Why the second half dip?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that to be an 380 apologist one needs to excise that part of the brain which avails of rationality and the comprehension of basic physics.
It is true that anything would pale in comparison to the magnificent 300ER but to even mention the 380 in the same breath, well...
The ridiculous device weighs 120 tons more when empty than the Boeing. That dead 120 tons is dragged back and forth across the globe in aid of what exactly? An 8 ton increase in load carried. This is a delicious blend of the pathetic and the hilarious.
So, TC will continue to regale the press conferences with tales of the modern and efficient 380 and the scribes will nod gravely. Let us, however, consider an equally non-sensical business plan:
TC announces that there are not enough 380s in the fleet so from tomorrow EK001 will be served by a 777 with an A330 flying in trail. The 777 will be filled to capacity with passengers and cargo but the accompanying 330 will only have passengers in business class - the entire economy cabin and the cargo compartments will be empty. Absurd? Yes but that formation flight would waste less fuel than sending a single 380. Why are we letting them fly?
It is true that anything would pale in comparison to the magnificent 300ER but to even mention the 380 in the same breath, well...
The ridiculous device weighs 120 tons more when empty than the Boeing. That dead 120 tons is dragged back and forth across the globe in aid of what exactly? An 8 ton increase in load carried. This is a delicious blend of the pathetic and the hilarious.
So, TC will continue to regale the press conferences with tales of the modern and efficient 380 and the scribes will nod gravely. Let us, however, consider an equally non-sensical business plan:
TC announces that there are not enough 380s in the fleet so from tomorrow EK001 will be served by a 777 with an A330 flying in trail. The 777 will be filled to capacity with passengers and cargo but the accompanying 330 will only have passengers in business class - the entire economy cabin and the cargo compartments will be empty. Absurd? Yes but that formation flight would waste less fuel than sending a single 380. Why are we letting them fly?
Last edited by Dropp the Pilot; 19th May 2013 at 05:43.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Building Site
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropp, your comparison of 1 A380 vs. 1 B777 and 1 A330 is nonsense.. First of all, a flight doesn't cost only on fuel.. what about slots, ATC costs. overflying costs, pilots, ...?
On top of that, and I don't know the configurations of our big birds by heart since I'm nicely spending my days on the minibus, consider passenger experience: If it's true that the A380 only takes about 60 more passengers then a B777-300ER, but they are seated in an area about double the size of a B777, I tend to agree that the pax experience on an A380 must be far superior then on a B777. So it would make sense to use these aircraft on high yield routes.. Now, I'm not a yield manager, but it seems that high yield equals to passengers who want to pay more for the luxury, and it's something completely different then high demand.
Bottomline, I am convinced there is a segment of our operations that would be highly suitable for the A380, and I think the routes it is flying are chosen accurately to get the best financial performance out of it. Actually, I am convinced that on well chosen routes, the A380 will make more money then the B777. However, I do agree that a poorly chosen route for the A380 is financially a disaster... and 90 A380's are a lot of high yield/ high demand routes to be flown.
Basically, as glofish said: what seems to make sense to our little flight ops environment, doesn't always agree when you try to look at the big picture..
On top of that, and I don't know the configurations of our big birds by heart since I'm nicely spending my days on the minibus, consider passenger experience: If it's true that the A380 only takes about 60 more passengers then a B777-300ER, but they are seated in an area about double the size of a B777, I tend to agree that the pax experience on an A380 must be far superior then on a B777. So it would make sense to use these aircraft on high yield routes.. Now, I'm not a yield manager, but it seems that high yield equals to passengers who want to pay more for the luxury, and it's something completely different then high demand.
Bottomline, I am convinced there is a segment of our operations that would be highly suitable for the A380, and I think the routes it is flying are chosen accurately to get the best financial performance out of it. Actually, I am convinced that on well chosen routes, the A380 will make more money then the B777. However, I do agree that a poorly chosen route for the A380 is financially a disaster... and 90 A380's are a lot of high yield/ high demand routes to be flown.
Basically, as glofish said: what seems to make sense to our little flight ops environment, doesn't always agree when you try to look at the big picture..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one wants to take you away that the 380 is a superiour ride, as its pilots are certainly also superiour to none.
To make my point clear to the blind:
It is as if comparing a ride in a Volvo taxi with the one in a Camry. Both good cars, albeit one costs certainly double. Now why do you think taxis are mostly Camrys? Because they give a profit with the charge that passengers are ready to pay. The Volvos are add-ons for people having paid for a bigger product, they cost more but it's seen in the bigger product picture.
Now how about Dubai Taxi buying Volvos, charging the same fare and paying the drivers less, calling this exercise "cost neutral"?
Yes, passengers happy, more come, management happy, more bonus, drivers pissed, guess why ......
See my point?
To make my point clear to the blind:
It is as if comparing a ride in a Volvo taxi with the one in a Camry. Both good cars, albeit one costs certainly double. Now why do you think taxis are mostly Camrys? Because they give a profit with the charge that passengers are ready to pay. The Volvos are add-ons for people having paid for a bigger product, they cost more but it's seen in the bigger product picture.
Now how about Dubai Taxi buying Volvos, charging the same fare and paying the drivers less, calling this exercise "cost neutral"?
Yes, passengers happy, more come, management happy, more bonus, drivers pissed, guess why ......
See my point?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Age: 54
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point is taken but keep in mind EK and only EK got the 380s very very cheap. I am not going to pretend that I know what they paid for them but it has been spoken that they were not that much more expensive than a 777 hence the cost savings of flying 90 of the Big Birds around. Compound that with the non existent crew costs and cheap oil and the 380 is a dream for Emirates.
There has been only one 380 order from an airline since 2010. Unless Airbus streches the Beast (which they probably will) you will see the 380s orders dry up around 350 or so airplanes of which Emirates will have over 25% of the inventory.
There has been only one 380 order from an airline since 2010. Unless Airbus streches the Beast (which they probably will) you will see the 380s orders dry up around 350 or so airplanes of which Emirates will have over 25% of the inventory.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cerbus...
You may want to check your facts. A quick glance on Wikipedia will show you that there were 19 A380-800 orders placed in 2011 and 9 orders placed in 2012.
Once the wing crack issue is ironed out, those figures will improve. Just as will the B787 orders once confidence is gained in the Lithium battery debacle.
You may want to check your facts. A quick glance on Wikipedia will show you that there were 19 A380-800 orders placed in 2011 and 9 orders placed in 2012.
Once the wing crack issue is ironed out, those figures will improve. Just as will the B787 orders once confidence is gained in the Lithium battery debacle.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cerbus,
What difference does it make how many new orders there is for the 380? Fact is EK got them for a lot less that the advertized price and we as pilots have no idea what's behind the profits nor do I care. EK still made a shed lot of money. I, for one, ignore any comment form AS about how we are facing tough times when they post hugh profits. 777 slowing doing all the 330 routes and the 380 slowly taking most of the 777 routes. Some 777 pilots are having a hard time dealing with the changes to the rosters and that they did not get the call to go to the 380. Some did and turned it down for good reasons. When it comes right down to it , who cares , the pay is the same ,just get on with the job.
What difference does it make how many new orders there is for the 380? Fact is EK got them for a lot less that the advertized price and we as pilots have no idea what's behind the profits nor do I care. EK still made a shed lot of money. I, for one, ignore any comment form AS about how we are facing tough times when they post hugh profits. 777 slowing doing all the 330 routes and the 380 slowly taking most of the 777 routes. Some 777 pilots are having a hard time dealing with the changes to the rosters and that they did not get the call to go to the 380. Some did and turned it down for good reasons. When it comes right down to it , who cares , the pay is the same ,just get on with the job.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Not at EK :)
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the A vs B stuff is irrelevant. They would announce and will continue to announce whatever numbers they want to. The company made big money. They announced all the sponsorships etc. to dilute the amount to the figure they wanted. I am sure the boys (and girls) in the Puzzle Palace laugh so hard when they see us fighting and off-thread.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
profits. 777 slowing doing all the 330 routes and the 380 slowly taking most of the 777 routes. Some 777 pilots are having a hard time dealing with the changes to the rosters and that they did not get the call to go to the 380. Some did and turned it down for good reasons. When it comes right down to it , who cares , the pay is the same
Last edited by falconeasydriver; 19th May 2013 at 14:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK got a very good price for the initial batch of whales, that point also taken. Additionally they got some deserted white tails for a free few months. But that's it. The rest is myth and smoke and mirrors.
Why? Just check who owns a respectable bunch of EADS shares. Yeahhhh, it's the cousins down south. Do you really think they would continue to subsidise EK? They helped them get a critical number of whales, so they would not turn back and stick to the gargantuan expansion, but now they will reap what they saw. Why do they wait so long to get the same d:ck-extensions as EK? They might know something and wait until matters are more economical, or they buy time to not even take the guzzlers, or in smaller numbers. EK is good testing ground that even pays to play guinea pig.
That said, i close the loop with my opening argument. I think the cousins are a lot more involved and we are trapped in a no profit share vicious circle.
Once again dear fatbus, i do not envy you and the other super flyers. I simply would appreciate a compensation for inflation and a promised raise each year, not to speak of the promised share of profit. That is right now taken away by higher powers.
Why? Just check who owns a respectable bunch of EADS shares. Yeahhhh, it's the cousins down south. Do you really think they would continue to subsidise EK? They helped them get a critical number of whales, so they would not turn back and stick to the gargantuan expansion, but now they will reap what they saw. Why do they wait so long to get the same d:ck-extensions as EK? They might know something and wait until matters are more economical, or they buy time to not even take the guzzlers, or in smaller numbers. EK is good testing ground that even pays to play guinea pig.
That said, i close the loop with my opening argument. I think the cousins are a lot more involved and we are trapped in a no profit share vicious circle.
Once again dear fatbus, i do not envy you and the other super flyers. I simply would appreciate a compensation for inflation and a promised raise each year, not to speak of the promised share of profit. That is right now taken away by higher powers.
Last edited by glofish; 19th May 2013 at 14:26.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Age: 54
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Golfish. The real issue is the theft of our bonus and comical pay raise. The even bigger issue is what are the Emirates pilots going to do about it.
If you listen to Craggenmore and Wizo the answer is painfully obvious. NOTHING! They don't think anything is amiss. Shameful, just shameful.
If you listen to Craggenmore and Wizo the answer is painfully obvious. NOTHING! They don't think anything is amiss. Shameful, just shameful.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys. Scale does not work linear to weight.
PA28 OEW is 765kg = 191.25kg/seat
Saab340 OEW is 8140kg = 246.67kg/seat
A320 - 42600kg @ 144pax = 296kg/seat
B777-300ER - 167800kg @ EK's 357pax = 470kg/seat
A380-800 - 276800kg @ 495pax = 559kg/pax
But best of all - my 1984 Atlas16 hangglider was 26kg/seat!
PA28 OEW is 765kg = 191.25kg/seat
Saab340 OEW is 8140kg = 246.67kg/seat
A320 - 42600kg @ 144pax = 296kg/seat
B777-300ER - 167800kg @ EK's 357pax = 470kg/seat
A380-800 - 276800kg @ 495pax = 559kg/pax
But best of all - my 1984 Atlas16 hangglider was 26kg/seat!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my god ..... Are you that naive?????
The A340 of Singapore would give 1 ton per pax! Have you ever heard of "company configuration"???
By the way there is "distance traveled" that might, just might also come into the equation.......
The only comparable reference is same ESAD, then kg transported vs. kg kerosene.
But most have moved ahead of the basics already.
The A340 of Singapore would give 1 ton per pax! Have you ever heard of "company configuration"???
By the way there is "distance traveled" that might, just might also come into the equation.......
The only comparable reference is same ESAD, then kg transported vs. kg kerosene.
But most have moved ahead of the basics already.
We are a PASSENGER airline.
If you fill it up those 160 More pax (especially in first and business) class will more than offset the extra fuel cost.
Hw much extra fuel does a 380 burn to LHR than the 777? Say it is 60 tonnes more - at roughly 1000 dollars/tonne that would be a fuel cost of say 60K. 160 more pax should yield at least double that figure.
It is like saying( according to your flawed logic) well- the A330 burns less fuel than a 777 (and costs less per Aircraft to lease) therefore lets send 2 330s to LHR instead of a 777.
Face it - The Pax moan once they go on a 330 having travelled on a 777 and the pax moan when they have to travel on a 777 having been on a 380. And that is a fact, because I have spoken to hundreds of pax over the years when flying on the 380 to Sydney and they told me just that.
So DROP et al - Pull your ostrich like heads out of the sand and wake up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most guys here are not in a cocking contest. At least if you allow some logical analysis. You can consent or not, but if you consider any critcising your goat as such a contest, then the problem is your very own thin skin.
Additionally you should decide what you actually mean: Are you only flying your goat and leave the rest to the beancounters, or are you criticising their book-cooking?
Additionally you should decide what you actually mean: Are you only flying your goat and leave the rest to the beancounters, or are you criticising their book-cooking?
There are some very interesting thoughts discussed here. But it would seem that the main argument against the whale is it burns too much fuel and doesn't carry enough cargo.
As Syd is the only route to compare the Boeing and the Bus on it would seem it is not as cut and dry as it would seem. Using the flight plan ZFW Minus the upper DOW it shows the 777 can carry 41t from SYD to DXB as it is TOW limited.Taking It has 354 seats it is not carrying much if any freight on this sector. Each Kg of revenue carried needed 2.95kg of fuel. If we were to use the less seats Vs more Cargo argument, even the 345 would out perform this as it Carried 45t on the same sector for the same fuel burn (8.5t/hr 345 vs 8.6t/hr 773). But we know thats not right, so the extra 100 seats on the 777 must make difference.
The 380 on the Syd to DXB On the same date (16th) carried 60.2t (still 6.2t under MTOW). It has 489 seats so was carrying freight and each kg of revenue needed 3.1kg of fuel.
So what does all of this mean? It means we got ripped off in the pay review. The Profit Cher is as good as dead. And I really Couldn't couldn't care what aircraft does better than another, but it would seem the chance of staff travel is better on the 380 than the 777 on the longer sectors as it would appear to be less limited.
The Don
As Syd is the only route to compare the Boeing and the Bus on it would seem it is not as cut and dry as it would seem. Using the flight plan ZFW Minus the upper DOW it shows the 777 can carry 41t from SYD to DXB as it is TOW limited.Taking It has 354 seats it is not carrying much if any freight on this sector. Each Kg of revenue carried needed 2.95kg of fuel. If we were to use the less seats Vs more Cargo argument, even the 345 would out perform this as it Carried 45t on the same sector for the same fuel burn (8.5t/hr 345 vs 8.6t/hr 773). But we know thats not right, so the extra 100 seats on the 777 must make difference.
The 380 on the Syd to DXB On the same date (16th) carried 60.2t (still 6.2t under MTOW). It has 489 seats so was carrying freight and each kg of revenue needed 3.1kg of fuel.
So what does all of this mean? It means we got ripped off in the pay review. The Profit Cher is as good as dead. And I really Couldn't couldn't care what aircraft does better than another, but it would seem the chance of staff travel is better on the 380 than the 777 on the longer sectors as it would appear to be less limited.
The Don
Good summary Don-we get paid the same to fly whichever airframe. What costs the company more-at our level we will never know. Profit share is 'Halas'. Why they are not honest about it-that's conjecture-we all have our own opinion. What matters to us now is-are there seats for Staff Travel?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents
This whole A v. B thing has got out of hand. It's cringeworthy reading and makes us look like the kind of kids that we are not. What mgt will treat us seriously if we act like five year olds over who's gun is bigger in the playground.
As a T7 guy I can tell you that I like getting anywhere in the world in any premium cabin on any aircraft where I can get on CatA.
But lets be realistic, what we know is that when it comes to $$ these guys at EK are particularly astute.
No way does TC order 92 money losers. When we upgraded one of the nicer days was going up to the 7th floor and having the 'strategic' brief. The information was proprietary so I will stand by our commitment that day to keep it private.
BUT what most of you neglect to mention is the amortization cost. Without EK the A380 is a dead product (cue the 748). The price was too good and hence the amortization cost, be that loan purchase or operating lease, is better than any cost per seat of any airplane in the industry.
There has been continued mention from the top of ordering another 30. Being the 'first mover' or 'bailout' customer has worked well for us as a company....
...unfortunately the employees are no longer considered well enough for the company.
f.
This whole A v. B thing has got out of hand. It's cringeworthy reading and makes us look like the kind of kids that we are not. What mgt will treat us seriously if we act like five year olds over who's gun is bigger in the playground.
As a T7 guy I can tell you that I like getting anywhere in the world in any premium cabin on any aircraft where I can get on CatA.
But lets be realistic, what we know is that when it comes to $$ these guys at EK are particularly astute.
No way does TC order 92 money losers. When we upgraded one of the nicer days was going up to the 7th floor and having the 'strategic' brief. The information was proprietary so I will stand by our commitment that day to keep it private.
BUT what most of you neglect to mention is the amortization cost. Without EK the A380 is a dead product (cue the 748). The price was too good and hence the amortization cost, be that loan purchase or operating lease, is better than any cost per seat of any airplane in the industry.
There has been continued mention from the top of ordering another 30. Being the 'first mover' or 'bailout' customer has worked well for us as a company....
...unfortunately the employees are no longer considered well enough for the company.
f.