Quantas A380 To Fly Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Problem is that neither site provides any verifiable information as to the DOC of either aircraft.
One of these is a Boeing site.
No surprises there.
The other is an enthusiast's site, using presumed numbers for the A380 and Boeing's numbers for the 747-8I.
No surprises there either.
Also, the A380 has been in service for a while now, while the 747-8I has yet to be built, much less see actual use.
There are good numbers available for the A380, both DOC and CASM.
No such numbers exist for the 747-8I.
 
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
By the end of this year 2012, Emirates will have over 120 B777 in their fleet compares to may be 23 A380. When do you think Emirates will get all of their 90 A380? Where do you think the profit will come from for Emirates as we speak?


WRT delivery dates, that info is on Airbus' site.
Do you think that they're taking delivery of all of these A380s to reduce their profitability?
 
I work with Honeywell, the maker of the FMS for both Boeing and Airbus so I have a better knowledge of delivery date then what you see on Airbus's site. Orders can be canceled or converted to other models. The A350 is Airbus's future, not the A380 according to their management.

747-8I is already built and awaiting FAA FAI approval. Boeing has about 12 8I sitting at BFI waiting for approval. Like I said earlier, we are delivering the paperwork to Boeing and FAA as we speak. The number from Boeing is based on fuel burn at max weight, which by the way is not available from Airbus. Fuel burn is key in determining RASM since the aircraft will fly independent of the number of passengers on board. Both Boeing and Airbus use the fuel burn numbers in their sale pitches and not the actual CASM when they introduce the plane. Actual CASM varies from airlines to airlines and so is the RASM.
 
Last edited:
An A380 will have higher fuel burn per hour than a 747-8, since it is a much larger and heavier aircraft.
An A380 also offers a great deal more floor space and volume than does a 747-8, so it can carry many more seats in whatever configuration an airline chooses than can a 747-8, which would seem to lead to lower CASM with the A380 than with the 747-8.
We'll see this theory tested once Lufthansa has their 747-8Is in service alongside their A380s.
WRT the future, the A350 and the 787 are aimed at a much larger market segment than are the A380 and the 747-8.
That the smaller twins should outsell the quads is hardly a surprise.
Look at how the 777 killed both the 747 and the A340.
For that matter, compare sales of the A330 to those of the A340.
This does not mean that Boeing and Airbus can't earn a profit on their jumbos, it only menas that they won't sell as many of them as they will twins.
I think that both knew this going in.
 
The airlines are not buying Airbus A380 proposal with a once class configuration for several reasons, which was Airbus main selling point. The Japanese is using the 747 in a one class configuration and therefore a lower CASM. Also, the 8I can be easily converted to 8F configuration whereas the A380 cannot. The A380 is a program in trouble due to low sales, high purchase price, few available destinations and few customers positioned to make use of the aircraft's design capability. It's break even point is estimated currently around 500 aircrafts and they only have half that 11 years after introduction.

The break even point for the 747-8 is less than 300 orders due to commonality with the 747-4. The 777 is not killing the 747 per Boeing, but a replacement. The 747 series will become freighters, the 777 derivatives will replace the 747 as jumbo passenger planes, the 787 derivatives will replace the 777 as the mid size and the 737 derivatives will pick up the rest.
 
The 777 killed the 747 fifteen years ago.
I'm sure that Boeing knew it would, while Airbus found the 777 an unpleasant surprise when it came to future A340 orders.
I agree that the A380 would make a poor freighter as either a new build or conversion, given that it cannot have the swing-up nose loading capability available with the 747, cannot have the upper deck floor removed and would offer significant challenges in loading the upper deck with freight.
The current A388 also has fairly high OEW and offers range not needed in a freighter.
This is probably the real reason that Airbus killed the A380F program, since the orders in hand from UPS and Fedex would not have paid for it and additional orders seemed unlikely.
The problem with selling the 747-8 as a new build freighter is that there are so many pax aircraft available for conversion, although most of the 747-8 orders have been for freighters.
Whether the airlines buy the single class idea or not is irrelevant.
Regardless of the mix of seats offered in a two or three class configuration, the A380 can hold more of them.
For routes that can support the capacity, the A380 offers better revenue potetial than any other plane available.
I really would like to see the 747-8I do well.
It just doesn't seem to be in the cards, since aside from Lufthansa, no other carrier has placed a significant order.
The A380 has seen at least some orders from most carriers that have the routes to support its capacity, as well as the access to funds to finance the purchase.
The nugatory A380 orders from some carriers are probably just a start, and the same may be true for the 747-8I.
I'd like to see both of these programs flourish over the next couple of decades, since these are probably the last quads we'll see.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The 777 killed the 747 fifteen years ago.
I'm sure that Boeing knew it would,


Totally false, Boeing make both the 777 and the 747 so they control the life of both. I don't expect you to understand it since you are not involve in the Boeing's product planning like we do. Both 777 and 747-8 production lines are up and running at full tilt and Boeing will not kill the 747 program according to management and their current production lead orders with Honeywell. One more time and this is straight from Boeing management, the 747 series will become freighters, the 777 derivatives will replace the 747 as jumbo passenger planes, the 787 derivatives will replace the 777 as the mid size and the 737 derivatives will pick up the rest. The 747 is the best freighter in the world and will be for the next 20 years. It has no competition, even with the 777.

I don't think you understand CASM with respect to fuel burn. Currently A380 is only sold in the 525 seats 3 class configuration versus 747-8I 467 seats 3 class version. A380 is burning 30% more fuel for only 13% increase in passenger capacity. That is a big difference if you look at the Cost Index and ultimately RASM.
 
Last edited:
BTW, our R&D is working with Boeing on a multi-engine flying wing as future replacement for the 747. It has at least 4 engines and possibly up to 6. You are looking at least 10 years down the road before any introduction though.
 
I'd like to see someone working on lighter than air craft...

Way faster than a boat, way more fuel efficient per pound mile than a plane that needs to convert fuel into lift, and circle endlessly on destination.

I'd take an airship "cruise"
 
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The 777 killed the 747 fifteen years ago.
I'm sure that Boeing knew it would,


Totally false, Boeing make both the 777 and the 747 so they control the life of both. I don't expect you to understand it since you are not involve in the Boeing's product planning like we do. Both 777 and 747-8 production lines are up and running at full tilt and Boeing will not kill the 747 program according to management and their current production lead orders with Honeywell. One more time and this is straight from Boeing management, the 747 series will become freighters, the 777 derivatives will replace the 747 as jumbo passenger planes, the 787 derivatives will replace the 777 as the mid size and the 737 derivatives will pick up the rest. The 747 is the best freighter in the world and will be for the next 20 years. It has no competition, even with the 777.

I don't think you understand CASM with respect to fuel burn. Currently A380 is only sold in the 525 seats 3 class configuration versus 747-8I 467 seats 3 class version. A380 is burning 30% more fuel for only 13% increase in passenger capacity. That is a big difference if you look at the Cost Index and ultimately RASM.


B747 orders since 1995: 395, out of 1524 total
B777 orders since 1995: 1363

I think it's fair to say that the 777 killed the 747.
It isn't Boeing who controls the life of the program, either.
The viability of any program is determined by the willingness of carriers to place orders at prices that allow Boeing or Airbus to produce the aircraft profitably.
This is the reason that the 757 and the A300 programs were terminated, along with the 717 and the A340.
The only reason that Boeing kept the 767 alive was that it was betting on winning the tanker contract, which it did.
To say that the future of the 747 is as a freighter is merely to observe what's been happening in the real world for some years.
How many pax 747 have been converted to freighters?

I probably don't have as much knowledge as do you of the operating economics of airliners, but you are being disingenuous
in your comparison of a 467 seat 747-8 and a 525 seat A380.
You are well aware that the A380 at 525 seats has a considerably greater proportion of high yielding premium seats than does the 747-8 at 467 seats.
As you noted in one of your posts, it is the airline that determines the seat mix and the seat count, up to the numbers an aircraft is certified to carry.
It is telling that the Lufthansa 747-8s will carry only 386 seats, while their A380s carry 526 seats.
The Lufthansa A380s carry 35% more seats than their 747-8s, so their A380s offers superior CASM based on fuel burn using your fuel burn figures.
You are well aware that were the 747-8I to offer CASM superior to the A388 as typically configured by the airlines, the 747-8I order book would be a great deal fatter than the current 36 frames.
 
The idea of a span loader transport has floated to the surface a number of times over the years.
There is certainly an efficiency advantage, but you already know of the many practical disadvantages.
I expect to see Boeing's flying wing in service around the time I can book a commercial flight to Mars.
I'd love to be wrong about this, though, since a world of conventional twins will get pretty boring for those who actually like airplanes, and enjoy spotting when passing through airports.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

I think it's fair to say that the 777 killed the 747.



You are entitled to your own opinion but I will stick with Boeing product planning team and their contract with us for future development. Boeing delivered 694 744s, all of which can easily be converted to 744F. They stop taking orders for the 744 because of the introduction of the 748.

The passenger to freighter conversion program was introduced by Boeing back in 2004 for all 747s and they have about 50 orders. This number will increase as older 747s are being replaced by the 748.

Sale pitches for the A380 is one thing and reality is another. Their CASM is based on a once class configuration that no one is buying so the actual CASM is more than the B748. Lufthansa has always had low seat configuration with the 747s because they want to carry more freight.
 
You are entitled to your own opinion as well, but you can't argue with the numbers for either aircraft orders or CASM.
Boeing was smart enough back in the early 'nineties to come up with its own 747 replacement in the 777, thereby retaining the lead in that market segment, which would otherwise have been lost to the A340.
I would hope that everyone at Boeing today grasps this.
The Lufhansa A388 is configured with a lower seating density relative to its floor space than is their 747-8I, yet it still beats the Boeing on CASM.
Configured at the same density as the 747-8I, the A388 would have 540 seats, so it would bury the Boeing by another few percent on CASM.
Contrary to what you posted, I have demonstrated that the A380 has lower CASM than does the 747-8I as both are actually configured by carriers.
This is reality.
What part of the A380 having lower CASM than the 747-8I in a configuration of similar density did you not understand?
This also explains the fact that the A388 has garnered 121 orders since the 747-8I has been offered, compared with 36 orders for the Boeing.
What should be even more alarming to Boeing is that the A388 is the shrink. Wait until the A389 comes along, which will offer even lower CASM.
Boeing has historically been very good at developing and improving its existing models, but the 747-8I may be a stretch too far, just like the 764, at which all but two carriers turned up their noses and bought A330s instead.
Still, nice of Boeing to have done a custom aircraft for Continental and Delta alone.
Also, 747 P2F conversions existed long before Boeing promoted them, so this is nothing new nor was the concept introduced by Boeing.
After all these years, I would think that someone as involved in transport programs as you say you are would have come to understand and accept the technical capabilities of Airbus.
While I may own shares of Boeing and not EADS, your comments are making me wonder whether I've bet on the wrong horse in a race of two.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

What part of the A380 having lower CASM than the 747-8I in a configuration of similar density did you not understand?
This also explains the fact that the A388 has garnered 121 orders since the 747-8I has been offered, compared with 36 orders for the Boeing.
What should be even more alarming to Boeing is that the A388 is the shrink. Wait until the A389 comes along, which will offer even lower CASM.


There is no A380 configured with the same density as the 747-8I, so what you are comparing is theoretical number and not the actual airlines application. Please show me the math otherwise it is just your opinion versus airlines management decisions. You are also ignoring the fact that I have mentioned several times that the 747-8 was introduced as a "FREIGHTER" and therefore has twice as many orders compare to the 8I. There is no A380 freighter so the 8F orders are infinitely larger than the A380 if you want to play the math game.

The A389 is a dream as Airbus refused to fund us for development work that could take 5 years to complete. Their management admit that the A380 is mistake and simply do not have the capitalization to move beyond the A380 model. Their money is on the A350 and we got a good chunk of that for development work.

Boeing recent freighter conversion program is in line with their vision for the 747 series as a dedicated freighter. They want to promote commonality in the conversion process and not just a few here and there.

I highly doubt you know about aircraft development as I do and their deliver schedules. If we don't deliver, the aircraft sits until our equipment get installed. We have a lead time of minimum of five years for development work. I don't own any Boeing nor EADS stock so I couldn't care less. I approach this subject from an engineering stand point and not as a stock investor. Failed or succeed, Airbus has already paid us for the development work and production parts are paid as orders are placed.
 
Why do you find it so hard to grasp that the last iteration of a mid 'sixties design cannot match the operating economics of an early 'nineties one?
The 747-8I has inferior CASM to the A388 at similar seating densities.
Nothing theoretical about it, it is what is happening right now in the real world.
I gave you an example in the one airline that will operate both, Lufthansa.
Nothing theoretical there.
I wish that the 747-8I could be a few hundred plane program.
The economics of the aircraft mitigate against that, though.
Take off your headphones, see what's going on, as the Kinks song goes.
Also, what does Honeywell even do for Airbus?
I thought they prefered Thales.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Why do you find it so hard to grasp that the last iteration of a mid 'sixties design cannot match the operating economics of an early 'nineties one?
The 747-8I has inferior CASM to the A388 at similar seating densities.
Nothing theoretical about it, it is what is happening right now in the real world.
I gave you an example in the one airline that will operate both, Lufthansa.
Nothing theoretical there.
I wish that the 747-8I could be a few hundred plane program.
The economics of the aircraft mitigate against that, though.
Take off your headphones, see what's going on, as the Kinks song goes.
Also, what does Honeywell even do for Airbus?
I thought they prefered Thales.


You either having an extremely short memory or just can't read. Read post #2492769 for what Honeywell is doing for Airbus.

http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Flight_Management_Systems.htm
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wc...5&langId=-1

The 747-8 is not the last iteration of the mid sixties design. It has a new wings, engines, and the latest FMS. The body has more composite to reduce weight similar to the 787. The problem is you are sold on the Airbus infomercial like I have said previously and know nothing about the actual aircraft performance in services. I have access to both Boeing and Airbus Aero Engine database and actual fuel burn. The main function of the FMS is to minimize fuel burn. One more time, there is no 380 and 748 with the same seating densities currently in service now or in the near future. Actual CASM is calculated with 525 seats for the A380 and it is not lower than the 748 with 467 seats as ordered for the Korean airlines. Lufthansa ordered 386 seats because they want to carry more freight not because they can't get the 467 seats version.

Again, show me the math and stop going off topic with stocks and headphones, and songs. Do you even know how CASM is calculated? Do you know what Cost Index value is?
 
Last edited:
At similar seating densities, the A388 has lower CASM than does the 747-8I.
Lufthansa has configured both types at similar densities, and the A380 beats the 748I on CASM.
This is an obvious point, and I've already shown you the math using your fuel burn figures.
The A380 will have actually do somewhat better on trip fuel burn than the difference you've quoted, since it is capable of unrestricted climbs to altitudes to which the 747-8I must be step-climbed at typical operating weights for both.
Also, the 747-8 has a wing that has been reworked relative to the 744, but it retains the original sweep and most of the original structure, done to keep program costs within reason.
Korean Air has configured its A380s with only 401 seats, while the 744s they operate to the US have either 333 or 335 seats, with a maximum of 384 seats in any 744 they operate, so I doubt that they'll fit 467 seats to their five 748s.
Korean will certainly deploy these brand new aircraft on high yielding routes and Korean Air international flying is a premium experience, not a cattle class one.
Also, whether you leave seats out of an A388 or a 748 to allow for more freight, the effect in marginal freight revenue is the same.
You seem unwilling to accept that the A380 provides better operating economics than the 748 on those routes that can support it.
Maybe you're right.
If you are, Boeing can expect to deliver quite a few pax 748s, and this aircraft will be seen at the world's major international gateways for years to come.
I will leave it to the carriers, who are the paying customers, after all.
Lufthansa and Korean will soon have much better figures for CASM and RASM for both types than you or I have access to.
I will not argue this with you any further, since you seem to suffer from what was described in another thread as confirmation bias.
 
That's great if the CASM for the A388 is better than the 747-8I in similar densities.

However, the CASM isn't the issue I'd be concerned about as an airline. As was pointed out the RASM (Revenue per availible seat mile) is more important. Unless you can sell the seats at a reasonable price, the lower CASM won't make any difference - you'll still lose money.

There is a little thing called supply and demand - and it affects whether any of these airplanes are profitible, regardless of the CASM.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
At similar seating densities, the A388 has lower CASM than does the 747-8I.
Lufthansa has configured both types at similar densities, and the A380 beats the 748I on CASM.
This is an obvious point, and I've already shown you the math using your fuel burn figures.



I saw no math from your post only a regurgitation of Airbus sell pitches at introduction. There is no figured from Lufthansa showing the CASM on the 748I, only in your dream, since none has flown to date. Everything that you have presented is basically a guest since as I have pointed out because you do not access to inside development information like I do. It is good that you stop argue so that I can stop pointing out where you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
That's great if the CASM for the A388 is better than the 747-8I in similar densities.

However, the CASM isn't the issue I'd be concerned about as an airline. As was pointed out the RASM (Revenue per availible seat mile) is more important. Unless you can sell the seats at a reasonable price, the lower CASM won't make any difference - you'll still lose money.

There is a little thing called supply and demand - and it affects whether any of these airplanes are profitible, regardless of the CASM.



Maybe you should try to explain to fcdg27 since he can't seem to get away from the Airbus sell pitches and look at the realities with the airlines.

RASM is based mainly on fuel burn but it is also can be tweak by the airlines using Cost Index that taken into account the overall operational cost. It is a true measure of an aircraft performance and not the manufacturer "suggested" CASM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top