hope you dont mind a Qantas 400 driver adding his bit. The 380s appeal in Qantas is because the cabin is fabulous and the IFE works. It is my belief that if a 400 or any other aircraft had the new interior and good IFE it would have the same pax appeal. On an Lax/Syd service one night i followed the 380 out and compared both loadsheets. Both the 400(RR) and 380 were at MTOW. Over the sector the 380 was about 1% more fuel efficient than the 400 per KG of payload. The problem with the 380 as i see it is that as its empty weight is approx 100,000kgs heavy than a 400 you cant afford to operate it with poor load factors as the fuel burn per KG of payload will be prohibitive.

dragon man,

If you do not mind a few questions:

What was the mandatory fuel for the 380 in comparison to the 400? My understanding is that many en-route alternates which work for the 400 do not work for the 380, hence requiring large build-ups making it effectively an even heavier aircraft. Is this true? If so, did you factor the weight of the extra fuel into the burn per kg.

Surely, the 380 is better than 1% more efficient than the 400 without extra weight from mandatory fuel or extra belly cargo. If not, the 748I is going to absolutely kill the A380 program.

Cheers,

cxorcist

This thread sure is a good read,

I'm definitely sitting in cxorcist's corner.

dragon man,

I am not aware of Qantas taking off at MTOW out of SYD, as far as I understand gets to the MZFW well before MTOW. Even westbound I understand for Qantas is taking off 20t below MTOW.

Has Qantas declared a lower MTOW recently like they have done with other types to reduce Airservices Australia charges ?

If QF were to put the same interior into the 744 as the A380, its numbers were to be far worse. Premium seats can weigh as much as 150kg each, the 744 seat in F class in QF are 18 cm narrower and the seat pitch is 12 cm less than First on the A380. Business class on the A380 has a greater seat pitch than the First on the 744. In premium economy on the A380 passengers get a seat pitch in some cases over 1 m, even the normal economy seat is wider on the A380.

Even with higher density seating (i.e. smaller seats with a lower seat pitch) on the 744, they have 143 less seats than the A380 in 4 class configurations (307 vs 450 seats).

cxorcist

The A380 is certified for operations into 45m runways, just like the 744, however a lot of diversion ports do not have gates big enough for the aircraft, a stand off bay is required. Cathay use stand off bays from time to time at HKIA and it is a regular occurrence for schedule flights passenger services at a number of Cathay ports.

Qantas have diverted A380s into the Solomon Islands and Fiji without an issue.

I believe the 747-8 will be the longest commercial aircraft in service, the minimum turn radius of the 747-8 is 52m, the A380 is 50.9 m.

How refreshing to read a thread that is so informative and detailed. An interesting read especially regarding contributions of the two main exponents. Well done chaps! Keep it up.
Tyler's probably downloading it as we speak and challenging his highly paid 'experts'. I would - wouldn't you??? :D

Mandatory reserves in Qf are the same for both aircraft. I hadnt thought about the seats and that is correct it would lower the usefull load if the 400 was refitted. Just a snippet of info, i paxed Lax/Syd in Feburary on duty travel and my bag was put on standby. When queried the checkin person remarked that at that time all staff bags went in a seperate container and were only uplifted if there was weight available after the fuel uplift. Dont know if thatts still the case. From my observations the 380 carries vertually no freight ex LAX with full paxs however the 400 gets about 4/5 tonnes with full paxs.

IFE?

IFE in QF is what happens under the wings these days...
:E


*What? This thread was getting way too unbiased, civilized and informative for the FH forum...*

I was wondering what happened to Arfur Daly. " very droll Terry"

In the latest news about Tony Tyler going to IATA there is a mention of CX possible getting the A380 to help with it's 11% expansion planned for next year. No mention of the 747-8 anymore. This is in line with the fact that Boeing has come back to CX with performance factors for the 747-8F that are way off target. CX not happy as they needed those numbers for there cargo expansion. CX is said to want the stretched A380. Hopefully with American donkeys instead of that R/R s**t that is giving everyone headaches.

Coolio - Interesting stuff, can you give any references to back up your post?

The above is serious 'management speak', are you management? To produce such definitive statements you must have been at a senior management meeting, surely?

Management? Oh no I think not. This is 100% third hand knowledge from a buddy who spoke to MH in the fleet office

I highly doubt you could get an A380 next year to help with 11% expansion!

It is conceivable that we could take another airline's 2011+ orders if they were looking to defer or cancel deliveries. Seems like it would be unlikely though.

As for the -8/380 debate, I think the critical issues are trip cost per square meter of floor space and the range capability to fly within the CX route structure carrying full load pax and cargo year-round.

Any more detail on the performance factors wrt the -8? I am curious about how bad the "miss" is. If the bird cannot make ANC with 135T of freight, I know it will be a disappointment.

Straight from Boeing
 

Well, it looks as if the rumours about the -8 are true. It will not make HKG-ANC with 134T. The Boeing website has been changed. Whereas it used to show the -8 making it, it now depicts it coming up short of ANC. This is consistent with what I heard off the 3rd floor. They said it looks like about 125T to ANC. This is a definite disappointment and takes the -8I off the HKG-JFK route with full pax and cargo. They even hinted that CX would rather have purchased the 777F if this were known back when they ordered.

Perhaps the era of 4 engined aircraft will end sooner than we hoped. Without range and economics that compete with big twins, the downside risk during recessions is likely to limit their longterm viability in significant numbers.
:(:{

I didn't know we were hoping that four jets would disappear. I quite like them.;)

^^^ Me too.

"This is a definite disappointment and takes the -8I off the HKG-JFK route with full pax and cargo."

JFK in a -8I := never on the cards, LAX was even marginal.

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/ae...m-the-cockpit/

An interesting article about Qantas 32 out of Singas. Quite a nice read.

"JFK in a -8I never on the cards"

Once again, Eyes Only, you are incorrect. I had an in-person conversation with a director level executive in which we spoke about the -8I. They were most definitely looking at it for the JFK route. He said that they would be very interested in using for JFK if it could make the return with full pax, bags, and cargo. The fact that it cannot, he explained, makes the airplane much less attractive overall. Think about it, why would you not want to consider a larger aircraft when we are about to increase to 3 flights a day there? Of course the -8 should be considered.

And you accuse me of spreading "misinformation"...

BTW... Same director said the A380 is "a horrible airplane" and not being considered anymore despite what is being said publicly.

I still think the -8I has a chance to replace some -400s in CX (especially for the high density EUR routes), but the company will likely wait until they see how the freighter does and whether or not the plane has a chance to be made lighter before they make any commitments.

PS - I too like 4 engined airplanes!!!

Eyes Only,

One more thing...

"JFK in a -8I never on the cards, LAX was even marginal."

This statement shows your ignorance of common knowledge. Winter winds being what they often are, LAX-HKG and JFK-HKG have approximately the same flight times (or air mileage) despite JFK being further away in ground miles. So it really does not matter whether you take off from LAX or JFK with a fully loaded -8, it is going to be a nail-biter either way in the winter.

BR,

CXorcist