B748i or A380 order?

[bang ding ow]

So give us the current state of affairs

Vis a vis the certification of the latest -8i performance improvements and upgrades... in words that us aluminium/aluminum cloud drivers can understand. My understanding was that the latest Boeing/GE -8i performance improvement campaign was to be certified at the end of October...obviously the US Govt. shutdown put paid to that.
tdracer..a brief synopsis would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if your previous posts contained the info but they are heavy reading...no pun intended.
Bang

[tdracer]

Bang ding ow (nice handle BTW);

The PIP was originally planned to certify mid October but that was based on an unrealistic schedule (something I pointed out to management a year ago)

Currently, the engine is scheduled to get Part 33 cert this week, and Boeing should have Part 25 cert by the end of the month.

As I noted in a previous post, there are two new Cathay freighters sitting on the flight line with PIP engines that are supposed to deliver by the end of the year.

[cxorcist]

Outbacker,

Those are all pretty easy to answer, except for the profit question which will vary depending on market conditions (pax & cargo demand, competition, yield, etc).

Fastest, probably the A380 with -8I close behind. 77W is definitely slower.

Fuel burn (trip cost), A380 definitely the most with the 77W definitely least.

Cargo volume, 77W carries most, A380 the least. Useable volume depends upon sector time and pax / baggage load. Generically, the 77W is the best belly cargo hauler while the A380 is notoriously poor. The -8I is better than the A380, but not as good as the 77W.

[tdracer]

Fastest, probably the A380 with -8I close behind. 77W is definitely slower.

Both the A380 and 747-8i quote long range cruise of Mach 0.85 (the -8F is Mach 0.84 - my understanding is the longer upper deck on the passenger gives it better area ruling that helps transonic drag). 777 is a tad slower at 0.84.

[Anotherday]

TD Racer I was referring to the 767X that eventually eventually became the 767-400er that Boeing flogged like a dead horse

[Sam Ting Wong]

So, to summarise this epic discussion, the only minor detail missing now is which aircraft would eventually make any money...

[tdracer]

TD Racer I was referring to the 767X that eventually became the 767-400er that Boeing flogged like a dead horse

Perhaps a nit-pic, but the 767X that Boeing proposed in 1989 became the 777 - by most accounts a pretty darn good and successful airplane. The airlines were able to convince Boeing that a 767 stretch wouldn't cut it and Boeing finally agreed to spend the money to create a new, very good, airplane.

The 767-400ER (and 757-300) was born of the Phil Condit school of management (that started in 1995) of not spending money on product development, do everything on the cheap, and make operators pay for the services that Boeing had always provided for free as 'product support'. It was management philosophy that nearly destroyed Boeing.

[nitpicker330]

Tdracer----somebody call me

[The FUB]

For TDracer

Two seconds of your time please,

What's the sea-leavel flat rated temp of the Gnex 2B?

Thanks

[donpizmeov]

Outbacker,

You asked a very good question. I haven't got any numbers for the 748 and haven't had the privilege to fly one, but have a little time on the 777 and the 380. Two compare a 77W with a 380 on a low yield route like BNE-LHR-BNE would look like this.
77w
Total Fuel burned- 344.2t (so $344200 at $1000/t)
revenue from PAX using EK website return prices (AUD):
1st- 8pax = $80000
j - 42pax= $252000
y -320pax= $640000
total = $972000 less fuel cost = $627800

380
Total Fuel burned- 525.5t (so $525500 at $1000/t)
revenue from pax using EK website return prices (AUD)
1st- 14pax = $140000
j - 76pax = $456000
y - 389pax = $778000
total = $1374000 less fuel cost = $848500

Result is the 380 earns about $220000 extra on these sectors with low yield fairs. The margin would be greater when compared to a cx 77w as they don't cram the pax in like EK 777s and have some 54 less seats.

Now the 77W is TOW limited out of BNE-DXB (return) and would be limited to less than 8t Cargo. The 380 would carry about 10t on these sectors. The 380 DXB-LHR-DXB carries an extra 27 pax in Y, and still about 13t cargo. The 77W would carry about 18t to 20t of cargo on the DXB - LHR - DXB sectors.

On the DXB - LAX - DXB of about 16hr sector length, the 77W carries 37t of revenue for a fuel burn of 138t, or 3.74kg/t revenue, and the 380 will carry 56t revenue for a fuel burn of 207t or 3.69kg/t revenue. Both aircraft are TOW limited on this pairing.

The Don

[Sam Ting Wong]

Calculating yield from a website? Really?

[donpizmeov]

There is no mention of yield other than suggest it would be a low yield ticket as suggested by others on this forum. Its just a ticket price.

The don.

[tdracer]

What's the sea-leavel flat rated temp of the Gnex 2B?

Takeoff flat rate is ISA+15C, Max Con/Climb is ISA+10C.

We're looking at a new 'high-hot' rating that would be available for the PIP. The SLS rating wouldn't change, but the flat rate would extend to a higher temperature and there wouldn't be as much TO thrust decrease with altitude.

If the bean counters don't shoot it down, high-hot should be available sometime late next year.

[Sam Ting Wong]

Don,

appreciate your efforts. But just a bit sceptic this calculation can be done without all the insider information needed.

What about differences caused by:

- capital/finance/ lease cost
- depreciation/ resale value
- landing fees
- crew cost
- maintenance
- load factor fluctuation
- atc/ overflight cost
- communality with rest of fleet
- training cost
- frequency / connecting related cost

We pilots tend to concentrate on the issues we deal with and forget the rest imho.

[donpizmeov]

Very good Sam, I wouldn't have a freakin clue, hence no mention of them.

The Don

[falconeasydriver]

I reckon if CX can get A380's with 11 across in steerage...they'll take a brace or 6, otherwise, they are already operating plenty of 744's and 748f, I think a 748I order would make more sense.
Or maybe 30-40 7779X's?
Don's numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt, remember that if you don't fill up the 380, you are still carrying around an extra 200T of aeroplane, so it pays to be on the right route with it.
All this could be a lot more academic if the US continues to go gang busters with its oil and gas production, jet could come back to as low as 400USD Tonne.

[donpizmeov]

Good one Falcon. Was gonna try and sell sim prep courses for all those A380 DEC jobs next. You know for airlines like ........ Bugga. Guess I need to stay with picking lotto numbers.

The don.

[Methersgate]

tdracer post 181:

Was this the aircraft that Peter Sutch christened "The hunchback of Washington State"?

[tdracer]

Was this the aircraft that Peter Sutch christened "The hunchback of Washington State"?

Sorry Methersgate, I'm unfamiliar with that quote (and Google didn't help). I wonder if he might have been refering to the 767 "AOA" (Airborne Optical Adjunct - no I don't know how they come up with these names).
It was the very first 767 (VA001) that was modified with a big hump on the top (I referred to it as a tumor) that housed a big liquid nitrogen cooled infrared tracking sensor. It was intended as a proof of concept of a system to track re-entering warheads as part of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.

[Methersgate]

Thanks for the input tdracer; sorry for sidetracking a fascinating thread. Peter was the Chairman of CX in 1989 and Boeing, desperate to avoid Cathay buying Airbuses to replace their Tri-Stars, produced a model of a 767 with an upper deck aft- hence Peter's nickname. CX didn't order it and none were built!