Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?  
User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 594 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17634 times:

Someone on the orders group posted that LH technical folks are saying that thet fuel burn is 10% more than advertised. Anyone know this to be true??

Here's the quote.

"fuel burn is supposed to be about 10% higher than
what Airbus promised airlines. It is currently at 3.2
L/passenger/100km, instead of at 2.9 L/passenger/100km (at least that
is what Lufthansa is currently estimating)."

UAL747-600

186 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17497 times:

Quoting UAL747-600 (Thread starter):
Someone on the orders group posted that LH technical folks are saying that thet fuel burn is 10% more than advertised. Anyone know this to be true??

Here's the quote.

"fuel burn is supposed to be about 10% higher than
what Airbus promised airlines. It is currently at 3.2
L/passenger/100km, instead of at 2.9 L/passenger/100km (at least that
is what Lufthansa is currently estimating)."

First time I'm hearing of this. . . do you have a link? Where did you find this little snippet?


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17454 times:

Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17403 times:

The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.


User currently offline7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17238 times:

If it was true, then they might as well shut the program down  Big grin


The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17238 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

How is fuel burn calculated?



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17171 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

and 10% would be on target, as LH is looking at 505+ pax

Bx/500=By/555, Bx/By=555/505=1.1



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 17171 times:

If there was even a glimmer of truth to this rumor, then I suspect we'd have seen a reaction by the airlines by now. I can't give this any credibility. Sorry.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The fuel burn figure is evidently from internal LH sources, so even if it is an accurate figure, we don't know the context.

As Scorpio noted, this figure may be what LH is calculating for their ~500-seat config vs. what Airbus calculated for the "base" 555-seat config. Since there are no A380s in flight test with an LH configuration aboard, these figures have to be computer modeled on LH's part.

Also, since LH F is "lighter" then SQ F on a per-person basis (being paired seats instead of individual suites), LH can't directly apply the flight-test numbers from the airframe with SQ's internal seating config. (I am guessing the frame currently flying with an interior is SQ's? Or are they using a "boutique" interior like Boeing sometime does before final delivery?)

So I would not be quick to assume that the A380 in "passenger trim" is going to be 10% less fuel efficient then the customers were told for their individual configs.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17066 times:

Quoting Max999 (Reply 5):
How is fuel burn calculated?

As said in the thread opener: per seat, and per 100km


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16950 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..

Actually, that's what Airbus has claimed. Only time will tell.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16839 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..

I readed that to just dont remember where.  scratchchin 

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout

 point  Thats right! I couldnt agree more  Smile



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16803 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
since LH F is "lighter" then SQ F on a per-person basis (being paired seats instead of individual suites), LH can't directly apply the flight-test numbers from the airframe with SQ's internal seating config. (I am guessing the frame currently flying with an interior is SQ's? Or are they using a "boutique" interior like Boeing sometime does before final delivery?)

Have you seen the new LH F seats? I don't think they're public yet. No, the aircraft currently flying do not have real airline interiors fitted. They have drums of water fitted to simulate various loads.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
So I would not be quick to assume that the A380 in "passenger trim" is going to be 10% less fuel efficient then the customers were told for their individual configs.

It's clear that the WhaleJet does not suffer a 10% fuel efficiency deficit. I would have trouble believing anything over 2%.

However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16761 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

Huh? So you're claiming LH only puts 505 passengers in because of the OEW? Do you have anything that backs that up, as I'm having an extremely hard time believing that...


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16643 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

Correct regarding the fuel consumption issue and correct as to the comment as to how bad rumors get started.

Quoting A332 (Reply 11):
Typical Boeing fanatic trying to stir the pot... nothing more.

That is really not fair - there have been comments and information suggesting that the fuel burn on the A380 is 10% higher that projected - I have seen these comments. And, on the most simple (and incorrect) computation, is almost correct....if you dont factor in the very important element of the number of seats that will be on the aircraft. Airbus (and Boeing to a certain extent) dont base their numbers on "real-life" pax configurations as used by most tier one international carriers.....555 pax sounds real good on an A380, but in real life SQ or LH or QF cannot and will not fit that many seats into the airplane due to their premium cabins. If an airline configures its A380 with 500 instead of 555 seats, thats a 10% decrease in seating which means a 10% increase in per seat costs. This is not Airbus bashing, this is statistics being mis-used and mis-analzyed.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):

It's clear that the WhaleJet does not suffer a 10% fuel efficiency deficit. I would have trouble believing anything over 2%.

However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

The OEW is a whole other issue - any solid info on this?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16596 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 15):
So you're claiming LH only puts 505 passengers in because of the OEW?

No, I have claimed no such thing. Decisions about cabin configuration are much more complicated than that. LH might still put in 505 seats if the OEW were 12 tonnes lighter or 12 tonnes heavier. Or they might not. There are many variables involved. However, a 505 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 3.2 lt/pax/100km would be consistent with a 555 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 2.9 lt/pax/100km.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
Have you seen the new LH F seats? I don't think they're public yet. No, the aircraft currently flying do not have real airline interiors fitted. They have drums of water fitted to simulate various loads.

No I have not, as I was not aware they planned to install a new style of First Class cabin (but then I admit that I do not follow LH closely). My comments are based on LH's and SQ's current F cabin (and I do know SQ is said to be launching a new cabin with the A380 and 773ER).

Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.


User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16527 times:

If this was true, Clark and others would b all over it and as we've seen lately, Clark doesn't reserve his negative comments.

Scoropio probably said it best. First time ever I agreed with his comments  biggrin 


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16471 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
No, I have claimed no such thing.

No? Then what else does this mean:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
However, a 505 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 3.2 lt/pax/100km would be consistent with a 555 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 2.9 lt/pax/100km.

That's what has already been said before. I still don't see what that has to do with the rise in OEW.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16362 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.

I thought I saw a pic somewhere of an A380 with various interior fittings....differerent versions of F/J/Y seating on both levels. I have no idea is this was a complete installation or was in any representative of what the airlines are putting on to their aircraft.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16301 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 20):
...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

He did not say "and this is why LH is only using 505."

Get off it.

He is saying that to fly 8000nm, you could only fit the cabin with 505 seats, not 555 seats. It has nothing to do with what any particular airline will do with the planes.

But, as you can see, most carriers ARE only doing 510 or fewer and this might indeed be in part because of the range tradeoff 550 seats would require. Other reasons, of course, are premium ratio, luxury and amenities, and the fact that 555 is not a real number as it assumes 62" F seats and 40" J seats, just like Boeing and all other Airbus planes use a baseline that isn't real world.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16301 times:

If it's true, the news couldn't be coming at a worse time for them. Better check the source.....


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16140 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):

The OEW is a whole other issue - any solid info on this?

The general rumors have been floating around the industry for years. I've only been hearing concrete numbers in the last few months. I waited to post anything about it (since it's just a rumor), but now Widebodyphotog has updated his charts with the same number I've been hearing, so I think it's fairly reliable now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.

It's not an actual airline configuration. It's just for testing by Airbus.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 20):
...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

I was just trying to point out the consistency. Fuel consumption depends on OEW. If one were to remove 50 seats and passengers from a given configuration, it would lower the fuel consumption. It appears the fuel consumption (total, not per passenger) has stayed the same, which implies the TOW has stayed the same. That could be explained by an increase in OEW that matches the decrease in passenger weight. We don't have enough information to say for sure that's the case, but it is consistent with everything we do know.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15997 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
He did not say "and this is why LH is only using 505."

Why else relate the two? No matter what he meant, the sentence I quote, and which caused the confusion, relates things that shouldn't be related, e.g. the 3.2 figure being a result of the OEW increase and thus, on the whole, makes little sense.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
He is saying that to fly 8000nm, you could only fit the cabin with 505 seats, not 555 seats.

Has this ever been confirmed by Airbus, or by any airline, i.e. that the plane will not be able to carry a full load as far as Airbus said it could? Because that would mean the plane is underperforming, and I haven't seen any crdible sources claim that...


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15997 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 10):

Actually, that's what Airbus has claimed. Only time will tell.

Khobar, that isn't what Airbus has claimed..those are numbers which I've read from different sources..

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):

I readed that to just dont remember where

I've read in various places such as flightinternational.com, etc..in fact, I have a .pdf file somewhere stating that though the plane is still 2.5% above OEW, because of the fact the SFC is better than originally planned, the A380 is making its "numbers"...what that means, I can't say..but it does seem that the fuel burn is better than "expected".

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 24):
The general rumors have been floating around the industry for years. I've only been hearing concrete numbers in the last few months. I waited to post anything about it (since it's just a rumor), but now Widebodyphotog has updated his charts with the same number I've been hearing, so I think it's fairly reliable now.

are you refering to this?

http://theaviationspecialist.com/747adv_vs_a388.gif



"Up the Irons!"
25 Brendows : Together with less thirsty engines, fuel consumption is also lower due to a lower than expected drag IIRC.
26 Mham001 : Well, we can quote various sources that are quoting Airbus, but are there any real independent sources? Given recent history, I wouldn't believe much
27 Post contains links Leelaw : MSN 002 has a 474 seat cabin. Perhaps MSN 007 will have denser fit-out. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...trip+with+474+passengers+this.html
28 ANstar : If it were true then we would have seen more airlines cancelling. To date no one has cancelled an A380 order.
29 A342 : How old is that file ? IIRC Airbus has solved the weight issue now. For about half a year, we haven't heard about the 569-tonne MTOW which was consid
30 PolymerPlane : Nothing to confirm. Zvezda was under the impression that the actual airline configuration OEW would be heavier than the airbus typical OEW. If you se
31 GEnxPower : 10% in any situation is a pretty big miss, especially in the aviation industry. If it was true, I reckon alot more noise and reaction from customers,
32 Post contains images FXramper : They could just tug the a/c all the way out to the active for take-off?
33 GPS787 : So I am confused...if fuel burn is airline airplane configuration specific and will vary due to the number of seats a airline puts into an aircraft (a
34 Post contains images A342 : But seriously, at airports with 30-mins takeoff queues, this could be a way of saving fuel, for all aircraft.
35 Jacobin777 : 2006...and its within the "range" according to Charles Champion...
36 Aerosol : I read the 3,2 L number as well. But I forgot if it was Spiegel or FAZ. They said LH corrected the number from 2,9l to 3,2l per pax per seat. By the w
37 AirMailer : Or... It might have had a lid put on it, and some elaborate cause for the delay concocted so as to hide the real reason for the delay while they engi
38 Scorpio : The airline (LH in this case) didn't express anything. Most likely someone saw the LH number, compared it to Airbus' typical configuration number, an
39 Astuteman : If you actually call this "news", then it's VERY old news - this stuff has been circulating for at least a year IIRC. Regards
40 GPS787 : The thread starter mentioned an airline "quote" and several other posters have expressed hearing the "same" like-type comments from diverse parties w
41 EbbUK : Oh how I want this to be so wrong, but the way news of a380 has come to public notice, it cannot be discounted. Now sensisble thing for Airbus to do
42 Scorpio : Actually, he posted something he himself had seen posted by someone who had heard it from someone who worked for Lufthansa. That's hardly an 'airline
43 Katekebo : My two cents.... 10% difference in fuel burn would be a disaster, and if this was true, there would be a major uproar from the airlines already. Given
44 Post contains links Khobar : I've only seen regurgitation of what Airbus is claiming. As an example: "A380, which completed its ninth test flight over the weekend, has exceeded i
45 Zvezda : They may very well be related. I believe they are, though I don't know that they are. This is clear from Airbus' Z-chart. You're right. I think I cou
46 Scorpio : Does that take into account the A380's apparent lower than expected fuel consumption we've been hearing about?
47 Ruscoe : That assumes the airlines having been notified. The Airlines seemed very surprised by delays, rumours of which were floating around here before it be
48 Zvezda : The fuel burn affects the Z-chart, of course. Given a Z-chart, it's easy to see the nature of the payload/range tradeoff required by an increase in O
49 SunriseValley : This whole program seems to have been "dogged" by sub-standard communication with the future operators. Assuming that the purchasers thus far all hav
50 Jacobin777 : " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....=1136 ok..I've read that also, but I've read from other sources about the engines performing we
51 Jetfuel : I think we will see operators putting 550 seats in their 380's (whenever they get them) to make them profitable. I dont think Airbus ever thought airl
52 Dougloid : Scorpio, take published information from the available sources and do a weight analysis just like a weight engineer does. Get out your AC43-13 and st
53 Stitch : With the pushback in deliveries, it will be interesting to see if an airline's "Year 3" frame has the same interior config as their "Year 1" frame.
54 Khobar : As others have mentioned, cancellations would depend on whether the airlines in question have been made aware of the fuel burn or not and whether Air
55 Dutchjet : Sorry, but Airbus knew, or should have known, that airlines would not put 555 seats into an A380, just like most carriers do not put 425 seats into a
56 Hotelbravo : I would turn this around and say that airlines have never put such heavy premium seats, lounge areas, coffee tables, etc... than they seem to have wi
57 Post contains images Jacobin777 : that's what I've been saying.. Airbus knew basically no one would be putting in bowling alleys, swimming pools, etc. on the A380...however, SQ is pla
58 Post contains links UAL747-600 : Here's the link I mentioned above from the poster in the orders group. It's in german so would someone give us a translation. http://www.spiegel.de/wi
59 Post contains links Mham001 : Here is the source of the rumor(in German): http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,422311,00.html
60 B707Stu : I'm curious, how many new orders for the A380 has Airbus received since January of this year? That maybe an indicator of a trend too. I read earlier
61 Dougloid : Here's the translation courtesy of Babelfish....the important part. But the emergency with the A380 is much larger: The airplane is too heavily, used
62 Dougloid : Will somebody do a better job of translation? Aber die Not mit dem A380 ist viel größer: Das Flugzeug ist nach Expertenmeinung zu schwer, verbraucht
63 Zvezda : Are you suggesting that Airbus didn't promote such configurations and that the airlines kept their configuration plans secret from Airbus? This is be
64 Jacobin777 : thanx for the translation... if true (big if), that would be a bit damaging for the A380 program....that being said, I'll believe it when I see it...
65 WingedMigrator : For the record, the respective brochure layouts are as follows: B748I: 82" F / 39" J / 32" Y A388: 69" F / 48" J / 32" Y
66 Ikramerica : And that doesn't reflect reality.
67 Zvezda : 58" seems to be the minimum for new installations of international business class. Some are considerably greater.
68 Post contains images Astuteman : I've never seen one shred of evidence to back up that statement anywhere. AFAIK, every airline that I've heard comment (NW,SQ,QF amongst them)knows t
69 Rheinbote : Feel free to blame MEW on the manufacturer, but the culprit for excessive OEW typically is the airline. Manufacturers will 'invest' several hundred $
70 Scouseflyer : In the first 5 months (to end of May) they've booked about 105 orders so thyey're on target but no they haven't booked any A380s this year so far. I
71 RichardPrice : " target=_blank>http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1....html Speigal have run that quote before, it came up in a few a.net threads about 12 - 18 month
72 Scorpio : You mean the trend that in the time between first flight and service entry sales take a slump? That trend's been around for years. Look at the 777: B
73 RichardPrice : The A380 has more orders on book than the 747 has had in 7 years total, is that indicative of a trend as well?
74 Leelaw : I'm not sure these two instances are entirely comparable, as the overall market conditions were very different. During the early ninties the industry
75 Post contains links B707Stu : Actually they did and here's the quote (and the link): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ness_a380_flight_trials/html/8.stm Order book China Sou
76 B707Stu : So my question still stands. How many orders have Airbus gotten this year? Based on their projections they should have 175-180 new orders by this tim
77 Post contains links B707Stu : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5109146.stm In case you're having difficulty getting the quote, go to this page, look under "In Pictures", it's th
78 RichardPrice : I think you are confusing things. On that page, the information is as follows: 1. total number to break even over the 40 year livecycle of the A380 i
79 B707Stu : Oh, ok... that makes more sense. but i don't understand this then... "Airbus, which is already the world's largest aerospace company, says it will nee
80 RichardPrice : Its been answered several times, incase you hadnt noticed, and several other aircraft have been pointed to with the same trend - large initial sales,
81 Leelaw : To date in 2006 Airbus hasn't sold any A380s.
82 Dougloid : All commentary gratefully accepted and I shall review and update if it is warranted. My old boss, who still does this stuff for a living looked at my
83 Lumberton : I know this will likely ignite the firestorm again, but isn't the BEP closer to 300?
84 Zvezda : Airbus officials have acknowledged (even before the 3rd delay) that the 250 figure is no longer possible. With the cost overruns, three delays (only
85 RichardPrice : The 250 figure has been quoted in several places, including on the page linked to above and on several documentaries. I dont think Airbus has ever pu
86 RichardPrice : Links? Quotes?
87 Scorpio : ??? Are you seeing a different article than me? I don't see any mention of Airbus saying they expect to sell 250-300 A380s this year... Because you d
88 Zvezda : No, we know that number is old and that a lot has changed since then which would necessarily drive up the number. It's not that difficult to extrapol
89 B707Stu : Do you know the flow of the orders as far as years? I'm curious, no need to be defensive, just trying to understand the A380 market and how the sales
90 RichardPrice : It was quoted as recently as 2005, so its not that old. And its easy to extrapolate any way you want, to prove any point you want, which is why we ge
91 Post contains links Khobar : "EADS joint chairman Philippe Camus said the A380 project would reach a break-even point when more than 300 planes were sold, if the dollar remained
92 RichardPrice : Thankyou, thats all I was asking for - when you refute an already posted number, make sure that you can back it up when asked - 'go find it yourself'
93 Zvezda : Thank you Khobar! So the 300+ number predates all three of the WhaleJet delays. It's very difficult to imagine a scenario now where it could be under
94 Dutchjet : Let be honest, Airbus itself does not know what the exact break even point is for the A380 program at this moment....the issue of compensation for th
95 Elvis777 : Howdy all, Yeah I agree that the number is probably closer to 350-400 frams fro break even. Although, if a european govt. decides to 'forgive' an eads
96 Post contains images Stitch : Well said, Dutchjet.
97 Ikramerica : B has sold 126 747s since Jan 2000. I was actually surprised the number was so high. The A380 has barely outsold it in that time as a new frame, but
98 AirMailer : Does that include this weeks 6? I didn't see that on the orders page when I looked yesterday.
99 Post contains images Leelaw : As I pointed-out in my Reply #76, I don't think this theory has much merit. Specifically, in the case of the 777, which is repeatedly trotted-out as
100 Leelaw : Again, IMO, those are poor examples as well because the industry was experiencing another significant economic downturn during that period. I'm not s
101 Post contains images RichardPrice : So out of 8 new design aircraft launched by the two major companies in the past 25 years or so, examples of 4 of them having bad sales prior to EIS a
102 Post contains links Scorpio : Boeing / McDD sold over 270 planes that year. While those aren't bumper sales, they're not poor either... It's clear that the 'trepidation' is most c
103 Zvezda : Up to this point, I agree completely. I'm not sure this is true. Prior to the B747-8 and B787-10, the business case for the WhaleJet was weak. Now I
104 Astuteman : If my memory serves me, the 300 figure corresponded to the published increase from $10.5Bn - $12.7Bn when the first 6 - 8 month delay was declared la
105 Leelaw : For which specific time are period are you measuring combined sales? In general, the airlines weren't doing well financially in the period 1980-1983.
106 Zvezda : Sorry, no. Have a look at the dates in the citations provided by Khobar. That would make sense if your recollection of the timing of the 300 number w
107 Rheinbote : While I generally admire your insight and style, you are wrong on this one. Apart from that, the whole A380 break-even discussion is something like a
108 Scorpio : Total sales are for 1982. The zero number for the 767 is for the September 1981 - August 1982 period, 757 for January - December 1982. In both cases
109 Post contains images Astuteman : Which, funnily enough, was about to form part of my answer to Zvezda Nevertheless, it is still possible to discuss A380 break-even in isolation, whil
110 B707Stu : Are the 757 and 767 money makers for Boeing? If you're to compare those sales, based on the timeframes against the A380, what's the prognosis for the
111 AirMailer : Zvezda, I agree, disagree, and then agree with you again. Let's see if I can make sense... Based on it's current pace I'm sure that the A380 will be
112 AirMailer : After that, compare the A380 to the 717. Tell me what you find. What would that trend lead you to believe?
113 RichardPrice : There are always going to be hubs required, because there are always going to be airports from which there will never be a yield for certain routes t
114 Scorpio : They most certainly used to be (757 is out of production, 767 running at a trickle nowadays) with sales of over 1000 and over 900 respectively. First
115 AirMailer : You mean like the 737-700ER?
116 RichardPrice : Sorry, I meant to type '7,000nm' - slightly more realistic for the topic being discussed.
117 AirMailer : Richard, I completely agree with you about the mix of both big and small aircraft. but I think that the mix will stay around even after the advent of
118 Zvezda : If Airbus ever stretch the WhaleJet (big IF) then I'm sure we could count on it having lower CASM than the B747-8 SuperJumbo or the B787-10. However,
119 Leelaw : Let's review. I made a specific argument why I thought that the case history of 777 didn't fit neatly into the "rule of thumb" that you (and others o
120 Post contains images Scorpio : Dude, seriously, you have way too much time on your hands...
121 Elvis777 : Time usage is a personal choice. Something about free will or lots of money... (there are other possibilities). Anyways, He is right. Elvis777
122 B707Stu : Is it possible that with all the bad press that Airbus is receiving that people are shy to order the aircraft until they see it actually operate? Wha
123 Ruscoe : Nice post Leelaw, just one thought; I was around at the time but I cannot remember if there was concern about 747 reaching its performance guarantees
124 Post contains images Revelation : And you can also determine that Airbus's failure to deliver the A380 in the time frame it committed to will make customers reluctant to buy from them
125 A342 : So how didn't the A342 meet its performance guarantees ? Judging only from its low sales does ignore other aspects: Better A343 versions simply made
126 Stitch : I am sure current A380 customers are waiting to exercise more options and potential A380 customers are waiting to place orders until they see how the
127 Astuteman : Which will be without doubt a short term phenomenon........... Regards
128 Post contains images Jacobin777 : in other words, "correlation doesn't mean causation"...
129 Ikramerica : The 757 is pretty interesting because it was not a strong seller at first. Though Boeing wanted to sell it as a family with the 767, many 767 operato
130 Scorpio : Not meant as an insult, just expressing my surprise that he spent so much time working out such a detailed theory over a simple argument. Lighten up.
131 Zvezda : Which is impossible for such a small data set.
132 B707Stu : This makes more sense than anything else I've read. Sort of like purchasing a computer, if you need one immediately you purchase now, if you can wait
133 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Evanescent. If it was effervescent orders would be rolling in The big-ticket development costs for the A389 are mostly borne by the A388F, at least f
134 Astuteman : You're right. It won't. Regards
135 Post contains images Zvezda : I meant effervescent in the sense of gaseous rather than solid. Evanescent is right too, and perhaps better.
136 Ruscoe : According to the 6-12 June Flight International, the 748 will use 2.6L/100km/pax. This is really bad news for Airbus if it turns out to be true, with
137 B707Stu : What is it for the A380 and its derivitives, please? Another thing I'm curious about is the seating capacity against fuel consumption for each aircra
138 Ruscoe : Don't know if I can completely answer your question, but I would bet that the Boeing figure is for the Max seating, and should therefore be compared w
139 Zvezda : That's for the 450 seat proposal right? It would be 2.4L for the new 500 seat proposal. First, using manufacturer assumptions about seating and OEW:
140 Lumberton : Zvezda, if these numbers are verified by flight testing, the 748I could be a very successful derivative. Personally, I think we'll see some orders at
141 Zvezda : Keep in mind that the difference in CASM between the SuperJumbo and the WhaleJet will not be as great as the the difference in fuel burn. The fuel bu
142 Ruscoe : Could you explain this for me Zvezda. Thanks Ruscoe
143 Zvezda : Sure. Fuel is only one component of CASM. With current oil prices, fuel accounts for roughly 40 to 50% of CASM. The next largest part is labour. Depr
144 Post contains images Leelaw : You're a lucky man Ruscoe...my electronic edition of this week's FI arrived with only Page 8 included.
145 WINGS : I'm going to say this once again, like I have said many previous times. The A388 is the first of many derivatives, while the B747 is reaching the end
146 Zvezda : That remains to be seen. That's a big IF. Given WhaleJet sales so far, Airbus will have a tough time convincing the engine manufacturers (or anyone e
147 WINGS : I'm not accustomed to read such pessimism in regards to the A380 from your part. Even though the A380 has misse delivery targets they still have an i
148 Post contains images Zvezda : I'm not taking it for granted either way. I think that's nearer to cynicism than pessimism. What's the difference? That one makes no sense whatsoever
149 Post contains links Leelaw : David Sutton of FedEx (at least last year) is hot on the idea: FedEx outlines its A380F fleet expansion strategy Package carrier reveals likely sched
150 Stitch : But almost every current A380 customer currently operates the 747, so I imagine the costs of adding the 748 into their fleet would be much cheaper an
151 Zvezda : Sure, small package carriers would like it. However, one cannot build a stretch just for them -- especially after they've already bought the base mod
152 AirMailer : ... and don't forget, the other small package carrier (UPS) bought 10 A380s and 8 744Fs. Both UPS and FedEx as I recall have been scooping up much of
153 Leelaw : Well, Tim Clark of EK has also said he's always really wanted the A389 as well; between FX, EK and perhaps UPS there might have been a sufficient nuc
154 Zvezda : Freighter?!??!?
155 Leelaw : Perhaps I should elaborate. I had the opportunity to speak briefly with Mr. Sutton at the Cargo Facts Conference last year. He thought the A389 pax,
156 WINGS : Zvezda, the way that you make it sound is if the A380 will not evolve in any way or form from the first A388/A388F derivatives. I seriously believe t
157 AirMailer : How many? I mean only 3 customers get the A380 in 2007. I'm sure that those customers want a large portion of the deliveries in 2008, so how many new
158 Zvezda : It might or it might not. Sales so far don't provide a lot of basis for optimism. I'm sure FedEx would love it, but would they love it enough to pay
159 Post contains links WINGS : 2006 = 1 2007 = 9 2008 = 26 2009 = 40 Expected Total: 76 Frames (note: the lowest possible number of deliveries) http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles
160 Zvezda : A fourth schedule slip isn't possible? It's not expected, but I wouldn't call it impossible. A cancellation or deferal isn't possible? We've already
161 WINGS : Well Zveza, Ill respect your point of view, even though I don't agree with it. 159 Firm orders 70 Options Total: 229 Frames (all this before entry in
162 WINGS : Yes it's possible. True If an order was to be deferred, I would not worry too much, as other airlines are more than willing to jump onboard that chan
163 Ikramerica : I don't believe they will deliver 76 frames by the end of 2009. I predict it will more like 60, as a maximum.
164 Stitch : For those airlines who are doing 1:1 swaps of A380s for 747s (VS, for example), then I agree that adding the 748 into that mix would probably not be
165 A342 : I think both improvements (range and new engines etc.) will be made at the same time, also with the A389. And that assumption is based on what ? When
166 AirMailer : Wings, That didn't answer the question. I know what the schedule of frames are, but who are those frames going to? 2007 = 9 = 3 carriers (QF, SQ, EK)
167 Post contains links WINGS : What's your theory to support this? Highly doubt that Airbus just managed to gather up this number without analysing the situation first. http://www.
168 AirMailer : They operate the bussiest airport in the world yet they are short sighted? I believe that they actually made the case that it wouldn't be cost effect
169 AirMailer : You left off UPS' orders for 744s.
170 WINGS : I doubt that anyone can answer it at this present time. Currently negotiations are still continuing as to who will be getting various A380 slots. Wha
171 Zvezda : I think that's 9 total for 2006-2007. In other words, 9 promised by the end of 2007 including the first one for SQ.
172 WINGS : I'm sorry AirMailer, but I think Ive lost you. What do you mean I left out UPS? If you look closely I wrote for sure . Maybe I should have worded it
173 Post contains links WINGS : Don't think so Zvezda. EADS's warning stems from yesterday's announcement that Airbus's A380 delivery schedule will be revised again and pushed back
174 AirMailer : Well, that's progress. 1 frame down, 25 to go until we can speculate better. So now we have: 2007 = 9 = 3 carriers ([3]QF, [3]SQ, [3]EK) 2008 = 26 =
175 AirMailer : Wings, Sorry for any confusion. I was trying to point out that UPS ordered 6 744Fs after they changed their order to 10 A388s.
176 A342 : I'm confused. IIRC thy made the bridges over the new rwy A380-capable, but then they say no to the A380. If this is their strategy, yes, then it's ma
177 B707Stu : I'm confused. Then I'm to believe Boeing wouldn't keep the 747 program active and continually updated or have a replacement program that would compet
178 Zvezda : Yes, Airbus assumed they could replace all the B747-400s. Clearly, this is not going to be the case. Airbus also assumed that nearly all of the 210 a
179 AirMailer : I'm not sure that you understand the projects going on at ATL right now. The 5th runway is likely to be the last runway that they can EVER put in. Of
180 Stitch : I imagine that would not be the case if you plan to continue to operate 744s in addition to your new A388s, as the 748 offers better economics then t
181 Dougloid : Be it remembered, the total fuel burn per klick divided by the payload carried is the only figure of importance here unless we're comparing structura
182 B707Stu : This makes sense and perhaps explains why the A380, with the delays, allows Boeing to 'catch up' with the 748I. I really do think Airbus should repla
183 Dougloid : What I'm saying is the only relevant index of efficiency is cost per aircraft seat mile when that seat is occupied by a paying passenger. If you have
184 A342 : Thanks for explaining this. The problem is that some airlines would like an aircraft only slightly bigger than their current 744s. If the 748 has 500
185 SunriseValley : Dougloid, please help me get my head around what you have just said. My understanding is that MZFW is the sum of max payload plus operating empty wei
186 Dougloid : I guess what I meant to say was "if you have reached zfw and there are still empty seats or cargo space" ZFW is fixed and it is a structural limit. H
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Fuel Burn Better Than Expected posted Wed May 25 2005 08:41:11 by Jacobin777
777-200LR Fuel Burn 20% Lower Than A340-500? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 17:56:13 by Slarty
A380 Delay Costs Higher Than Expected posted Fri Jul 28 2006 00:32:37 by Katekebo
A345 And 772LR Fuel Burn. posted Tue Sep 19 2006 15:00:23 by Angelairways
A320 Series Winglets Improve Fuel Burn posted Sun Jun 18 2006 10:01:20 by Joni
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351
1 Engine Prop Flew Past, No Higher Than 50 Feet! posted Tue Apr 11 2006 00:57:53 by Jamesbuk
Lufthansa's Fuel Bill Jumped More Than Rival's posted Wed Mar 22 2006 17:54:41 by PlaneHunter
A380 Fuel Question posted Wed Feb 8 2006 19:56:01 by N723GW
Accidents at JFK, higher than at other airports? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 07:45:16 by Dr.DTW