Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Posted (6 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13351 times:

Bomardier C series has been in the news lately, and I figured it will be interesting to compare the C 130 ER version (130 seats, 2,950 nm range) to B737-700 (140 seats, 3,050 nm range).

Estimated C130ER cabin dimensions:
Length 88 feet
Width 10.75 feet
Cabin Area 946 sq. feet
No. of single class seats 130

Estimated B737-700 cabin dimensions:
Length 79 feet
Width 11.58 feet
Cabin Area 915 sq. feet
No. of single class seats 140

The 5-abreast C130 is clearly less efficient in utilizing cabin floor space, as it has a larger cabin area but offers 10 less seats.

Note below a summary of estimated technical specifications for A350-10 and B773ER:
C130ER B737-700
OEW 83000 83000
MTOW 139000 153000
MZFW 115000 120,500
MSP 32,000 37,500 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,950 3,050 (Max. Design Range in nm)

The numbers above for 737 are from the Boeing site. C130ER numbers are not available yet, except for the MTOW and design range. Rest of the numbers are my own estimates based on the assumption that C130ER will burn about 70% of the fuel of a B737-700 for the same mission length. Keep in mind that C130ER's MTOW is 9% less, and all new design and GTF engines should give it another 21% reduction in fuel burn.

I assume OEWs to be similar for both aircraft given that C130ER is actually a bigger aircraft in terms of cabin floor space.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C130ER 0.0149 GSM, 0.133 GTM, cargo 4,700 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,904 gallons.
B737 0.0174 GSM, 0.143 GTM, cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 3,659 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $3,000 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (3,400 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 2,200 nm (LAX-JFK) mission:
C130ER 0.0118 GSM, 0.108 GTM, cargo 3,687 lbs, trip fuel burned 3,367 gallons.
B737 0.0145 GSM, 0.121 GTM, cargo 7,358 lbs, trip fuel burned 4,475 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $4,400 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (3,671 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

In summary, for any mission length, C130ER has a lower GSM than B737-700. As a people mover, C130ER dominates B737-700 for long/thin routes.


Assumptions
Jet Fuel Weight 6.76 lb/gallon
Passenger w/baggage weight @210 lb
Fuel Reserve(Diversion,Holding,and Contingency) is 9.1% of Fuel Carried for mission
No wind condition

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13315 times:

I have noticed a data input error in my model, and therefore need to revise my analysis. The revision only affects the mission fuel numbers and does not change the overall comparison.
Here are the new numbers:

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C130ER 0.0112 GSM, 0.100 GTM, cargo 4,700 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,188 gallons.
B737 0.0139 GSM, 0.114 GTM, cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,919 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $2,900 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (3,400 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 2,200 nm (LAX-JFK) mission:
C130ER 0.0105 GSM, 0.093 GTM, cargo 4,700 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,997 gallons.
B737 0.0132 GSM, 0.108 GTM, cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 4,069 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $4,300 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (3,400 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

[Edited 2008-07-18 14:33:42]

[Edited 2008-07-18 14:34:20]

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13287 times:

To complete the analysis, let me also compare the C130 standard version to B737-700. The standard C130 's MTOW is 8,000 lbs. less than the ER', and the range is at 2,250 nm (700nm less). The standard version has a lower thrust engine ( about 2,000 lbs.).

C130 B737-700
OEW 83,000 83,000 lbs.
MTOW 131,000 153000
MZFW 115,000 120,500
MSP 32,000 37,500 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,250 3,050 (Max. Design Range in nm)


Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C130 cargo 4,700 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,045 gallons.
B 737-700 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,919 gallons.

C130 burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $3,500 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (5,400 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

The C130 saves about $600 over C130ER in fuel cost for this trip.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1,000 nm (JFK-MIA) mission:
C130 cargo 4,700 lbs, trip fuel burned 1,515 gallons.
B 737-700 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,098 gallons.

C130 burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $2,300 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (5,400 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length.

The C130 saves about $400 over C130ER for this trip. I suspect most operators will prefer the C130ER over C130 if my analysis is correct.

Based on number of trips/trip length, and aircraft utilization, C130 can save close to $10,000 per day in fuel costs over 737-700. Assuming a 70% load factor, B737 can earn about $4,000 per day from the additional 10 seats. This leaves a net advantage of close to $5,000-$6,000 for C130/C130ER over B737, which translates to about $1.5-$2 million per year.

I do not have a good feel for revenues from the cargo potential of B737, and therefore will leave it aside for now. I hope someone in the know can give me an estimate for it.

[Edited 2008-07-18 15:33:06]

User currently offlineCAL764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13140 times:

More cabin area, less seats? Not too bad a deal...Assuming that's what the airline's gonna buy.


1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7097 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 12972 times:



Quoting CAL764 (Reply 3):
More cabin area, less seats? Not too bad a deal...Assuming that's what the airline's gonna buy.

That's because with 5 abreast a greater proportion of the floor area is used for the aisle. It does not translate into more roomy accommodations.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 12972 times:

Based on Keesje's post in the Cseries thread on the main forum, I have better data on C130ER which warrants an updating of my analysis. Bombardier assumes 225 lb. per passenger. I have adjusted the Boeing 737-700 numbers, which reduce the range to 3,000 nm from 3,050 nm.


Note below an updated summary of estimated technical specifications:
C130ER B737-700
OEW 81,600 83,000
MTOW 139,000 153,000
MZFW 118,100 120,500
MSP 36,500 37,500 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,950 3,000 (Max. Design Range in nm at 225 lb./passenger)

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 1500 nm (LAX-ORD) mission:
C130ER cargo 7,250 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,150 gallons.
B737 0. cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,960 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $3,200 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (850 lbs.) of 737-700 for this mission length. It seems unlikely that the B737 can overcome the fuel savings of C130ER with additional seats/cargo.

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 2,200 nm (LAX-JFK) mission:
C130ER cargo 6,297 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,942 gallons.
B737 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 4,129 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $4,700 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (1,803 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length. Again, it seems unlikely that the B737 can overcome the fuel savings of C130ER with additional seats/cargo.

The C130ER should save about $3.5 million in fuel costs over the B737-700.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12612 times:

Great analysis. IMO the C130 will pressure the establishment A320 series ans 737. Will the more roomy C130 offer better turnaround times, since passengers will be able to get on an off the plane quicker?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12559 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
Great analysis. IMO the C130 will pressure the establishment A320 series ans 737.

Thanks. With 6-abreast staggered seating, the C130ER will hold at least 144 seats--4 more than the B737. The B737 can not respond with a 7-abreast(3-4 single aisle) staggered seating.

If staggered seating becomes the norm in future, CSeries with its current cabin width will dominate the B737. With staggered seating as the norm, both A and B could look to offer a twin aisle 7-abreast(2-3-2) as replacement for B737/B757/B767 with a cabin width around 14.75 feet. The smallest aircraft in this series will seat 200(one class), and the largest will seat 275.

I will work on the business case for such an aircraft soon.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12369 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 7):
With 6-abreast staggered seating, the C130ER will hold at least 144 seats--4 more than the B737.

If we look at specification provided by Thompson, staggered seats would need an addition 2 inches pitch compared to conventional seats.



The conifuguration I sketched has 34-35 inch which is generous, hower addition lavatory/ galley capasity would also require some space. I guess 150 seats is doable. On short haul operations flown by many 737-700's (e.g Easyjet) in low costs or 737 used for feeder functions, average sector is well below 1000nm. For KLM 737's it used to be just above 1 hr flight time on average, about 500nm. In those sector is it very hard to do any cargo efficiently. Road transport is cheaper, easier and faster.

I think a 737/A320 like aircraft offers payload range a C130 can not offer. What it can do is offer superior economics on short stretches where cargo is irrelevant. And worldwide thats the a significantshare of routes the 737/A320's operate.


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12275 times:

I look at these two side by side, And just get the better feeling with the 737-700 but the C130 looks better.  stirthepot 



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Burger Collection




My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineXdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 682 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12216 times:

And you could enplane and deplane simultanious with the one in the right!  highfive 

User currently offlinexdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 682 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

Quoting Xdlx (Reply 10):

There has been some discussions on C17 but L100 for PAX???


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xdlx (Reply 11):
There has been some discussions on C17 but L100 for PAX???

There are combi kits complete with galleys and lavs.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6822 times:

Quoting xdlx (Reply 11):
There has been some discussions on C17 but L100 for PAX???

I am not sure why you brought up this way old thread... but the actual discussion is not about C130 the Hercules, but C130 the Bombardier C-series.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinejshjrm5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

Would this be a good time for Boeing to introduce the 717-300 that they shelved a few years back. Especially considering Delta is leasing 717s??? Just curious. Would the 717-300 compete with the CS300??? Any thoughts???

Thank you


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31375 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jshjrm5 (Reply 14):
Would this be a good time for Boeing to introduce the 717-300 that they shelved a few years back.

The final assembly complex is now a mix of condominiums and retail businesses, so...  


User currently offlinerlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1103 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

One problem I see is that the comparison should be made with a 737-800. Who is buying or using the -700 for those routes.


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

You may carry 10 more people on the 737, but at $4300 more fuel, you would have to charge $860 round trip for each of those people, on top of whatever other cost are associated with flying them, and other connecting flights. Can they carry those 10 people and all the extra cargo? Guessing it still makes sense for the lighter C130. As a passenger, I would pay more to fly on the C130 with fewer middle seats.

User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4105 times:

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 9):
I look at these two side by side, And just get the better feeling with the 737-700 but the C130 looks better.

Yeah, there is only one C130!


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 726 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When I first saw the title of the thread, I thought you guys were talking about the Hercules!


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis posted Sun Jun 1 2008 19:29:12 by LAXDESI
A358 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Fri May 30 2008 00:07:09 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI
A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis posted Tue May 27 2008 22:20:48 by LAXDESI
Boeing 737-600/700 Versus Embraer ERJ-195 posted Fri Oct 6 2006 09:45:33 by AerospaceFan
Charter Operations On B737: -600, -700 And -800 posted Sun Aug 28 2005 18:41:29 by 2travel2know
Standard Vs. High Capacity Steel Brakes - B737 posted Fri May 9 2008 07:54:09 by 2H4
Winglets Versus Raked Versus Fence posted Wed Apr 2 2008 07:53:16 by Hypersonic
What`s That Thing On A B737-300 (winglets) posted Thu Mar 20 2008 15:21:14 by OHLHD
B737-800 Rear Fuselage/tail Question (pic) posted Wed Mar 19 2008 19:00:26 by LNv22

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format