Ah, the MD-11... Probably still one of, if not the best designed cockpit around. The automation and flight guidance is definitely kicking the pants off the Airbus WBs, I am flying right now.
If only MDD had more resources to build a better wing. Airbus could have rolled their A340 after the maiden flight straight into the museum.

Also now of some FedEx guys, who uttered their disappointment about systems and flight guidance when they did their 777 conversion. Answer of the instructor was: "yes, we know.... But at least we give you a bigger wing" :p

OK, I'll give it to you

450T 13400kg/hr
280T 8400kg/hr
210T 6000kg/hr

Basic wt around 190T

Hooooray ! Backspace, thanks V much. 27 replies to get there. Now I can compare my fuel burn, feed in loads, weight, revenue discussion and maybe figure how my lot continue to make huge losses.Might have to recommend Md-11's.

whilst we are at it, how about the A380 figures for the same weight? Or are airbus lovers just as embarrassed too by the not too frugal figures?

A380

569t 13.3t/hr first lot; 12.7t/hr new batch
450t 11.7t/hr first lot; 11t/hr new batch
390t 11.0t/hr first lot; 10.5t/he new batch

Seems flying a few miles higher than the 747 saves fuel...who would have guessed?

MZFW 366t. DOW 297t. Mtow 569t or 573t depending on config.

Not embarrassed at all. Remembering we have 150 more pax on board than a LF 748 or 200 more than a CX 773er.

The Don

That shut them up!!:D

Kasompe,
MZFW-DOW=69T
this is not something to gloat about.

Don, (I am assuming you reside in the desert) what is the longest route that EK do in the 380 and any figures available for that. The numbers that count are kg fuel/ton payload, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, that payload is a joke for an aircraft that size. CX 777-300ERs will carry 55T+ with full pax and 20-25T in the bellies. Yes, I have seen this on HKG-LAX (ZFW 225T+) on several occasions.

The thing they don't tell you about the A380 is that it is not the MZFW that is limiting, it's actually a lack of volume in the bellies to get anything more than all the bags down there. That's why CX won't buy it, or so I'm told. Maybe this particular director thought I was a spy for Airbus.:eek:

I should point out that the figures for the 748 are for the freighter, not sure about the -8I. I suspect the basic wt is less.

-400 pax is about 20T heavier than production freighter

CXorist,

Our 777 is limited to carrying just 40t from Oz east coast to the sandpit (14hrish). the 380 carries the full ZFW. So if we are carrying the full ZFW can you please explain how it is limited? This is why EK is swapping the ULR flights from the 777 to the 380. If you know something that EK flight ops don't, perhaps you should contact them and let them know.

The Don

Don,

So how much of the 69T payload is freight? My understanding is that with 500 pax and all their bags, there is not any room (volumetrically) left for cargo. Is this incorrect?

I can't speak to 777 ops for EK, only for CX. I have seen ZFW of 230T+ HKG to LAX. This exceeds 55T payload with 102T burn and a 12 hour flight time. The flight could have flown at least another 1.5 hours or carried another 7T+ payload. How much is the EK A380 burning on a 12 hour flight at MZFW?

Cheers!

CX,
The 345 carried 45t outa oz every day for 100kg per less than the 773. But it had 100 seats less than the 773. So the 773, carrying 5t less, burning more fuel, carrying less frieght but more pax makes more money.

How does that work?

the Don

Let's face CXorcist CX have no option but to buy the 380, even the argument regarding the limited payload capacity doesn't stack up anymore! Here we have EK pilots telling us so and I'm pretty sure they would know! But, but, but the 380 is the wrong aircraft for Cathay I hear everyone cry, I bet people would have said that about the 400 before it started into service and look how that turned out. :eek:

Don,

Just answer the questions?

I have no idea what you are talking about wrt the A345. The market has spoken on that airplane, and it was sentenced to death along with the A346.

If you are implying that passengers are always more profitable than cargo, then I simply disagree, especially if you are referring to Y class. But maybe hauling back-packers is EK's business model, if so, good for EK A380s. CX's business model is hauling premium passengers and cargo. Y class is only there to provide an aft CG for aircraft efficiency (sarcasm).

I would say hauling premium pax is every airlines business model, CX does not stand out as being particularly special in any regard.

330,

Some more than others as a portion of revenues:ok:

Todays Brisbane flight (777) delayed an hour to off load cargo and wait for the longer runway. The Sydney and Melbourne (380) leave ontime with no dramas.

Seems there could be a good reason for the 748 and 380 as these 777 seem a bit precious. :E

The don.

Don,

Save your breath. This will go straight over cxorcist's head as he can see nothing negative about Boeing or positive about Airbus. He's got voluntary selective vision. You can cure a sick person but never cure one who pretends to be sick.

OK, copy. You're not going to answer any questions. Just don't jump on here and act as if you're an expert just because you fly the A380. They are simple questions in search of simple answers. Wouldn't want to piz you off...

FWIW, I agree that quads have a place in the market. It's just a much smaller place than it used to be due to high fuel prices and low economic confidence. I have no doubt CX would buy 2 dozen 747-8Is if they were convinced the global economy weren't going to take a big dump in the next few years.

It's tough for an airline as proud as CX to point to a 777 and call it the Swire's flagship. No doubt, the premium passengers are much better served when they turn left into an exclusive area upon stepping onboard. The 777 leaves much to be desired in terms of service delivery, but that's the world we live in right now.

If EK can fly a hundred A380s all over the globe and make money, good for them. But I think CX has run the numbers many times, and the result is the same each time... Big airplane=big risk. No cargo=less revenue. It's a pretty toxic combination for the bean counters, no matter how much pilots love them.