A380 IS A GAS HOG (SUV of the AIR)
 

The A380 is a GAS HOG

some numbers

On a 6000 nm sector SIN LHR with average headwinds it burns 178000 KGS of fuel

It carries a maximum payload over that distance of 57000 KGS

It carries 471 pax in 3 classes

A B777- 300ER on the same sector burns 113000 KGS of fuel

It carries a maximum payload over that distance of 50000 KGS

It carries 350 pax in 3 classes

For the A380 to carry the extra 121 pax over the B777-300ER requires 65000 KGS of fuel
or about 530 KGS per pax.

The B777 burns about 325 KGS per pax.

For the non technical readers

1 pax plus Bags = 100 kgs
1 LTR of Jet fuel = 0.8 KG of Jet fuel
1000 KGS of Jet fuel costs approx 1200 US Dollars

This A380 Beast is another Brabazon, at 1200 USD a TONNE and going up standby for the cancellations!

Enviromentalists take note....The only thing that is green about this A380 is the zinc chromate primer paint on it.

I'll bite.

Even if your fuel figures are correct, Singapore airlines only has 278 seats in a 777-300ER. So the fuel used per passenger becomes:

A380 (471): 378 kg/pax
B773ER (278): 406 kg/pax

Or using your way of calculating, the extra passengers on the A380 cost 337 kg/pax extra.

If you find some way of fitting 471 pax on your 773, then you have a point. But if it takes 2 773s to transport the same number of pax the same distance, then the A380 wins.

Have I got that right?

The figures I have given are as accurate as they can be ...
They are real world numbers for real aircraft flying today ...
That is the shocking part ...This A380 aircraft has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of only 66000kgs!

A B777-300ER has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of 60000kgs
and a B747-8 a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of over 75000kgs

The A380 thing is just massively overweight! no wonder Airbus like to be quiet about the true figures. The A340-600 was the same... nobody buys that one now if they can get B777-300ERs. Experience in service killed that one.

Emirates has 355 in a 3 class B777-300ER aircraft
according to their timetable

The problem with the A380 is when you don't get more than 300 pax, or when the bad times come and you have to park it in the desert.

I think you're missing the purpose of the A380 WhoopWhoopWhoops. Rasobey's post is spot on. Whatever the configurations and subsequent fuel burn per pax figures, on high density routes where 400+ pax travel each day, it's far more environmentally friendly to fly 1 A380 than two 777s. That's why so many airlines have ordered it because it's cheaper.

Now if the A380 is only half full (or half empty for those that think differently to me :)) then you have a valid point.

Maximum payload of the A380 is 90800 kgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380).

When will these environmentalists realise that over 99% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year come from natural sources, not by man's activities. The less than 1% we contribute ain't gonna make a bit of difference.

*rant mode off*

Think About "Loads"
 

Loading becomes critical in "multiples" of an A/C max. capacity. If 660 pax want to leave Dubai on a specific day, I want two full 777 rather than one and a half full A380. Sell seats, not A/C. This discussion is valuable, I'm interested in both "sides". My allegiance is to Kerosene, not Badges.

Well, one difference is that only one Brab was ever built, it was never certified for RPT service, it was never ordered by any airline and it never entered service. The A380 has been fully certificated, there are already at least 14 A380s flyable (including those which have flown but may be back in the coop getting kitted out) and four A380s are in RPT revenue service.

Mate I think your analysis of the numbers is appreciated, but it's a lost cause: the thing is in service and some carriers have now spent too much not to take it, eg. EK are just about to open a whole new terminal at Dubai based on the thing - hence Maurice Flanagan's angry comments when the big delays were announced a year or so ago. Airlines are already training crews and getting their stations tooled up for it. Airbus may or may not get to the 450-odd airframes they need to break even on the project, but I suspect that most (if not all) of those already ordered will fly.

quote : a B747-400 a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of over 100000kgs

BS, Max structural payload is a little over 67,000 kg according to Boeing.

Maybe you where thinking of the F series which actually can carry far more than 100,000kgs ?

A B777-300ER has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of 60000kgs



According to B again max payload is even bigger than the 744 at a tad over 69,000 kg.


380 aircraft has a Max payload limited by zero fuel weight of only 56000kgs!

Wrong again, according to official Airbus numbers ,after incorporating all the extra gizmo's and heavier Business and 1st class seats the max payload is a few kilo's shy of 85000kg.

Super VC-10:
Aside from the fact that 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd still like to see an argument that doesn't come from the 5% of scientists who are sponsored by the oil companies to deny and denigrate the global warming phenomenon.

And agreed, the A380 ain't going away. Every time the Yanks force us Euros to ground something they didn't invent first, we'll put something else up there to take its place. :}

Nobody is "forcing" you to ground anything. The oil price will take care of that.

As to all this argument between 777-300ER vs A380 payloads - just scan a copy of the loadsheet of both airplanes on a comparative sector and post it here. "Official" figures tend usually exaggerate - just the same way the "official" Cessna 172 book says it's got a ceiling of 13,000ft!

also.... I am sure that I heard that SQ were really pleased with Fuel Burn and that it was LOWER than advertised by Airbus....:ok:

The way is very much there.

Air France is the launch customer of the same 777-300ER as is flown by Singapore. And Air France has 472 seats on 777-300ER. 422 cattle seats at 10 abreast. 36 Alize class "premium economy" seats at 9 abreast and 36 inchews pitch, and 14 business class seats at 7 abreast.

Singapore only accommodates 278, with more comfort.

Air France has ordered A380. How many seats will AF have on A380? 11 abreast on main deck of A380 is not narrower than 10 abreast on B77. And where will AF A380 have Alize class - upper or lower deck?

Just wait until easyJet get hold of it :E

WhoopWhoopWhoops I assume your salary is paid from a firm based in Chicago (formerly Seattle) and they are smarting after their own recent issues with their latest product? I am sure that people as canny as SQ know what they are doing having operated both the 773 and the 380 and know the exact gas milage they are getting.

chornedsnack
That config is only used on the COI Caraïbes - Ocean Indién routes. The other 773 configs are 8/67/235 and 8/67/250. Shows you what AF think of the pax on the Caribbean and Indian Ocean routes though. :eek:

DozyWannabe said

"Aside from the fact that 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot, I'd still like to see an argument that doesn't come from the 5% of scientists who are sponsored by the oil companies to deny and denigrate the global warming phenomenon."

Aviate1138 says

Show me the actual proof [ not abysmally poor computer modeling] that global warming is anything other than a natural event? How can mankind's 3% CO2 production override Mother Nature's 97% [around 200 Billion Tons +].
Notwithstanding that ALL CO2 is but 0.037% of atmospheric gases. Water Vapour is around 4% and is many times more effective as a "Greenhouse Gas" [an oxymoron if ever there was one].
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam that the Al Gore's of this world are using to make shedloads of money at joe public's expense. Aviation CO2 output is about 0.17% of the total. Can you comprehend how little in the big scheme of things that is and how little can make so much impact on world temperature. Are aviation CO2 molecules specially labelled to cause an effect greater than any scientist would expect or is it possible that CO2 is not a poison [Greenies would say otherwise]

Whoop whoop, I will speak more plainly than the above respondants.
You figures are Sh1t. where have you taken tham from?, I suggest you attend a basic math/statistics course and listen more carefully to the tutor. I also believe you are working or have worked for a large american constructor and are trying to spread muck on the Airbus product.
How can two boeing aircraft be more enviro friendly than one Airbus aircraft, bums on seats comparisoin disproves your theory.
However, you have to balance this with a half empty 380 and one full boeing.
If we kill all the cows in the world, methane production would fall by 50%, another ozone destroying gas, so perhaps you would advocate that.