TP727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6212 times:
Hope you all read this in good shape, healthy and happy.
I have read in here many times that the A340-500 is not as efficient as the 777s, and also that JJ using it (i know it's only a temporary measure, while they get the 77Ws) on GRU-FRA is not taking the best out of teir acft.
My question to you is: Considering the A340-500 and a 777-200ER on the same route (GRU-FRA), with the same cabin configuration and the same seats (models, wheights), how much more cargo would the boeing be able to take over the airbus? Also, if i am not bothering anyone, the same question on the 777-200 LR.
Pnwtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6092 times:
You have to compare a 77L and a 77W with the 345 not just the base 777.
77LR 766,000 lbs (347,450 kg)
77W 775,000 lbs (351,534 kg)
What is missing from your comparison is the operating weights. The amount of actual cargo you can put on the aircraft with full fuel and passenger load. The 777 are more fuel efficient so carry less fuel. All I know is that AC is using less fuel and carrying more cargo with no penalties on the 77W and 77L as compared to the A345.
Stitch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5957 times:
Quoting TP727 (Thread starter): Considering the A340-500 and a 777-200ER on the same route (GRU-FRA), with the same cabin configuration and the same seats (models, wheights), how much more cargo would the boeing be able to take over the airbus?
The A345 actually has the advantage,
The average maximum payload for the A345 is 60,000kgs.
For the 77E, the average maximum payload is 57,000kgs.
On a 5500nm sector, I do not believe either plane is MTOW-limited so they would be able to haul their maximum payload and the necessary fuel. *
As such, the A345 would haul 3000kg more.
* - For the life of me, I cannot make sense of Boeing's Payload-Range charts, so I may be wrong about that. Airbus' are much clearer - at least to me - so the A345's chart makes it look like it's no problem.
Caboclo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5829 times:
Slightly off topic, but it's all a moot point because Airbus does not build a 340F. For some reason, they have never given much consideration to cargo, even as Boeing is building and selling 767Fs, 777Fs and 748Fs. Instead, Airbus only offered the old A300 until recently, when they shut down the line and went out of the cargo business entirely, until such time as they get the 330F built. One wonders where their stock would be today if they had been offering a complete range of freighters over the past decade. As the previous posts show, the 340 is a decent airplane, and most would agree that the 330 is a very good one; seems to me like Airbus has ignored a pretty significant market.
KC135TopBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5704 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): Well Airbus has not had too much of a problem stuffing their assembly lines with passenger models, so I am not sure they saw a freighter variant as a big deal.
Even the 777 went over a decade before it launched a freighter model.
Doesn't Boeing have that same problem, their lines stuffed full of passenger jets?
Yet, they have also been selling the B-767-300ERF, B-747-400F and B-747-400ERF very well over the past 10 years.
They didn't need a B-777-200LRF until now. Airbus didn't introduce the A-330-200F until after they closed their A-300-600F line, and Boeing introduced the B-777F. Now Boeing also has the B-747-8F selling very well.
Stitch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5647 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): Doesn't Boeing have that same problem, their lines stuffed full of passenger jets?
The only reason the 747 line has remained open past 2003 is because of the 747-400[ER]F.
And the 767-300F has helped keep the 767 line going, as well. If it was just the 767-200ER and 767-300ER, Boeing likely would have closed the line (as they did with the 757, which had no freighter model).
Stitch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5384 times:
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 12): The 380t A345 has a maximum structural payload of 57.2t or 126.1 klbs (MZFW - OEW)
I went with the A345 ACAP which shows five variants with MST's of:
For an average of 58,830kg.
As to the 777 ACAP, I used those figures, as well, but didn't catch the "GE" part. I admit I was surprised at what I thought was a single listing for all 77Es, regardless of engine choice. Now I know why.
345: 32 LD3 containers/11 pallets and MTOW of 820,100 lb
772: 32 LD3 containers and MTOW of 656,000 lb
The 345 does not look too shabby, but I am no loadmaster!
Actually the A340-500 has a maximum capacity of 30 LD3, 18 FWD and 12 AFT...
777-200ER 32 LD3 18 FWD and 14 AFT
777-300ER 44 LD3 24 FWD and 20 AFT
The question of efficiency is answered not only by how much you can carry but what it cost you to carry it on a specific basis. Yes in a simple analysis MZFW is available but that is not the entire story. Realistically that small difference in capacity is significant and here is how.
First in terms of cargo you have to consider the useful volume after passenger baggage. Lets take TAM as an example. Their A340-500s have 267 seats. If there are no lower ULD hold crew rest a calculation of baggage space required at 100% Load Factor would be as follows 267 pax X 1.3 bags per pax = 347 bags. Assuming that baggage is loaded into LD3s, a typical LD3 is capable of containing up to 37 bags per unit. 347 bags / 37 bags per container yields 9 LD3s needed with 14 bags left that can go in the bulk. From the available ULD configurations a 6 Pallet 12 LD3 configuration will satisfy our space requirements. This configuration, using M size pallets, would leave 6 Pallets and 3 LD3 for cargo use after baggage is loaded. The useable cargo volume is nominally 81 cubic meters using rectangular counrour for the pallets and full contour for the LD3s. Given the realities of cargo space utilization the best hope would be for 80% of the maximum volume to be utilized even when all available ULD are loaded with cargo. This gives us a total loaded volume of 65 cubic meters.
Now the average density of lower deck general market cargo is around 155 Kg per cubic meter these days. 155 Kg/cum X 65 cum gives us 10,075 KG of gross cargo weight the ULD tare of 930 Kg works out to a gross cargo load in ULD of 11,005 KG for the Airbus. Added in with a full pax load of 25,400 KG including baggage tare gives us a total traffic load of 36,400 KG well under maximum payload for the route/flight time effective distance.
Now quickly through the numbers for the 777-200ER and 777-300ER with relative seating.
9 X LD3 bulk baggage
ULD Config 7 Pallets 10 LD3
Cargo Config 7 Pallets 1 LD3
Cargo Max Volume 84.5 cum
Practical cargo Volume load 67.5 cum
Net Cargo payload 10,500 Kg
Gross Cargo Payload 11,300 Kg
Total traffic load 37,000 Kg
11 X LD3 bag use
ULD Config 10 Pallets 3 LD3
Cargo Max Volume 127 cum
Practical cargo Volume load 101.5 cum
Net Cargo payload 15,700 Kg
Gross Cargo Payload 17,100 Kg
Total traffic load 46,000 Kg
Now that we have the loads lets look at efficiency
For cargo on passenger airplanes the incremental cost of operation basically boils down to the fuel used for the extra payload. At the specified range and this week's Singapore spot market price for Jet A the cost for carrying a single kilo of cargo would be as follows in US Cents.
This is only reflective of the cost in fuel to carry a kilogram of payload over and above the given passenger load. To bring things full circle, how much more could a 777-200ER/-200LR carry vs an A340-500 over a generic 5,500nm effective air distance? About 4-6% more in practical terms and the 777-300ER would do better by more than 50% against the rest. In terms of the efficiency at carrying the excess payload basically a wash between the 777-200ER/-200LR and A340-500 as any small percentage fluctuation in space utilization would defeat the differences in fuel necessary to carry the extra load. As far as the operator is really concerned they will take the extra space always, every time. To the cargo side it does not make sense to give up space for anything so the 777-200ER/LR wins by a nose in that analysis.
TP727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am sorry i was unable to get back to you sooner.
In my point of view the GRU-FRA route would be more cost efficient if served with a 777-200ER, since it would burn less fuel. But on th other hand the lower cost to aquire the plane might make it work for the higher operating cost.