Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7517 times:
In a previous thread I read that Lufthansa estimated the range of the A380 with full payload at 6700nm but wouldnt that mean that Singapore airlines cant fly the route HKG-LAX all year long???? Correct me if Im wrong.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7417 times:
Gigneill,
Dixon recently told the public as well as analysts that the A380 is on track to meet or exceed everything Qantas wanted, except prompt delivery of course.
I've since learned the airline is confident of a 20 per cent lower per seat cost than a 744 on its key high capacity routes, and a 30 per cent lower per seat cost than promised by the 787-9 and the less-than-final figures being offered for a comparable sized A350.
I thought this was pretty interesting at the time, because there is no doubt in my mind that Qantas prefers the 787-9 to anything else for a medium sized long range application, and the logical inference from this is we will have to fly from Brisbane or Perth to overseas destinations to enjoy the superb creature comforts of lower cabin altitude and larger windows, since lowest seat costs are meaningless if the market catchment is too small for a very big jet.
However today I am thinking that the events in New Orelans, and the consequences for what the Los Angeles Times is today calling the opportunity for a perfect global economic storm, means that all bets are off.
We are hostage to a string of events, which may yet include an avian flu outbreak, over which we have bugger all control, even where carriers are well managed and passably profitable.
I know you as quite an informative poster so perhaps you could help me on that: do you believe/knoz if the windows were shrunk down and what their actual size is?
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7191 times:
Glacote,
I'm no where near as informed as a hard core of posters on this forum, since I only spend a small amount of time reviewing the air transport sector.
I was referring to the larger windows on the 787 which are apparently made possible by the characteristics of the reinforced carbon fibre structure of the main cabin fuselage. I believe they are around 33% larger in area than those on an MD-11 which some posters have said are the largest currently seen in contemporary jet airliners. They certainly look very attractive to me in everything I have seen or read about them.
My understanding is that the windows on the A380 are identical or near identical in dimension to those on current Airbus wide-bodies.
From the point of view of a frequent traveller, I expect the A380 and 787 will be the designs that bring the greatest improvement to general flight amenity to the market in the next decade at least. Sure, airlines can wreck a good design by cramming in too many seats. But on the A380 I'll be trying the premium product, and on the 787 it would not surprise me if I find a greatly improved experience on Qantas Cityflyer services even in economy should the airline choose the 787-3 version for Australian domestic routes.
I'm with the majority in anticipating that they will order the 787-9 for medium capacity long haul routes, and that they will use the jet to avoid Sydney and Melbourne wherever possible, since these airports have strong originating passenger markets and it is inefficient as well as inconvenient to use them as hubs for feeding international routes, especially in Sydney for reasons of layout and slot scarcity in coming years.
My guess is that the 787-9 will both do long range flights like Brisbane to San Francisco, and connecting flights to external A380 hubs, so for example, you might fly Adelaide-Hong Kong or Bangkok in one for the purpose of connecting to a flight to London on an A380.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6834 times:
Quoting Antares (Reply 2): I've since learned the airline is confident of a 20 per cent lower per seat cost than a 744 on its key high capacity routes, and a 30 per cent lower per seat cost than promised by the 787-9 and the less-than-final figures being offered for a comparable sized A350.
How many seats on the 787, fifty? Doubt the A380 has a 30 percent lower seat cost with everything being equal (787-9 can probably carry more revenue cargo then the A380).
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6700 times:
Shenzen,
I've learned that despite the wisdom I find on this forum, the airlines are generally even wiser.
I have no doubts whatsoever about the Qantas analysis, bearing in mind with caution that of the three jets were are discussing, only the A380 is actually flying, while the specifications of the other two seem to be less than firmly set in concrete.
Spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6548 times:
Quoting Antares (Reply 2): I've since learned the airline is confident of a 20 per cent lower per seat cost than a 744 on its key high capacity routes, and a 30 per cent lower per seat cost than promised by the 787-9 and the less-than-final figures being offered for a comparable sized A350.
This I find hard to believe...
From data shown here, the 787 has a max fuel of 35000 gallons.
The 380 is at ~80000 gallons.
The 787-9 holds 259 people.
The 380 holds 550 people.
The 787-9 cost ~125 million.
The 380 costs ~230 million.
Probably a bad assumption, but assume that both need max fuel for max pax, the 787 should have ~8% lower fuel burn per seat.
Purchase price per seat is ~15% higher for the 787-9.
Maintenance should be roughly similar on a per seat basis. 2 engines vs 4, etc.
I find it very hard to believe the 30% figure is true. 10-15% I could believe but 30 just seems off.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6505 times:
Spink,
You have my sympathy over this. Until recently we didn't even believe the A380 could fly. Now it seems to be flying better than expected. Qantas must know something.
On the other hand, I do think it will choose the 787-9 and -3 as well as buy even more A380s than it has on order or option.
My main concern however is that external factors seriously threaten the industry, no matter how good the jets. We can look at New Orleans as just a huge personal catastrophe that has left me shaken to the core like everyone i suppose, or we can look beyond at how an environmental problem of global proportions needs urgent resolution to lower the abnormal trend in surface water temperatures that feeds the energy of these storms beyond the usual parameters.
SKA380 From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6310 times:
How this thread went from the A380's range, to hurricane discussion is beyond me..
However, according to the great circle mapper, HKG to LAX is 6300 NM, so this shouldn't be any problem.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5994 times:
SKA380,
I'm to blame. In discussing the A380 I mentioned my concern that, in a nutshell, the performance of new jets comes uder the shadow of serious events. These can be talked about in terms of fuel, they should be talked about in terms of the human toll, which is appalling, and they expose us to a global environmental issue, which ultimately will have profound consequences for all human activity, including flight.
Coming back to the A380, Qantas at least seems prepared to say it is doing everything it promised to do, except get delivered on time.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5513 times:
Quoting Antares (Reply 11): I have no doubts whatsoever about the Qantas analysis, bearing in mind with caution that of the three jets were are discussing, only the A380 is actually flying, while the specifications of the other two seem to be less than firmly set in concrete.
Whilst someone at Qantas should know what they are doing, it doesn't appear to be the ones you are talking too.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5363 times:
Quoting Spink (Reply 14): This I find hard to believe...
From data shown here, the 787 has a max fuel of 35000 gallons.
The 380 is at ~80000 gallons.
The 787-9 holds 259 people.
The 380 holds 550 people.
The 787-9 cost ~125 million.
The 380 costs ~230 million.
Didn't you know, Qantas pays more for fuel that they will put in the 787, they will have 10 times as many flight attendants, and pay them 10 times what they are paid on the A380, and of course the flight crew for the 787 will make 400 percent more then when they are flying the A380, and Qantas will carry 8 crews, just to be safe.
So.. you can share all the numbers you want.. but at Qantas, it doesn't mean anything. LOL
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1791 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4624 times:
Quoting Spink (Reply 7): Probably a bad assumption, but assume that both need max fuel for max pax, the 787 should have ~8% lower fuel burn per seat.
I don't think aircraft can be compared in quite that way. The A380 will undoubtedly hold more first and business class passengers (high revenue generators on long haul) than a 787, plus as many economy passengers as a 787 can carry in all economy configuration. In the end, I guess it would be more effective to compare planes in terms of dollars and cents than gallons of fuel. Besides, in this case it is comparing apples to oranges because the 787 was designed for thin mid to long-range routes while the A380 was designed for high density, long-range routes.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
Quoting SKA380 (Reply 9): How this thread went from the A380's range, to hurricane discussion is beyond me..
However, according to the great circle mapper, HKG to LAX is 6300 NM, so this shouldn't be any problem.
It's been said times and times again planes do NOT fly great circle. You can add 100Nm ATC SID/STAR/holding/vectoring each end immediately.
Other factors include cleared ATC routing, ATC cost, wind, weather avoidance, traffic level.
For example a 50knot headwind = extra 600Nm over a 12 hour cruise. You can ask for a different FL or if you divert from this norminal track to avoid the headwind you add track distance on GCD. It a balancing act. GC Mapper is only a guide. You ALWAYS end up flying 200/300Nm further at least (for longhauls).
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3042 times:
Shenzen,
The people we speak to in Qantas are running the airline.
While the financial community is at times critical of their performance and decisions, and the reviewing their performance is part of the open manner in which we dissect companies that take our clients money as shareholders or passengers, we don't think they are fools.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2839 times:
The people we speak to in Qantas are running the airline.
While the financial community is at times critical of their performance and decisions, and the reviewing their performance is part of the open manner in which we dissect companies that take our clients money as shareholders or passengers, we don't think they are fools.
Antares
If you are being told by someone at Qantas that the A380 has a 30 percent seat advantage over the 787-900, and you repeat this as fact here based on nothing, well you are foolish...
Yes, I knew a guy who's sister once talked to a girl who's cousin...
Your information just isn't believable..... sorry.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 18): Is this a trick question? I wasn't aware that SIA flew from HKG to LAX. If they did, I'm sure that Cathay would have something to say about it...
Well, it, sort of, is a trick question: SQ does not fly HKG-LAX (or at least I wasn't able to find any flight).. what they do fly is HKG-SFO (SQ002).
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, RR: 65 Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2746 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 19): Well, it, sort of, is a trick question: SQ does not fly HKG-LAX (or at least I wasn't able to find any flight).. what they do fly is HKG-SFO (SQ002). The LAX flight is TPE-LAX (SQ030).
Hah! Waddya know...? Thanks. But I suppose SIA's main concern is not HKG to the US but SIN. Can the A380 do SIN-LAX?
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Not at a full payload it can't, and was never intended to.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2722 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 21): Not at a full payload it can't, and was never intended to.
SQ's 380's will be around 450+/-. However, according to the people on the 4th floor, there is some serious concern about the winter payload on the SFO-HKG flights.
However, a more representative distance for the SFO-HKG flight would be more in the vicinity of 6200NM. That distance is calculated using the great circle distance to the ANC area and then the NOPAC routes. In reality, the distance will be a little longer because of the departure and arrival routing.
However the real problem comes about during the winter where there are 150Knot winds along a substantial part of the route. Just having those winds will add another 600NM to the "air distance".
Now depending on the alternates required, there is a real possibility of having to leave payload behind. Not quite what was planned when the 380 was ordered!
JoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 559 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2477 times:
If u are interested in continue the global warming discussion this thread had generated u can go to this forum
Hope in an active discussion.
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 5): Doubt the A380 has a 30 percent lower seat cost with everything being equal
Me too but
Quoting Antares (Reply 8): Until recently we didn't even believe the A380 could fly. Now it seems to be flying better than expected. Qantas must know something.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6717 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 559 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
