sit on the ground or MNL turnarounds, given careful planning. Then again a few regional trips would be needed for crew training, just like with the 744 in its heydays.
Note that our competitors in the area, who have all bought it (in obvious delusion, some will say), seem to do rather well on regional routes. No doubt the 9th floor dwellers will have noticed some big Singapore, Korean, Malaysia and Thai tailfins wading around under their windows.
Simulator costs depends on the size of the fleet. After a certain number of crews is needed, then the cost is just the same as buying a sim for additional 777s, slightly less even since the point is to use less crew for a similar amount of ASK. If the fleet is too small, then it might be better to outsource training. I'm sure QF or BA would be happy to oblige.
The maintenance might be the only major extra cost involved, in terms of training, tooling and parts, but then I presume HAECO and TAECO will be wanting to get on nicknames bases with the bird anyway since they are becoming quite popular in the area.
Then there is the PR factor. The A380, thanks to Airbus' mediatic tapage, has become quite famous amongst the otherwise unknowledgeable flying masses. Now, CX is not one for one-upmanship, but I believe our customer base is very much one that wants the best, biggest, newest and shiniest. A quick look around HK says a lot that way.
My limited(/quasi-inexistant) knowledge and experience tells me there is room for the A380 (or 748i for that matter) in CX, but it all comes down to vision and risk appetite, none of which I believe CX management and owner possess a lot of.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post above strengthens the case for the -8i. Sim already in place, crew already qualified, port surveys already carried out, eng trained just a few hours required to update the ca with new IFE etc. The figures from the -8F indicate the running costs better than 773 provided that the ac is 85% full.
However, there must be peer pressure on JS as the cx flagship is a freighter, and his mindset against 4 eng 4 long haul. CX need a vla and will lose out as the competition fly their flagships into HKG, another missed opportunity because our execs are so narrow minded that they can only see 50 of their own big picture.
For me the business case for the -8i outstrips the 380, but I would be happy to see either in cx colours, but I won't hold my breath.
However, there must be peer pressure on JS as the cx flagship is a freighter, and his mindset against 4 eng 4 long haul. CX need a vla and will lose out as the competition fly their flagships into HKG, another missed opportunity because our execs are so narrow minded that they can only see 50 of their own big picture.
For me the business case for the -8i outstrips the 380, but I would be happy to see either in cx colours, but I won't hold my breath.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Fragrant Harbour
Age: 49
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although I am an airbus fan, I have to agree the -8i is prob the way to go. What I would look at doing is. order 10 or so -8i's. These would be available immediately unlike the large delay for the -380, plan to keep them for approx. 6 years as pax a/c which is really the end of the useful life of it unlike the 380 which is in its first iteration and im sure it will have many more stretches and enhancements once the 350 is online. After said 6 years convert them to freighters and replace them with the 777x which is what we know the company really wants.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX need a vla and will lose out as the competition fly their flagships into HKG, another missed opportunity because our execs are so narrow minded that they can only see 50 of their own big picture.
The post above strengthens the case for the -8i. Sim already in place, crew already qualified, port surveys already carried out, eng trained just a few hours required to update the ca with new IFE etc.
Then again, depending on the fleet size, the economy of scale could switch things either way.
As someone said above, I couldn't give a damn if I was told to fly an twotter on floats, as long as the COS stands. But we do all have an interest in the future of that airline, and the lack of foresight and tunnel vision syndrome for spreadsheets and cost cutting measures may only lead, in my view, to missed business and growth opportunities.
They is a delicate balance between putting the cow on a diet and trying to extend the grazing field.
Last edited by Yonosoy Marinero; 24th Jun 2013 at 05:07.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yonosoy..vert astute posts...but please don't denigrate one of the best aircraft on the planet..and its floats!! DHC 6!! I'd fly one of those in a heart beat over the bigger rubbish!!!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you kidding?
I used to fly aircrafts similar to the twotter and had the time of my life as well. If it wasn't for the wife's passion for new shoes and the kids to feed...
I used to fly aircrafts similar to the twotter and had the time of my life as well. If it wasn't for the wife's passion for new shoes and the kids to feed...
Diabolical
Pucka, I hate being the spelling police but let's get the important ones right.
di·a·bol·i·cal
/ˌdīəˈbälikəl/
Adjective
Belonging to or so evil as to recall the Devil.
Synonyms
diabolic - devilish - fiendish - satanic - hellish
di·a·bol·i·cal
/ˌdīəˈbälikəl/
Adjective
Belonging to or so evil as to recall the Devil.
Synonyms
diabolic - devilish - fiendish - satanic - hellish
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Fragrant Harbour
Age: 49
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Koan and other spelling gits. get a life! we fly aeroplanes and don't particularly care how to spell, go waste your time on the forum below and let us talk about our interest, and you go talk about yours.
Spelling Forum - Spelling Questions & Answers, Discussions
Spelling Forum - Spelling Questions & Answers, Discussions
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because if demand shrinks you can revert to one 777, but you cannot cut an A380 in two?
Maybe you need to operate a certain number of a/c in order to make it a reasonable option, and LHR is just not enough?
2 times 777 maybe is not much more expensive than one A380 in the end, but offer more yield ( pax and freight increase)
....
Maybe you need to operate a certain number of a/c in order to make it a reasonable option, and LHR is just not enough?
2 times 777 maybe is not much more expensive than one A380 in the end, but offer more yield ( pax and freight increase)
....
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after reading all the threads and sifting through the crap it's come down to CX won't be buying the 380 due to..... Geography! Bit pathetic really, Airbus obviously don't know what they're doing.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CX wants a status symbol, they should buy the A380.
If CX wants to make money regardless of the economic cycle, they should stay away from the A380, and buy more big twins.
If CX wants a compromise between the two, they should buy the 747-8I.
If CX wants to make money regardless of the economic cycle, they should stay away from the A380, and buy more big twins.
If CX wants a compromise between the two, they should buy the 747-8I.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow slots are like gold-dust. Are you suggesting we buy some A380s and simply give up some of our LHR slots?! Never going to happen.
That said I would be very surprised if we don't buy A380s eventually.
That said I would be very surprised if we don't buy A380s eventually.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX251's (777) traffic load the other night was a little over 47,000kg of which 18,700kg was freight it was full with 275pax. (12,000kg traffic load available, this plus the fuel to carry it results in MTOW).
CX255 (744) just over 48,000kg traffic load of which 12,200kg's of freight, also full 358pax. (4,000kg under MZFW)
I asked the guys to create a flight plan for a -8F carrying 65,000kg. (35,000kg below -8I MZFW) I picked 65,000kg as both CX251 & 255 flight plans were based on a initial traffic load of close to 43,000kg the extra 22,000kg is to simulate seats and galleys in the -8F as the pax and freighter 744s differ by around >20,000kg, 25,000 for a -8I is probably more realistic now I've had a closer look.
In regards to fuel the interesting figures were, all based on around 43T of traffic.
744 CORR LDG 543
777 CORR LDG 386
748 CORR LDG 390
It would have been interesting to add that extra 12,000kg to the 777 & 748 flight plans and see what the new CORR RAMP/LNDG figures were.
So the question is can an A380 carry two 777s? or 550pax / 94T of traffic load of which 37,400kg is freight with a spare 24T traffic available? I can't see much hold space being available for 37.4T of freight, perhaps the space wasn't even available for the extra 12T on the 777?
I'm guessing the A380 would hit MLW issues like the A330/340 does, its max freight load would be around 20T operating to LHR, but as said is the space available?
CX255 (744) just over 48,000kg traffic load of which 12,200kg's of freight, also full 358pax. (4,000kg under MZFW)
I asked the guys to create a flight plan for a -8F carrying 65,000kg. (35,000kg below -8I MZFW) I picked 65,000kg as both CX251 & 255 flight plans were based on a initial traffic load of close to 43,000kg the extra 22,000kg is to simulate seats and galleys in the -8F as the pax and freighter 744s differ by around >20,000kg, 25,000 for a -8I is probably more realistic now I've had a closer look.
In regards to fuel the interesting figures were, all based on around 43T of traffic.
744 CORR LDG 543
777 CORR LDG 386
748 CORR LDG 390
It would have been interesting to add that extra 12,000kg to the 777 & 748 flight plans and see what the new CORR RAMP/LNDG figures were.
So the question is can an A380 carry two 777s? or 550pax / 94T of traffic load of which 37,400kg is freight with a spare 24T traffic available? I can't see much hold space being available for 37.4T of freight, perhaps the space wasn't even available for the extra 12T on the 777?
I'm guessing the A380 would hit MLW issues like the A330/340 does, its max freight load would be around 20T operating to LHR, but as said is the space available?
Last edited by SMOC; 25th Jun 2013 at 00:32.