A340-600
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A346 Economics
THISKIWICANFLY
<Not only does it use 20% less fuel than a 744, but it has double the underbelly cargo capacity and the economics of that advantage must be huge - carries slightly less pax though.>
Actually, if you use the same passenger density for the 744 as Airbus does for the A346, you get 480 pax in a 744 vs 380 pax in an A346. ( 26% more pax in a 744)
For cargo, the A346 has a volume of about 207 cu m vs 182 cu m in the 744. (14% more cu m in an A346, far from the 50% more you're claiming)
IOW, the 744 carries 26% more passengers & 14% less cargo.
Knowing that passengers bring in much more revenue than cargo, a 744 with a full load of pax will be more profitable than an A346 with a full load of pax, despite the latter's lower fuel burn isn't it ?
<Not only does it use 20% less fuel than a 744, but it has double the underbelly cargo capacity and the economics of that advantage must be huge - carries slightly less pax though.>
Actually, if you use the same passenger density for the 744 as Airbus does for the A346, you get 480 pax in a 744 vs 380 pax in an A346. ( 26% more pax in a 744)
For cargo, the A346 has a volume of about 207 cu m vs 182 cu m in the 744. (14% more cu m in an A346, far from the 50% more you're claiming)
IOW, the 744 carries 26% more passengers & 14% less cargo.
Knowing that passengers bring in much more revenue than cargo, a 744 with a full load of pax will be more profitable than an A346 with a full load of pax, despite the latter's lower fuel burn isn't it ?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLuca
My figures 744/346
Single class 660/475
Two class 496/440
Three class 412/380
As the 330/340 have less seats across the aircraft, they are less sensitive to increasing or decreasing the seat pitch than on a 744.
Fuel/pax/nm 0.050/0.046 (lower better)
Cannot agree with you over the cargo volume either, the 346 does offer more cargo per head.
I do not see the 346 as a 744 replacement, just a 743 replacement. I do see it as a replacement for a 744 where the sectors are not optimal for the 744, ie the 744 has lower passenger load factor for a specific city to city pair.
Whats the use of 600 seats if you cannot sell them for the frequency offered, except in japan on a domestic run.
Many airlines on long haul will take seats out in favour of cargo and fuel as the cargo will pay better than pax, requires no cabin crew, does not need food, does not need waste storage.
Z
My figures 744/346
Single class 660/475
Two class 496/440
Three class 412/380
As the 330/340 have less seats across the aircraft, they are less sensitive to increasing or decreasing the seat pitch than on a 744.
Fuel/pax/nm 0.050/0.046 (lower better)
Cannot agree with you over the cargo volume either, the 346 does offer more cargo per head.
I do not see the 346 as a 744 replacement, just a 743 replacement. I do see it as a replacement for a 744 where the sectors are not optimal for the 744, ie the 744 has lower passenger load factor for a specific city to city pair.
Whats the use of 600 seats if you cannot sell them for the frequency offered, except in japan on a domestic run.
Many airlines on long haul will take seats out in favour of cargo and fuel as the cargo will pay better than pax, requires no cabin crew, does not need food, does not need waste storage.
Z
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeke
I don't think the numbers you provided for pax capacity are meaningful : you have to make the capacity comparison using similar density ( square area per pax) When you do so, you get about 25% more passengers in a 744 than an A346.
You can check my numbers by looking at Airbus & Boeing's website. Note than for the A346 three classes config., Airbus uses only 12 FC seats & 54 BC seats whereas Boeing uses 23 FC seats & 78 BC seats. That's why you have to use a common measure such as square area per pax since it is roughly what drives the revenue generated per pax in each class.
For cargo capacity, I did not use the relative volume per pax but the total cargo volume instead. Inevitably, since the 744 has an upper deck & since the cargo volume is roughly driven by the lenght of the aircraft, it will have less cargo volume per pax than a single deck plane such as the 773 or the A346.
Interestingly, the A380 has even less total cargo capacity than the 744, & the ratio cargo volume/pax is awfully low.
IMO, Airbus should consider offering an optional flying trailer to offset the A380 lack of cargo space.
You can check my numbers by looking at Airbus & Boeing's website. Note than for the A346 three classes config., Airbus uses only 12 FC seats & 54 BC seats whereas Boeing uses 23 FC seats & 78 BC seats. That's why you have to use a common measure such as square area per pax since it is roughly what drives the revenue generated per pax in each class.
For cargo capacity, I did not use the relative volume per pax but the total cargo volume instead. Inevitably, since the 744 has an upper deck & since the cargo volume is roughly driven by the lenght of the aircraft, it will have less cargo volume per pax than a single deck plane such as the 773 or the A346.
Interestingly, the A380 has even less total cargo capacity than the 744, & the ratio cargo volume/pax is awfully low.
IMO, Airbus should consider offering an optional flying trailer to offset the A380 lack of cargo space.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
used2flyboeing:
A significant reason for Airbus' PIP for the A340 was due to IAE's failure to provide an engine (the IAE 2500) capable of producing the required design thrust. Hence the switch to the CFM-56 series. Incidently, the original A340 didn't have winglets, and they were added as part of the PIP in addition to the engine upgrade to meet performance guarantees.
A significant reason for Airbus' PIP for the A340 was due to IAE's failure to provide an engine (the IAE 2500) capable of producing the required design thrust. Hence the switch to the CFM-56 series. Incidently, the original A340 didn't have winglets, and they were added as part of the PIP in addition to the engine upgrade to meet performance guarantees.
