Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 At LHR-HKG: Comparisons  
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4585 times:

A lot of discussions are posted by Forum members regarding the economic performance of the A380 compared with the B747-8i and also the B787, often without any support. Obviously, there is no sole answer to this question. depending of the requirements and facts of each airline and the route flown.

There is no discussion that the A380 under reasonable load factor conditions is more economical as the venerable B747-400(ER), a decades old model which manufacture is discontinued for pax and substituted by the B747-8i. The intent to present today comparisons "A380 versus B747", using the B747-400 data, are therefore a cheap and bad faith marketing trick (it was legitimate at the time the A380 was launched, as the B748i didn't exist then)

A further consideration shall be not too rely too much on the F and B class occupancy. Experience shows that on the first signals of a significant economic slowdown, companies restrict the use of these facilities, and 80-90% of all such flights are paid by companies !

I have not included in the comparisons the B787-10/11 nor the A350, because not available short term and no reliable data known. It can be assumed they would shift the balance against the A380.

I propose to make a an analysis of the route London - Hong Kong for the following alternatives. The Forum has plenty knowledgeable gentlemen which should be able to provide the results.

Case No.1: 2 flights/day by A380 525 pax and B748i 406 pax configurations
.................average A380 pax carried during high 6 months: 840 ( 30F + 110B + 700E)
.................average B748i pax carried during high 6 months: 760 ( 24F + 100B + 636E)

................ average A380 pax carried during low 6 months: 740 ( 24F + 88B + 628E)
.................average B748i pax carried during low 6 months: 700 ( 22F + 82B + 596E)

.................Note: The difference between the aircrafts are due to passengers lost by B748i due lack of capacity.

Case No.2: A380: 2 flights a day B748i: 2 flights a day B788: 1 flight a day standard configuration (only in high)

.................average A380 pax carried during high 6 months: 900 ( 35F + 130B + 735E)
.................average B748i pax carried during high 6 months: 970 ( 38F + 140B + 792E)

.................average A380 pax carried during low 6 months: 760 ( 28F + 115B + 617E)
.................average B748i pax carried during low 6 months: 720 ( 24F + 89B + 607E)

.................Note: The difference between the aircrafts are due to passengers lost by A380 due lack of frequency.
...........................or by B748i due lack of capacity

Task: To calculate the fuel/pax in each case..

Of course these results cannot be generally extrapolated, and the operating costs are not so easy to calculate, but they would provide a good basis of discussion.

regards

aminobwana

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5300 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

One thing... One this route you go for capacity. In a very short time you have at least 3x CX and 3x BA 747 departures, then you also have the QF and VS widebodies al departing just before midnight. Same for the way back.

A380 wins it always on this route. It will save CX and BA an extra return flight,

KL911


User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
venerable B747-400(ER), a decades old model which manufacture is discontinued for pax

Just to nit pick, but the 747-400ER is the most modern (year 2000+) 747 at present until the 748 and was only ordered in the pax variant by QF.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5300 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

Quoting Da man (Reply 2):
was only ordered in the pax variant by QF.

Which is THE airline to fly it LHR-HKG... but you're right, it's not outdated.


User currently offline6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4341 times:

Interesting thread, but:

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
The intent to present today comparisons "A380 versus B747", using the B747-400 data, are therefore a cheap and bad faith marketing trick

Can you not get through a single thread without a completely unnecessary jibe at Airbus? For me, at least, it destroys any credibility you might have had.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 4):
Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
The intent to present today comparisons "A380 versus B747", using the B747-400 data, are therefore a cheap and bad faith marketing trick

Can you not get through a single thread without a completely unnecessary jibe at Airbus? For me, at least, it destroys any credibility you might have had.

In this case, I can't. AB and its supporters continue consistently and unrelentlessly to use the data of the old B747-400 when comparing with the A380, instead the of the B748i.. You should ask them why they insist doing that, instead making comments about my jibes. But In your favor, I assume you were not aware of this fact ??

aminobwana


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
Case No.1: 2 flights/day by A380 525 pax and B748i 406 pax configurations
.................average A380 pax carried during high 6 months: 840 ( 30F + 110B + 700E)
.................average B748i pax carried during high 6 months: 760 ( 24F + 100B + 636E)

................ average A380 pax carried during low 6 months: 740 ( 24F + 88B + 628E)
.................average B748i pax carried during low 6 months: 700 ( 22F + 82B + 596E)

.................Note: The difference between the aircrafts are due to passengers lost by B748i due lack of capacity.

Case No.2: A380: 2 flights a day B748i: 2 flights a day B788: 1 flight a day standard configuration (only in high)

.................average A380 pax carried during high 6 months: 900 ( 35F + 130B + 735E)
.................average B748i pax carried during high 6 months: 970 ( 38F + 140B + 792E)

.................average A380 pax carried during low 6 months: 760 ( 28F + 115B + 617E)
.................average B748i pax carried during low 6 months: 720 ( 24F + 89B + 607E)

.................Note: The difference between the aircrafts are due to passengers lost by A380 due lack of frequency.
...........................or by B748i due lack of capacity

All you have done was posting some assumptions which you have made up without any good explanations. And you are asking people to do the analysis for you based on your unjustified numbers. It is a completely pointless attempt at yet more bashing and you are only inviting trouble for yourself.

I can tell you immediately that the high season load factors has always been and will be 100% and and thus your numbers are immediately invalidated. Do some research before starting any more pointless debates.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineGlacote From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

The number do not make sense. Please retry with less bias thank you.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4098 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
.................Note: The difference between the aircrafts are due to passengers lost by B748i due lack of capacity.

There is a problem with your numbers.
How does the A380 invent more premium traffic?

If the 748i has room for 12F pax, and fills it in high season, why do only 11 people fly in the low season, while the A380 in that same season would attract 12 pax? (I guess if it's the averaage, you can't fill it every day?) Why only 82B pax in the low season when there is a market for 88B? You can't just go by a % basis. Premium traffic can't be created and destroyed by a % of plane capacity unless you drop/raise prices as well or the premium cabin is sized too small for the route.

(Why would a carrier not add F seats to the 748i if there was demand for 15-16F regularly? If it means putting 12 in the nose and 4 upstairs ahead of the exit doors, if the market demanded it, why would a carrier ignore this $16k passenger base?)

You claim the 748i loses pax due to lack of capacity, but that's only in the high season. In the low season, using your A380 numbers as the inherent demand in the market, the 748i would be flying nearly full. During the high season, it would be flying completely full. Granted, since it's an average, you can't expect it to be full every single flight, but if it's high season, you can expect the Y cabin to be full just about every flight (due to the time flexibility of discount fliers) the F section always full (filled by upgrading B pax on the few flights that it isn't paid full) and the B section full on most flights.

Thus 12 months a year, using your fictional numbers, the 748i is flying full or nearly full, while the A380 isn't flying full other than the odd holidays. Further, in the high season, the 748i leaves 20+Y pax behind, and by the law of supply and demand, they are the lowest yielding pax on the plane. The A380 might as well have lounges and swimming pools, as it's flying 80% load factor in the high season and 70% in the low season on average. I suppose they can offer a lot of low fare Y seats since they are leaving 100-140 seats empty.

Your chart should look like this:
Case No.1: 2 flights/day by A380 525 pax (15/60/450) and B748i 406 pax (12/55/339) configurations
.................average A380 pax carried during high 6 months: 840 ( 30F + 110B + 700E)
.................average B748i pax carried during high 6 months: 800 ( 24F + 100B + 676E)

................ average A380 pax carried during low 6 months: 740 ( 24F + 88B + 628E)
.................average B748i pax carried during low 6 months: 740 ( 23-24F + 88B + 628E)

.................Note: The B748i flies at capacity in the high season, and leaves some pax behind.

So the question is, is having the extra capacity on the A380 worth it during those holidays that the plane gets completely filled, versus the times of the year where you are flying dead weight around? Will the cargo make up for the 60% load factors on some days in the low season? Would a 748i+787 mixed fleet offer more flexibility to match supply to demand while maintaining cargo ability? Is the 748i flying full less efficient or profitable than if it were flying 90% load? What is the sweet spot?

Would 21 weekly 787s (8/30/182) in the low season (for average daily capacity of 24/90/546) and 28 weekly 787s in the high season (for 32/120/728) be a better solution than any VLAs? That's greater cargo ability and much more flexibility with the expense of more pilots (but at a lower pay rate).

Remember, when the A380 was offered, neither the 748i nor the 787 were on the table. Since those planes went on the table (especially the 787), A380 sales have dried up except for carriers with launch pricing and previous commitments of money, time and training. There may be some correlation...

Quoting KL911 (Reply 3):
Which is THE airline to fly it LHR-HKG... but you're right, it's not outdated.

It really is. The 744ER was not a jet designed to increase efficiency in a "next generation" way, only to extend range by increasing MTOW and decreasing payload space to make bleeding edge flights possible. Some wing mods were made, some other tweaks, but it's more like the 330E project than an A380 fighter...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 5):
AB and its supporters continue consistently and unrelentlessly to use the data of the old B747-400 when comparing with the A380, instead the of the B748i.. You should ask them why they insist doing that, instead making comments about my jibes.

Just because there are others who are biased one way does not mean you have to be biased in the opposite way to make it equal.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offline6YJJK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 5):
6YJJK: "...Can you not get through a single thread without a completely unnecessary jibe at Airbus? ..."

In this case, I can't. AB and its supporters continue consistently and unrelentlessly to use the data of the old B747-400 when comparing with the A380, instead the of the B748i.. You should ask them why they insist doing that, instead making comments about my jibes. But In your favor, I assume you were not aware of this fact ??

I'm aware of the comparisons (and of the childish behaviour from both A and B worshippers on this site - and Leahy's in a class of his own  Wink). Just to put an opposing point of view here:

The 744 is a known quantity. It's been in service for years, with precisely the kind of people you and I want to sell our planes to. I dream up some numbers, you dream up some numbers, and our numbers change month to month as we refine our designs. (Or dither between metal, composite panels, and barrels, but that's a whooooole other AvB.  Smile) Comparing the Aminobwana380 to the 6YJJKjet at this stage - well, really, what's the point? We'd probably both be better off promising a (large) x% improvement in range, capacity, etc., over the 744 than rushing to highlight the bits in our marketing puff that sound a bit better than the other's marketing puff.

You go off and cut some metal (and screw up some wiring), and eventually you get this beast to haul its fat butt into the sky - now you can start getting some hard numbers. I still have some engineering estimates and a glossy brochure. Which is more credible now - comparing your A380's hard data to my 6YJJKjet estimates, or highlighting the calculated and (partly) proven improvement over the 744s you're hoping to replace with your product?

So (while I don't make, buy, or drive planes for a living, and therefore don't know enough to speak with any authority on the issue) I can see why it might be considered legitimate to compare A380 to B744, and calling it

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
a cheap and bad faith marketing trick

comes across as the sort of fanboyism that can make this site so tiresome to read sometimes. If your profile's accurate, you're old enough to know better than to stir the pot  Smile Maybe something like "Perhaps A380 v B748I would be a more relevant comparison" might have come across less like flamebait and more like a legitimate point for discussion?

But when it comes right down to it, nobody knows. Even when the 748 flies, we won't know - though we'll begin to get some idea. Until we have not only the corresponding lumps of metal but also a few years of data from hauling lumps of meat around, the whole thing's speculation. Which is why we come to a.net, after all  Wink

Honestly, I want to see both the 747-8 and the A380 do well. I hope that the airlines discover missions where the A380 really shines, and I hope they find new missions where only a 748 will do. If the market could support it, I'd love to see Tupolev and Embraer VLAs too. Wouldn't you?  Smile


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 5):
I can tell you immediately that the high season load factors has always been and will be 100% and and thus your numbers are immediately invalidated. Do some research before starting any more pointless debates.

I could make to you the same suggestion.

Your statement that during 6 montha year during the next 20 years the load factor is 100% is really absurd. Independently from the load factors change due to economic situation, political happenings, natural catastrophes, sanitary problems (like SARS) etc.etc., if all flights are 100% full this can only be achieved by letting without transport a high No. of persons. this is a statiscal fact.

I am not saying that my figures are the real, factually nobody can name these. I ahve said they are not extrapolable, but useful as reference.

To all: if anybody wish to make a comparison using other (but not absurd) parameters, this would be equally useful.

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 10):
So (while I don't make, buy, or drive planes for a living, and therefore don't know enough to speak with any authority on the issue) I can see why it might be considered legitimate to compare A380 to B744, and calling it

Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter):
a cheap and bad faith marketing trick

comes across as the sort of fanboyism that can make this site so tiresome to read sometimes. If your profile's accurate, you're old enough to know better than to stir the pot Maybe something like "Perhaps A380 v B748I would be a more relevant comparison" might have come across less like flamebait and more like a legitimate point for discussion?

But when it comes right down to it, nobody knows. Even when the 748 flies, we won't know - though we'll begin to get some idea. Until we have not only the corresponding lumps of metal but also a few years of data from hauling lumps of meat around, the whole thing's speculation. Which is why we come to a.net, after all

In the future (even if not immediate) , there will not be B744, at least not at the main airlines. So it makes no sense to use it as a comparison.

And what we want to compare is the A380 with the A748i, using the data provided by the manufacturers, without speculations if they will comply with the offered or not. So why the seeming refusal to do so ??

And finally: I have stated several times within the Forum, using elegant words as you suggest, to stop make
comparisons with the "B747", but factually without saying so, by using the data of the B744 !! I have written 2 times letters to Airbus asking the same, without response.
Now it is time to call it by its real name (but without personsl insults !!)

An example: If you were Dell in UK, and promoting the future new model X - 2008, and COMPAQ publish a pamphlet saying that their Y - 2008 is better than Dell X and show a comparison, but using without saying so the data of X -1986,
would you consider this permissible ??

aminobwana


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 11):
Your statement that during 6 montha year during the next 20 years the load factor is 100% is really absurd. Independently from the load factors change due to economic situation, political happenings, natural catastrophes, sanitary problems (like SARS) etc.etc., if all flights are 100% full this can only be achieved by letting without transport a high No. of persons. this is a statiscal fact.

Of course these are exceptional circumstances and do not happen every year. If only you read with some common sense. Stop being pedantic.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 11):
An example: If you were Dell in UK, and promoting the future new model X - 2008, and COMPAQ publish a pamphlet saying that their Y - 2008 is better than Dell X and show a comparison, but using without saying so the data of X -1986,
would you consider this permissible ??

If Dell X 1986 was the dominant model being sold or used in 2007 then YES WHY NOT? Same as the B744, it is in wide spread service. What is not right with making a comparison with a product that is the current dominant model in use by every major carrier?



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
How does the A380 invent more premium traffic?

If the 748i has room for 12F pax, and fills it in high season, why do only 11 people fly in the low season, while the A380 in that same season would attract 12 pax? (I guess if it's the average, you can't fill it every day?) Why only 82B pax in the low season when there is a market for 88B? You can't just go by a % basis. Premium traffic can't be created and destroyed by a % of plane capacity unless you drop/raise prices as well or the premium cabin is sized too small for the route.

It is really nice to receive objection in an objective tone and without insults. Thank you

Answering your observation:

1) I am speaking about a B748i in a 406 pax configuration (not the standard 467 pax) which should be more or
less proportional to the A380 in the 525 pax. I am assuming therefore that there are 15 F seats (not 12)

2) The occupancy indicated is an average. The available F passenger, for a B748i or A380 flight, will be X/year. But in certain percentage of cases the available passengers, for a certain flight, would be over 15, lets say 20. In such case the A380 would be able to carry them, not so the B748i, so the latter will lose 5. Being X the total available, each such case will have as result loss of passenger which accumulated, will depress the average of the B748i in front of the A380

In the Case 2, the No. of seats available (in the high season, will be somewhat higher at Boeing. and this, by equivalent reasons as stated inversely in Case 1, plus the advantage of the higher frequency, will increase the average at Boeing in front of the A380

I hope this is understandable in my bad English.

3) this is in line with your assessment that the fact the A380 being able to carry more passengers will allow
them carry the excess over 406 pax in any flight where there are a number (over 406) available, whilst the
B748i will loose this excess. This is the advantage of the larger aircraft and is independent of the COSTS/pax.

Inversely, if the the pax available are below 406, both aircraft obviously will be able to carry them. but also
obviously the smaller aircraft will be able to do it at a lower cost, other parameters being assumed equal.

4) As said, it is obvious that such comparison can only be made case by case, and I have tried to present a
logical one basing on above criteria. I have also said that if anybody, basing on its own logical assessment,
things that the comparison would be more realistic with different figures, such comparison is more then welcome!

As said, all this trying to reproduce the way of evaluate by an airline trying to decide if to purchase A380 or
B748i. As the old B747-400ER is not more available, any discussion regarding this aircraft is pointless,
Anyway, I think there is consensus that both A380 and B748i are widely superior.

regards

aminobwana


User currently offlineWah64d From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 13):
As said, all this trying to reproduce the way of evaluate by an airline trying to decide if to purchase A380 or
B748i. As the old B747-400ER is not more available, any discussion regarding this aircraft is pointless,
Anyway, I think there is consensus that both A380 and B748i are widely superior.

I think its fairly safe to say that in the next 30 years there will be many more B744s than B748s operating the LON-HKG route. Your assertion that a comparison of route economics between A380 and B744 is pointless, is quite ridiculous.

You already know the answer in an A380 vs B744 contest on this route, the A380 was designed for it and will quite understandably and expectedly trounce the B744 on this particular sector. While the B748i makes some reparations for its older sister, it does not have the "bums on seats" capacity to be competitive on the LON-HKG pax route.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting Wah64d (Reply 14):
think its fairly safe to say that in the next 30 years there will be many more B744s than B748s operating the LON-HKG route. Your assertion that a comparison of route economics between A380 and B744 is pointless, is quite ridiculous.

You already know the answer in an A380 vs B744 contest on this route, the A380 was designed for it and will quite understandably and expectedly trounce the B744 on this particular sector.While the B748i makes some reparations for its older sister, it does not have the "bums on seats" capacity to be competitive on the LON-HKG pax route.

1) Can you tell me why you qualify my statement that a comparison between the A380 and the old 744 is pointless (precisely because we already know the answer, the A380 is far superior, as also the B748i is versus the B744), but in the next paragraph are saying exactly the same as I did ??

2) Further, you say in the first line that there will be far more B744 than B748s flying in the next 30 years. I do not use the word "ridiculous", because this word be less than polite, but state that you probably wanted to say A380 instead B744 !!?

3) And in the last phrase you affirm that the B748i is not competive at Lon-Hkg, which was the precisely what the topic wanted to clarify, do you have any support for this statement ??

I hope you will answer these questions !

thanks in advance

Aminobwana


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 15):
1) Can you tell me why you qualify my statement that a comparison between the A380 and the old 744 is pointless (precisely because we already know the answer, the A380 is far superior, as also the B748i is versus the B744), but in the next paragraph are saying exactly the same as I did ??



Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 15):
2) Further, you say in the first line that there will be far more B744 than B748s flying in the next 30 years. I do not use the word "ridiculous", because this word be less than polite, but state that you probably wanted to say A380 instead B744 !!?

I didn't make an error. There will be many more B744s than B748s flying that route in the next 30 years. This is why it is more sensible to compare A380 vs B744 on this particular route. The fact that airlines are not exactly beating Boeing's door down to order B748 pax variants indicates that A380s main competition on the LON-HKG route will be B744. I apologise if you thought I was being impolite, it was not my intention.

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 15):
3) And in the last phrase you affirm that the B748i is not competive at Lon-Hkg, which was the precisely what the topic wanted to clarify, do you have any support for this statement ??

The B748i is not competitive with the A380 on the LON-HKG route as it does not generate as much profit when fully loaded (RASM minus CASM multiplied by number of seats) as the A380 does. On a route where load factors are consistently touching 100%, its easy to see why B748 cannot compete. If load factors drop it may be a different story but historically speaking, that looks unlikely to say the least. All of this is in fact multiplied in the case of the B744.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Thank you for your response. it is appreciated

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 16):
I didn't make an error. There will be many more B744s than B748s flying that route in the next 30 years. This is why it is more sensible to compare A380 vs B744 on this particular route. The fact that airlines are not exactly beating Boeing's door down to order B748 pax variants indicates that A380s main competition on the LON-HKG route will be B744. I apologise if you thought I was being impolite, it was not my intention.

It is necessary to consider that the B744 is out of production (except to fulfill past orders) for pax and many aircrafts must be substituted beginning now and in the next 5-8 years due to old age. That the A748i is not selling now (we will see what happens at the Paris show) is due that airlines want to use the B744 as long as possible, even if their fuel consumption per pax flying full is about 20% higher than either the B748i or the A380, as this is compensated by the lack of capital expense for a new aircraft.
Please note that the B747i is far from a "repaired" B744, due to wide use of different materials and between many other, different engines and capacity. This being the reason why the cargo version is selling very well inspite that, contrary to the pax version, the B744F is still in production !!
Anyway: as long as an airline wants to continue to fly B744, there is no market there either for A380 and B748i. The object of this topic is to compare the convenience to purchase A380 versus B748i (plus as in case 2, B787) once an airline decide to substitute the B744

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 16):
The B748i is not competitive with the A380 on the LON-HKG route as it does not generate as much profit when fully loaded (RASM minus CASM multiplied by number of seats) as the A380 does. On a route where load factors are consistently touching 100%, its easy to see why B748 cannot compete. If load factors drop it may be a different story but historically speaking, that looks unlikely to say the least. All of this is in fact multiplied in the case of the B744.

Here it must be considered:
1) The average/year load factor today is far below 100%, but anyway very high. Anything over 80% fits into this definition
2) Hong Kong does not generate by itself this high traffic, as a elevated percentage is transit to China proper (my wife is Chinese, visiting just now her family there !!)
At this moment, due to the restrictive policy of the Chinese government, flights to other cities are very scarce, except Shanghai and Beijing. But this will irremediably change in the future, negotiation are already on the way, and as in many other routes, non-stop flights by B787, A350 and in certain cases B748i will suck out pax from the HK route

Example: Today, all passenger from London to Guangzhou, the main city of southern China fly through HK.
The same is valid for other very important cities, as Kunming, Xianmen, etc.

Therefore, the role of HK as the door to China will diminish progressively.

3) Even if I consider that Airlines like EK and QR are living of illusions thinking they could compete advantageously on this route using Dubai or Qatar as a hub, this could diminish further the pax for direct flights London-HK !!

I am interested to here you further comments

regards

aminobwana


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 At LHR Today May 11? posted Thu May 11 2006 09:09:16 by Silverfox
A380 At LHR - New Emirates Lounge posted Sun Apr 23 2006 21:42:56 by A380flyer
A380 At LHR Confirmation? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 15:28:29 by SapphireLHR
A380 At LHR 29/30 April (so Says BAA) posted Fri Feb 10 2006 18:21:14 by SmithAir747
A380 At LHR & LGW For Proving Flights: When? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 12:28:31 by SmithAir747
A380 Runway Slots At LHR posted Sun Mar 25 2007 08:33:03 by Macilree
Qantas At LHR & A380 posted Fri May 19 2006 16:00:30 by B742
A380 Wake Turbulance At LHR posted Thu May 18 2006 23:53:29 by Springbok295
Update Of A380 Due At LHR. posted Sat Mar 11 2006 15:48:44 by Pogo
SQ A380 (Model) Arrives At LHR posted Sat Jan 21 2006 02:05:06 by Xkorpyoh