A380 versus B777 comparison (from an airline POV re ROI)

[NM]

The comparision per the first post is about fuel burn and payload (potential and real per some example flight ops). So this has nothing to do with passenger comfort, seating payoutrs, cabin altitude/pressure, operator, IFE etc. Its about the cost to operate the two different aircraft types on the same routes. There are many other threads about passenger comform of various airctraft types and operator differences. Lets try to keep this thread to discussing the issue from an operators costs perspective.

 

[travelislife]

The comparision per the first post is about fuel burn and payload (potential and real per some example flight ops). So this has nothing to do with passenger comfort, seating payoutrs, cabin altitude/pressure, operator, IFE etc. Its about the cost to operate the two different aircraft types on the same routes. There are many other threads about passenger comform of various airctraft types and operator differences. Lets try to keep this thread to discussing the issue from an operators costs perspective.

NM, I agree with your comments above. But it also makes it interesting regarding the different configurations airlines run on the same aircraft to turn a profit. I would be very intrigued to see a breakdown of passenger numbers/class breakdown for a plane type across different airlines.

 

[infinity]

The comparision per the first post is about fuel burn and payload (potential and real per some example flight ops). So this has nothing to do with passenger comfort, seating payoutrs, cabin altitude/pressure, operator, IFE etc. Its about the cost to operate the two different aircraft types on the same routes. There are many other threads about passenger comform of various airctraft types and operator differences. Lets try to keep this thread to discussing the issue from an operators costs perspective.

The comparison means different things to differnt AFF mmbers

If its about operation specifications please change the title and dont invite the broader input!

Otherwise all AFF members should feel happy to contribute, sorry!

 

[elbarto]

EK may be seeing odd fuel burn figures because EA is yet to deliver the engine package with the promised fuel burn. This can take some time.

Possibly leasing companies. Or even wealthy (Middle Eastern) billionaires.

QF could probably lease some 777's if they wanted to, fill in the gaps and allow them to retire some costly older fleet early.

Might give Sir Alan Joyce a ring and suggest it to him.

I've heard a rumor they are for QF, even though it really makes no sense.

Up until the last few years I believe LAX was high yielding, however its certainly suffered from the increased competition from what I have heard, with most averaging 80% at best across the various airlines, I would not be surprised if VA move their capacity to BNE and allow Delta to take over MEL!

Another rumor is that when it was the QF/UA duopoly on this route around 1/3 of QF revenue (or profit) came from this route.

 

[straitman]

The comparison means different things to differnt AFF mmbers

If its about operation specifications please change the title and dont invite the broader input!

Otherwise all AFF members should feel happy to contribute, sorry!

The thread was aimed at comparisons as NM stated. I did not dream that people would go off on such tangents. (very unusual for AFF).

I would amend the title but cannot from my iPad so I'll ask one of the other mods to amend it appropriately.

 

[casanovawa]

I think someone on here not so long ago put a link up for different seating configurations/layouts for the A380 across a couple of airlines anyway as to which classes bought in the what money...

Probably a lot harder to compare B777 configs as so many more airlines with them...

But yes may be off topic...

 

[MarkD]

Well, I found it very interesting. Thanks for sharing

 

[infinity]

The thread was aimed at comparisons as NM stated. I did not dream that people would go off on such tangents. (very unusual for AFF).

I would amend the title but cannot from my iPad so I'll ask one of the other mods to amend it appropriately.

All good.

Robust dialogue is what its all about cheers
B

 

[dajop]

The comparision per the first post is about fuel burn and payload (potential and real per some example flight ops). So this has nothing to do with passenger comfort, seating payoutrs, cabin altitude/pressure, operator, IFE etc. Its about the cost to operate the two different aircraft types on the same routes. There are many other threads about passenger comform of various airctraft types and operator differences. Lets try to keep this thread to discussing the issue from an operators costs perspective.

Point taken. But comfort etc may have an impact on the overall profitability equation - even if A380 is higher cost to operate on a comparable route - it may (or may not) attract passengers who are willing to pay a premium for the A380 and make up for some higher operating costs. But I doubt it, certainly in Y.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Although, I know that most people would just pick the schedule first before looking at the aircraft type. If there are multiple schedules that suit, then they may look into which plane is better.

 

[cove]

If I was the Head honch of Emirates or QF I would be very disappointed with those lousy fuel burn figures.
The whole idea of paying so much for such a large aircraft was supposed to be based around a 20 % better fuel use than the best 747. A bigger payload in freight and passengers was supposed to produce a profit after allowing for higher leasing rates.
Being first looked like a great idea but it is not working when you have to up the fuel tonnage to get there so it costs more per passenger and ton of freight.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Point taken. But comfort etc may have an impact on the overall profitability equation - even if A380 is higher cost to operate on a comparable route - it may (or may not) attract passengers who are willing to pay a premium for the A380 and make up for some higher operating costs. But I doubt it, certainly in Y.

Supposedly the airlines have been able to charge a premium for flights on he A380 when compared to a 777 or 747.

I know 1 guy at work was willing to fly back from Singapore via MEL to SYD just so he could try the A380.

 

[NM]

If I was the Head honch of Emirates or QF I would be very disappointed with those lousy fuel burn figures.
The whole idea of paying so much for such a large aircraft was supposed to be based around a 20 % better fuel use than the best 747. A bigger payload in freight and passengers was supposed to produce a profit after allowing for higher leasing rates.
Being first looked like a great idea but it is not working when you have to up the fuel tonnage to get there so it costs more per passenger and ton of freight.

The 20% figures was not based on total fuel burn compared with a 747. It was based on the fule burn per passenger seat. And that was based on something like 550 seats in the A380, which was about 35% more seats than a similarly fitted 747. Now what we are seeing closer to 400 seats installed in the A380 and that advantage of fuel burn per seat has gone.

The numbers compared in the original post do not relate back to a per-seat basis, but to a payload capacity and then more importantly to some real examples of actual payload used.

With the A380, when compared with a 777, you are burning a lot of fuel just to get the airframe from point A to point B, even with no paying cargo (passengers or freight). The longer the flight the more fuel is needed just to fly the airframe and the fuel, so the percentage of total weight that is available for actual paying payload is reduced.

 

[jb747]

Singapore has added runways....

No it hasn't. The military have built one for their own use.....

 

[markis10]

No it hasn't. The military have built one for their own use.....

02R is planned to be handed over to civil traffic soon.

 

[jb747]

It's all about seating configurations and marketing. At the SAME seat density as a 747, the A380 burns appreciably less fuel. The density that QF uses is quite low, carrying only about 30% more passengers than a 4 class 747. Even then, the 380 still burns less fuel per passenger, though not dramatically less. Bump the total seating up to about 550 and the numbers are well in favour of the 380.

Put the same numbers on each, and then the 747 wins.... Nothing in this is unexpected. 380 fuel burns have their issues, but they are within a couple of per cent of 'spec'.

 

[jb747]

02R is planned to be handed over to civil traffic soon.

That should be good for a giggle. It's very short, miles from anywhere, and mostly useless.

Oh, that's 16R in Sydney....

 

[Awesom Andy]

02R is planned to be handed over to civil traffic soon.

With a new terminal proposed to be built as well, although no details have been released.

 

[harvyk]

That should be good for a giggle. It's very short, miles from anywhere, and mostly useless.

Oh, that's 16R in Sydney....

Don't you mean 16L \ 34R? I thought 16R was the main runway so to speak.
Totally OT, but more than once I've been on a SYD-CBR flight which has taken off from 34R in SYD and the pilot has gotten on the PA promising that we're actually going to be flying to CBR not driving...


Back on topic, whilst I don't know about the ROI for the airlines, but I do know that many airports are fairly disappointed with the A380. They spent up big upgrading runways \ taxiways and gates to handle this much larger a/c with the promise it can hold massive numbers of people (thus more visitors to the airport \ duty free stores), and most airlines are running in fairly light configurations containing not that many more ppl than a fully loaded B747 can carry.

I believe the QF A380 holds around 450 pax, this is the same number of pax their B743's used to hold, and yet the B743's could use existing gates at most airports. Maybe with F disappearing it'll make the airports happier.

 

[markis10]

That should be good for a giggle. It's very short, miles from anywhere, and mostly useless.

Oh, that's 16R in Sydney....

2734m is hardly short, compared to 07/25 (2530)at SYD or 16L/34R (2438) either, and its 15m wider than any runway at Sydney, I suspect it will be the focus of a new budget/regional terminal precinct and the announced Terminal 4 in the next 10 years.