Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59 Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14845 times:
I was watching the show "Forbes on Fox" this morning, and it posed the question "how much does it cost to fill up the A380 Super Jumbo" and the answer was "$100,000".
we know that its obviously going to be cheaper to fill in Euros (76,944.00 EUR)
( 1 USD = 0.769440 EUR /1 EUR = 1.29965 USD)
ok..we do know different places have different jet fuel prices, but I assume they took some kind of average. Assuming that.......
1) is that statement (by Fox)to be correct?
2) how much does it cost to fill up a somewhat competitve aircraft such as the 747-400?
3) given the available data/information as of right now, does anyone know how much it will cost to break even on a 380 flight for some aircarrier such as SQ or EK?
p.s.-I put "Him" because some say its going to be the new "King" of the skies....
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14094 times:
Yes, there is only one "Queen of the Skies" so the A380 shall be "Empress of the Skies". Our venerable beauty keeps her regal title while her larger counterpart takes precedence.
As for the cost of fuel... yes, it would be a large up-front expense to fill up an A380, but it is the long term costs that are most important in the airline industry and the A380 is supposed to be quite an efficient Goliath.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13856 times:
there are two majour assumptions being made here
1)the cost of flying the 380 is as Airbus has predicted... 1/5 cheaper (20%) than flying the 747-400 (operational/net..what have you).....i'm not so sure if they will be able to make it that much cheaper to operate the 380 over the 747
2) if they can fill those seats.......yes..some routes will do well.and boeing has never disagreed with that.....but what about seasonality and why has JAL gone from a 747's to 777's from Japan to slot-restricted LHR?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 13682 times:
The 380 might be the biggest thing out there for pax travel, but the 747 will to me at least, ALWAYS be the Queen of the skies..something which she has EARNED over the DECADES...the 380 has yet to even fly!!
Stas From Poland, joined Mar 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13431 times:
Aren't Russian ships referred to as "he"?
Most words that describe ships in Russian have feminine gender; however, the most commonly used general word for a ship has a masculine gender, hence most people refer to ships as "He". I could not think of any word that describe an aircraft and have feminine gender, thus people refer to airplanes as "He".
Richie87 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 12365 times:
Given that the A380 does have the fuel capacity of a few tanker trucks at over 80 K gallons, I suppose it's reasonable to eventually expect a fill-up bill at over 100 K $ USD regardless of whether it's measured in US or Imperial gallons. Whew. Hope they take credit cards, ha ha.
Another subject that interests me about the A380 is the venting systems that are designed-in to cope with pressurization loss. That was a huge problem in the early DC-10 series aircraft, where sudden depressurization caused floor collapse and other assorted disasters. I know they eventually retro-fitted something like "blow out" panels in the floor with a 3 psi-g differential or something like that. The A380 has two floors, of course, and a whole lotta cubed volume of pressurized air. Any comments?
Regarding the gender referance of ships and such... it's been traditional for ages to refer to ships in the feminine "she", although there have been exceptions. I do know that Russian Submarines were nearly always referred as "he", which, well- just does not sound right ! As it is... subs were almost always called "boats", although the US Navy and their nuclear fleet has adopted the "ship" phrase.
As regards most Airbus products.... I tend to refer to them as "it". IT is one big bloody mother of an aircraft !!
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7632 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11489 times:
The average fuel cost in the us is 2.15 from what I have heard that airlines have been paying, which is 176,063.50. However, some places on the east coast are 3.05 a gallon, but the airlines typically pay $2.75, which is 225,197.50. Now lets say they still have 2200 gallons when the land and such, which then it may only need 95% of her tanks full, which is 77795.5-2200= 75595.5 multiply that by the average of $2.15 that comes to $162,530.33
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6661 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11414 times:
At a major airport near a shipping harbor or near a refinery $100,000 will be pretty close to the final bill.
So when the 555 three class seats are filled, and if it lands with empty tanks (which it doesn't) then it will be $180 and 18 cent for each passenger for bringing him (her) to practically the other side of the globe.
No other airliner can do it that cheaply.
With a relatively generous all economy class layout it will bring each seat 7,000 miles away for a roughly $100.00 fuel bill per seat. How far does your car go with $100 worth gas?
My VW Golf will bring me 551.34 miles, which is 6,448.66 miles less. But then there are places where gas is less heavily taxed than here. In the US I would go slightly over 1,000 miles.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 11341 times:
Average 747-400 has 416 seats.
Average A380 will have 550 seats.
747-400 (range 7,260nm) :
57,285 / 416 = 137.70432 gallons per seat
52.721657 seat miles (nm) per gallon
747-400ER (range 7,670nm):
63,705 / 416 = 153.13701 gallons per seat
50.085867 seat miles (nm) per gallon
A380 (range 8,000nm estimated):
81,890 / 555 = 147.54954 gallons per seat
54.219077 seat miles (nm) per gallon
All data from each manufacturer's website.
So, basically, you're gaining two seat miles per gallon over the 747-400 and four seat miles over the 747-400ER, a 4%-8% improvement. On those routes where an airline can fill every seat, the A380 makes more sense.
However, on a route where the A380 would run at 70% full (389 passengers) and a 747 would run at 85% full (354 passengers), the numbers change drastically. The Airbus runs at 210.5... gallons per passenger, while the 747-400 runs at 161.8... gallons per passenger. Airbus efficiency drops to approx 38 passenger miles (nm) per gallon while 747-400 efficiency drops only to slightly less than 44.9 passenger miles (nm) per gallon.
So as you can see, if the A380 is running at the same capacity as a 747, it is more efficient. However, if routes are more appropriate for 747s than A380s in terms of demand, the A380 will actually be a big waste of both fuel and space.
Of course, these numbers are imperfect because we're calculating based upon a) total fuel capacity, not the actual amount of fuel required to travel the max specified range and b) the A380 hasn't yet actually flown, so we don't know what it's actual efficiencies are.
Personally, I think Airbus would have been better off choosing an aircraft with significantly greater efficiency (say, 7E7 material?) than going with a behemoth that needs to be full to beat the competition.
As for the $100,000 price tag, depending on hedging and all, I can easily see an A380 using $100,000 of fuel or more on a given flight. Some flights originating in some cities could easily top $200,000. Fortunately, if that were, say, LAX-SYD, that $200,000 price tag would be shared among the 555 passengers at $360 apiece.
Since the lowest-price fare I could find between those two cities is $1275 round-trip and that's a heavily discounted coach fare, I don't think there will be too much of a problem with all the economy-plus, business and first-class seating available (which is readily bought, I might add!)...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.