LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 46 Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7896 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
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 46 Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7859 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.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 46 Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7831 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.
CAL764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7684 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...
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 5912 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7516 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
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 46 Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7516 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.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7156 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
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, RR: 46 Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7103 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.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6913 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.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6819 times:
I look at these two side by side, And just get the better feeling with the 737-700 but the C130 looks better.
Xdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6760 times:
And you could enplane and deplane simultanious with the one in the right!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4863 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
