FlyBoeing
Topic Author
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

### Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

 From To Distance Time (Mach.84) Time (Mach.95) Time (Mach1.2) EWR LHR 3465 mi 7:33 6:39 5:41 EWR HKG 8065 mi 15:47 13:43 11:26 LHR SYD 10572 mi 20:17 17:34 14:35 EWR GRU 4713 mi 9:47 8:34 7:14 EWR DXB 6860 mi 13:38 11:52 9:56 EWR NRT 6732 mi 13:24 11:40 9:46 LAX NRT 5451 mi 11:06 9:42 8:10 EWR LAX 2454 mi 5:44 5:06 4:25

Those air times include flight time and 1 hour 20 minutes of cycle time. All flight times are gained using the Great Circle Mapper

The implicatons are really interesting for airlines and equipment usage. For instance, if the SC really was a two-node aircraft efficient at mach .98 and mach 1.2, then if it was placed on the EWR-LHR route, effectively a flight that was on an 8 hour cycle would become a flight on a 6 hour cycle.

Here's the comparison:

777: On a 24 hour cycle, there are 1 1/2 round trips that are possible. 2 aircraft needed to serve 3 frequencies daily from both sides, assuming that we round the cycle time to 8 hours.

Sonic Cruiser: On a 24 hour cycle, there are 2 round trips that are possible. 2 aircraft can serve 4 roundtrips daily from both sides since the cycle time is 6 hours.

See the savings?

EWR-GRU:

777: On a 72 hour cycle, there are 3 possible round trips.

Sonic Cruiser (at mach .95): On a 72 hour cycle there are 4 possible round trips.

The savings are dramatic for EWR-NRT at mach .95. Instead of 2 aircraft running the route, all you need is 1 aircraft if you have extremely good ground crews.

Similar savings could be achieved if the Sonic Cruiser went between EWR and HKG at mach 1.2. Instead of 2 aircraft running the route, you only need 1.

Essentially, the SC allows for more frequencies and better aircraft utilization, effectively making an aircraft the size of a 767 into the size of a 777 on EWR-LHR, and doubling the effective capacity of airlines on EWR-NRT and EWR-HKG. From what I've heard, it is going to utilize new productive techniques so as to lower costs considerably on the line and make it so the plane still costs less.

If the plane burns more fuel, it's acceptable since the airline is making way more revenue per day with the plane and the fixed cost of aircraft financing goes down.

No wonder American wanted to buy the first two years of production of the bird.

FlyBoeing
Topic Author
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

Come on guys... I know this is interesting...

bkkair
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:10 pm

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

How can the SC fly at 1.2 unless eastbound with tailwinds? The possibilities are fascinating. Doing all the extra cycles with less aircraft, less crews, etc. which should more than make up for the higher cost ( fuel, acquisition cost) of the SC.
But is Boeing really going ahead with the SC or is it a diversion to take sales from the A380?

FlyBoeing
Topic Author
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

I still don't understand where the A380 comes into play. Here are my rebuttals to the A380 arguments:

1) Airport overcrowding

If airports REALLY are so overcrowded in Europe and Asia, then why don't they simply require that all of the narrowbody connecting flights that go 3x a day upsize to 757s and A321s? If traffic is growing to the scale that all the A380 buffs like to say it's growing, then the A380 might not provide enough capacity, at 550 3 class seats, to accomodate passengers in the future. The future is in either expanding airport capacity or going to point-to-point travel.

The only airport I can think of that is severely crowded with widebodies are Heathrow and Narita. And it seems ludicrous to say that because it costs maybe \$500 million to buy land and build runways, that we should engage in a billion-dollar new aircraft program.

2) Better Service

Most first class sections are financial nightmares. At some point there's diminishing gains to first class service for both the passenger and the airline.

3) More Efficiency

So you're saying that a 550 passenger aircraft with 4 engines is as efficent as 2 280 passenger aircraft with 2 engines each? The airline would probably make more money grounding one of the 777s and flying the other one packed full. The 777 and other aircraft offer flexibility of the fixed cost.

delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

You are assuming that the SC and A380 will fill the same market segment. Not so. There is a market for each one. Just as there are dozens of aircraft types and variants today, there will be many types in the future too, all co-existing.

There are no alternatives at this time to either the A380 or the SC.

And you can't assume that 10 777's will be replaced by 5 A380's. Airlines need multiple frequencies to satisfy the thousands of combinations of connections at either end of a longhaul flight. Plus, many airlines want to compete on the same route.

Cheers,
Pete

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"

bkkair
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:10 pm

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

Fly Boeing - First Class sections are not a financial nightmare, except for the passenger. In the US it may be all upgrades but outside the US, the First and Business class passengers as well as cargo keep the airlines in business. Economy class is just a little extra \$.

FlyBoeing
Topic Author
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

I was simply saying that at some point, providing more luxury for more cost decreases marginal returns. Of course I know that the profits are higher from F/J class. But when it comes to paying more than \$10,000 for a private cabin transatlantic, I bet a lot of borderline passengers would blanch.

keesje
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

Many airlines don´t use the exact same aircraft multiple times on one city pair. It might arrive from LAX in LHR and leave 2 houres later for Tokyo or Johannesburg.

Business tarvellers (at least I) plan in at least a full day for a long haul flight. 1-3 houres less don´t make a big difference for me. On Atlantic East bound flights it might even shorten my ~ 4-6 hour sleep. My system is screwed up anyway.

I guess an airline will ask me to pay me more for a smaller seat on the SC. Somebody has to pay the bills..

No Way For Me..

cheers

keesje

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

FlyBoeing
Topic Author
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

I think that Boeing very well knows that the point about the Sonic Cruiser isn't the speed - it's the a/c utilization.

Admittedly the carriers don't use the same aircraft continuously on the same route, but don't you agree that the Sonic Cruiser probably allows for better fleet utilization? That alone would pay the cost of the plane.

Klaus
Posts: 20713
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

### FlyBoeing

FlyBoeing: Admittedly the carriers don't use the same aircraft continuously on the same route, but don't you agree that the Sonic Cruiser probably allows for better fleet utilization? That alone would pay the cost of the plane.

They´ll have to keep all the added costs low enough for keeping an advantage. I guess it may be possible. But it will take all of Boeing´s brilliance to pull it off:

- Development cost will quite probably be well above that of a similarly-sized conventional plane -> higher break-even and/or higher price tag.

- Higher fuel cost. That´s a factor which is likely to increase over time.

- Maintenance cost: Wild guess, but I don´t see how it could not be above that of a comparable plane. The engines and many aspects of the structure will be specific and non-interchangeable with other types (even many parts); That reduces commonality savings. Hard to imagine spare prices not being higher as well.

Covering all these aspects with higher ticket prices and the speed increase may be possible, but I don´t think it´ll be all that easy.

delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

### RE: Simple Time Study Of SC Vs. 777/340

There was a similar increase in cost and fuel burn when we went from props to jets. At first, there was even a price surcharge for jets, but people paid it even on short routes where the time did not make a difference.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"

Klaus
Posts: 20713
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

### Delta-flyer

Delta-flyer: There was a similar increase in cost and fuel burn when we went from props to jets. At first, there was even a price surcharge for jets, but people paid it even on short routes where the time did not make a difference.

The difference in speed was a lot bigger then.

Some people definitely will pay for higher speed with the SC. The question is: How many, how much?

### Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos