A380plus winglets
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 661
Likes: 14
From: UK
Yield..yield..yield.
It's yield that ultimately rules the roost.
The 380, when introduced could command a greater yield, the marketplace has changed, it's therefore no longer able to achieve the yield it did in many of the markets it serves. Physics and politics aside, the order book is the only true barometer from a manufacturing perspective and profits from an airline.
You do the maths.
It's yield that ultimately rules the roost.
The 380, when introduced could command a greater yield, the marketplace has changed, it's therefore no longer able to achieve the yield it did in many of the markets it serves. Physics and politics aside, the order book is the only true barometer from a manufacturing perspective and profits from an airline.
You do the maths.
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: Cutting grass on more unpaid leave
Well it's 428 on a two class Boeing not 430. So that would be up against a 615 seat two class 380, burning an extra 3.6t per hour. So to an answer your question dropp it would need an extra 35 econ pax on board to pay for the extra weight. The other 150 can travel for free. It's 356 on the three class Boeing vs 517 on the 380 so only 126 traveling for free on that one.
/
/
What about maintenance reserves and costs for the engines? All doubled. The 380 has no recorded resale value. The entire aircraft value has to be written off at some stage on the books (luckily lots are leased).
Further, the 3 class *ULR*380 carries 489, versus 3 class 777 351, only 39% more.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,118
Likes: 140
From: overthere
Yorkshire I don't think your three class 777 can lift 351 when ULR due to MTOW problems. Check FABS for places like IAH, DFW etc. The available econ seats have to be reduced by up to 30 seats. There is not much weight available for any cargo once it goes over 11hrs and seats start being reduced a few hours after that. So your 39% goes to 55%. Remember this is the old configuration ULR 380, with Crew rest on the lower deck taking up seat space. The new lower Crew rest configuration has another 28 seats in Y class, so over 60% more.
The 777 out performs the 380 revenue wise on shorter sectors when it can carry max ZFW. The 380 will carry max ZFW to about 15hrs.
The 777 out performs the 380 revenue wise on shorter sectors when it can carry max ZFW. The 380 will carry max ZFW to about 15hrs.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
From: Mars
The 777 will always be better than the A380; if the 380 carries a 777 load. But.... just in London, where slots are constrained, the 380 provides nearly 20,000 extra seats each week or nearly 1 million seats each year. That is the 380 sweet spot. We don't need as many as we are getting but if used properly they make a lot of sense.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1
From: earth
Interesting times ....
?Done Deal? ? Emirates Selects 787s Over A350s ? StrategicAero Research
.... but i guess for some "fans" this must be fake news ....
?Done Deal? ? Emirates Selects 787s Over A350s ? StrategicAero Research
.... but i guess for some "fans" this must be fake news ....
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1
From: earth
It's not about winning for me, it's about not losing too much for the company. 
It seems that common sense may pick up around here. Flexibility is the magic word. I have always said that the 4-legged biggies are not only fuel guzzlers, but they are primarily unflexibel, only viable when full or on very few trunk routes. The slightest slowdown hits them first and hard. The 350 would have been a good choice, albeit without MFF with its fat brother not the best choice (same applies to 777/748).
Logic and today's commercial environment cries for flexibility and the proposed Twin-MFF family 787-8/9/10 and 777-9/X represents the best option.
Begs the question why it took (or still takes) so long to go down that road, the road that many have predicted for quite some time now. May i include myself there???
But again, it's not about winning, please, it's about a little bit of commercial common sense and basic physic.
It seems that common sense may pick up around here. Flexibility is the magic word. I have always said that the 4-legged biggies are not only fuel guzzlers, but they are primarily unflexibel, only viable when full or on very few trunk routes. The slightest slowdown hits them first and hard. The 350 would have been a good choice, albeit without MFF with its fat brother not the best choice (same applies to 777/748).
Logic and today's commercial environment cries for flexibility and the proposed Twin-MFF family 787-8/9/10 and 777-9/X represents the best option.
Begs the question why it took (or still takes) so long to go down that road, the road that many have predicted for quite some time now. May i include myself there???
But again, it's not about winning, please, it's about a little bit of commercial common sense and basic physic.
