A380 fuel efficiency

[TopBunk]

so those numbers are apparently the max climb performance at the time

yes, but for what IAS?

TOGA @ an IAS of, for example, 130kts will not give the same climb performance as TOGA @ the correct IAS for the actual TOW, say 160kts.

The aircraft in this ficticious example would have been 30 kts behind the drag curve and most of the added power would gone into overcoming the drag to keep airborne, rather than translate into rate of climb. All imho.

[underfire]

There was just an article published that referenced Boeing revising their criteria for the specifications and updating the information on their website.
This also detailed how the information Lufthansa provides on their website was based in their actual observations, and were different than Boeing advertised specs as well.

Boeing updates aircraft specifications

[atakacs]

@TopBunk fair point
Interesting news about the Boeing revised numbers which still don't match reality apparently...
I'm surprised that in this day and age such information could really be obfuscated in any meaningful way.

[misd-agin]

A lot of airlines could use a couple A380's? In the U.S. most large operators like to have minimum fleet sizes around 20-30. Training cost, inefficiency of small fleets, parts inventory, etc. It's easier to fly slightly less than optimum 777's on the route vs maintaining a mini fleet of A380's.

[misd-agin]

Planes fly wind miles. A city 7,000 nm away might be 8,000 wind miles into the wind in the winter. And 6,300 nm downwind.

Maybe LH's data is their upwind range? Downwind range is fairly meaningless if you're trying to fly a round trip. "Hey, we could fly Bermuda to XYZ." What about XYZ to Bermuda???

[helen-damnation]

the aircraft eventually left the ground, but, by 170 m (558 ft) beyond the end of the runway, it was able to achieve an altitude of only 70 cm (2 ft) above the ground. Subsequently, it took out a 200 m (656 ft) stretch of strobe lights at the end of the runway and continued to climb with difficulties. At 350 m (1,148 ft) beyond the end of the runway, the landing gear hit and damaged the 180 cm (6 ft) high localiser antenna array operated by Airservices Australia. At 500 m (1,640 ft) beyond the end of the runway, the aircraft barely missed the 2.24 m (7 ft) tall airport perimeter fence. It was also reported that after clearing the airport perimeter, the aircraft cleared a small brick building by only 50 centimetres (20 in)."

TOGA @ an IAS of, for example, 130kts will not give the same climb performance as TOGA @ the correct IAS for the actual TOW, say 160kts.
The aircraft in this ficticious example would have been 30 kts behind the drag curve and most of the added power would gone into overcoming the drag to keep airborne, rather than translate into rate of climb. All imho.

130kts is 67m/s so the localiser antenna was 5 seconds from the end of the runway but less than 3 seconds from getting airborne! The perimeter fence at 500m was only 7 & 5 seconds respectively.

[aeo]

It appears LH's numbers are based on its 8/80/32/244 seat config, so in all fairness, if you can sell 8 1st, 80 biz and 32 PEY seats then that's gotta cover the extra gas . . . the 244 EY Seats can only be profit . . . right? Or is it the other way around. . .