A380 v 747-8i v 777-300ER
A380 v 747-8i v 777-300ER
Can anyone quote the difference between the aircraft. ie., which is more efficient. I dont really know how you can make a judgement with pax number, some airlines carry less pax but more premium seats.
Would lbs of fuel burned per lb of MTOW be any better guide?
There has been stories of the 748 being way less efficient than the A380 or 777. Any truth to this?
Would lbs of fuel burned per lb of MTOW be any better guide?
There has been stories of the 748 being way less efficient than the A380 or 777. Any truth to this?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's basically two aspects arising from your question:
Efficiency - fuel burnt vs. weight transported
Yield - money spent vs. money made
As for the second, it will be difficult to get correct answers. All operators work with very different set-ups of passenger distribution (F-C-Y) and cargo supplement. Additionally we do not know the price they pay for the aircraft in mortgage or leasing and peripheral cost like crewing etc.
It seems that there is no direct law telling us which aircraft yields better.
As for efficiency, this is easier to prove. Simply analyze flight plans with payload in kgs/lbs with same ESAD vs. burn.
It is instantly clear, that the modern two-holers like A333 and B77W come out as winners. This because nothing is lighter than a design with 2 engines on 2 lag struts.
Weight is burn with more or less similar technology in construction and propulsion. This is not my invention, but pure and simple physics.
There is not yet a possibility to compare the 748 with the A380 on similar routes with similar set-ups, therefore it is still hard to tell. I would guess they are similarly efficient, but both a long way behind the modern 2-holers.
Efficiency - fuel burnt vs. weight transported
Yield - money spent vs. money made
As for the second, it will be difficult to get correct answers. All operators work with very different set-ups of passenger distribution (F-C-Y) and cargo supplement. Additionally we do not know the price they pay for the aircraft in mortgage or leasing and peripheral cost like crewing etc.
It seems that there is no direct law telling us which aircraft yields better.
As for efficiency, this is easier to prove. Simply analyze flight plans with payload in kgs/lbs with same ESAD vs. burn.
It is instantly clear, that the modern two-holers like A333 and B77W come out as winners. This because nothing is lighter than a design with 2 engines on 2 lag struts.
Weight is burn with more or less similar technology in construction and propulsion. This is not my invention, but pure and simple physics.
There is not yet a possibility to compare the 748 with the A380 on similar routes with similar set-ups, therefore it is still hard to tell. I would guess they are similarly efficient, but both a long way behind the modern 2-holers.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With these 3 aircraft, fuel efficiency may not be the sole issue.
In terms of fuel burn and operating performance, the A380 and 747-8i are expected to be 0.018USG per ASM, and the 777-300ER has a similar fuel burn performance. These fuel burn rates are equal to costs per ASM of about 5.8 US cents. The similarity between the 3 aircraft may be because the A380 and 747-8i benefit from their larger seat counts, but suffer from their relatively inefficient four-engine designs.
Performance/range is also pretty close. With typical airline seating configurations, range performances are 8,250nm for the A380, 7,900nm for the 747-8i, and 8,000nm for the 777-300ER. So all 3 aircraft can operate on most long-haul networks without constraints.
The differentiator is seat capacity and its important consequence for route planning. The A380 and 777-300ER have typical average airline configurations of 482 and 314 seats and 747-8i will probably have 380-430 seats when it gets into service. A lot of the selection criteria will depend on which size suits an airline’s capacity requirements best.
I have got an analogy for the A380 vs 747 debate which comes from the small boat sailing world and the HobieCat range of catamarans. The 747 is like a Hobie 16, which is probably the most popular and widely built/sold small catamaran. It is quite a stretch from sailing to airline economics but here goes.
Take a Hobie 16 (aka B747) and load it up or empty, strong winds or not, rough sea or smooth lake, brand new plane or aged and ragged, it just gets up and goes – every time.
The A380 is like the Hobie 17 – absolute thoroughbred, fast and exciting, but very demanding and finicky. In exactly the right conditions with exactly the right crew, it is a winner.
The Hobie 16 sold in much higher numbers than the Hobie 17, and sold widely across the world. The Hobie 17 was a limited seller. Likewise, for those routes where the A380 fits - long haul and more demand than a 747 can service - it is a winner. But outside that – the economics fall over quickly and the Boeing camp are going to be selling their aircraft. And they have got a great growth path built in - develop the route with a 777 and when that gets too busy, bring in the 747-8i without increasing frequency or slots
In terms of fuel burn and operating performance, the A380 and 747-8i are expected to be 0.018USG per ASM, and the 777-300ER has a similar fuel burn performance. These fuel burn rates are equal to costs per ASM of about 5.8 US cents. The similarity between the 3 aircraft may be because the A380 and 747-8i benefit from their larger seat counts, but suffer from their relatively inefficient four-engine designs.
Performance/range is also pretty close. With typical airline seating configurations, range performances are 8,250nm for the A380, 7,900nm for the 747-8i, and 8,000nm for the 777-300ER. So all 3 aircraft can operate on most long-haul networks without constraints.
The differentiator is seat capacity and its important consequence for route planning. The A380 and 777-300ER have typical average airline configurations of 482 and 314 seats and 747-8i will probably have 380-430 seats when it gets into service. A lot of the selection criteria will depend on which size suits an airline’s capacity requirements best.
I have got an analogy for the A380 vs 747 debate which comes from the small boat sailing world and the HobieCat range of catamarans. The 747 is like a Hobie 16, which is probably the most popular and widely built/sold small catamaran. It is quite a stretch from sailing to airline economics but here goes.
Take a Hobie 16 (aka B747) and load it up or empty, strong winds or not, rough sea or smooth lake, brand new plane or aged and ragged, it just gets up and goes – every time.
The A380 is like the Hobie 17 – absolute thoroughbred, fast and exciting, but very demanding and finicky. In exactly the right conditions with exactly the right crew, it is a winner.
The Hobie 16 sold in much higher numbers than the Hobie 17, and sold widely across the world. The Hobie 17 was a limited seller. Likewise, for those routes where the A380 fits - long haul and more demand than a 747 can service - it is a winner. But outside that – the economics fall over quickly and the Boeing camp are going to be selling their aircraft. And they have got a great growth path built in - develop the route with a 777 and when that gets too busy, bring in the 747-8i without increasing frequency or slots
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overrun
Not even Boeing believes the 747-8i will be a commercial success, with only three airline customers six years after launch.
Remember the 747SP? Here they go again.
I would not recommend anyone to go out and buy a 747-8i.
If Boeing doesn't sell 100, can you imagine what the residual value will be in ten years? Money down drain.
Remember the 747SP? Here they go again.
I would not recommend anyone to go out and buy a 747-8i.
If Boeing doesn't sell 100, can you imagine what the residual value will be in ten years? Money down drain.
Last edited by oldchina; 3rd Mar 2012 at 13:15.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldchina,
Same thing with the B-757. At the beginning nobody wanted to buy it. Then, it became a great success. For me the best airplane right now.
Only time will tell.
Same thing with the B-757. At the beginning nobody wanted to buy it. Then, it became a great success. For me the best airplane right now.
Only time will tell.
