jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

$100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:38 am

I was watching the show "Forbes on Fox" this morning, and it posed the question "how much does it cost to fill up the A380 Super Jumbo" and the answer was "$100,000".

we know that its obviously going to be cheaper to fill in Euros (76,944.00 EUR)

( 1 USD = 0.769440 EUR /1 EUR = 1.29965 USD)

ok..we do know different places have different jet fuel prices, but I assume they took some kind of average. Assuming that.......

1) is that statement (by Fox)to be correct?
2) how much does it cost to fill up a somewhat competitve aircraft such as the 747-400?
3) given the available data/information as of right now, does anyone know how much it will cost to break even on a 380 flight for some aircarrier such as SQ or EK?

p.s.-I put "Him" because some say its going to be the new "King" of the skies.... Big grin
"Up the Irons!"
 
MD11LuxuryLinr
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:34 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:41 am

I thought it cost more than $100,000 to fill up a 747.. Be interesting to find out.
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:31 am

>I put "Him" because some say its going to be the new "King" of the skies....<

All planes are she, just like ships and cars. There is, however, only one Queen of the Skies.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:03 am

It depnds what cost the airlines hedge their fuel at, but with 81890 gallons of fuel capacity this I am afraid see the fuel bill be a lot higher than $100,000.

http://www.aviationboom.com/features/feature_A380.shtml

 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:08 am

At $1.20, which is apparently what the airlines have been paying lately, we are talking $98,268 to fill the plane.

At 57,285 gallons for a 744, that is $68,742. $76,446 for the 63,702 gallon 744ER
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:33 pm

stand corrected sorry about that. I thought fuel in these times was sometimes up to about 20% of the total flight cost.
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:11 pm

Yes, there is only one "Queen of the Skies" so the A380 shall be "Empress of the Skies". Our venerable beauty keeps her regal title while her larger counterpart takes precedence.

As for the cost of fuel... yes, it would be a large up-front expense to fill up an A380, but it is the long term costs that are most important in the airline industry and the A380 is supposed to be quite an efficient Goliath.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:47 am

Flybyguy..........

there are two majour assumptions being made here

1)the cost of flying the 380 is as Airbus has predicted... 1/5 cheaper (20%) than flying the 747-400 (operational/net..what have you).....i'm not so sure if they will be able to make it that much cheaper to operate the 380 over the 747

2) if they can fill those seats.......yes..some routes will do well.and boeing has never disagreed with that.....but what about seasonality and why has JAL gone from a 747's to 777's from Japan to slot-restricted LHR?

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1917168/
"Up the Irons!"
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:31 am

All planes are she, just like ships and cars.


Aren't Russian ships referred to as "he"?


2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
trident2e
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:38 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:36 am

N1120a - I totally agree with you, the A380 is the only Queen of the Skies.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:39 am

The 380 might be the biggest thing out there for pax travel, but the 747 will to me at least, ALWAYS be the Queen of the skies..something which she has EARNED over the DECADES...the 380 has yet to even fly!!
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
posti
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:51 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:41 am

I've seen a private A340 spend upwards of $110,000 on fuel regularly. They could give me 10,000 of that and I'd be happy.
LGW via RAC, LAF, & SEA
 
MD11LuxuryLinr
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:34 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:43 am

Shouldn't the 'King' of the sky be given to the aircraft with the most flight time?.. has spent more time in the sky than any other aircraft?  Big grin
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
 
trident2e
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:38 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:45 am

The Queen is dead, long live the Queen! Like it or not, the 747 is no longer the 'Queen of the Skies' but now the 'Has-been of the Skies'.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:47 am

"The Queen is dead, long live the Queen! Like it or not, the 747 is no longer the 'Queen of the Skies' but now the 'Has-been of the Skies'."

I didn't know the 747 has outlived is usefulness yet.....
"Up the Irons!"
 
windowflyer
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:46 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:17 am

The German Battleship Bismarck was referred to as he.
He was supposedly too powerful to be called she. (According to the captain)

I think King of the skies suites the A380, as the B747 will always be Queen.
A-300,319,320,321,330,340,380. B-727,737,747,757,767,777,787. L-1011,DC8,DC9,MD80,CRJ,Dash-8,YS-11,HS-748,Concorde
 
Stas
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:20 am

Aren't Russian ships referred to as "he"?

Most words that describe ships in Russian have feminine gender; however, the most commonly used general word for a ship has a masculine gender, hence most people refer to ships as "He". I could not think of any word that describe an aircraft and have feminine gender, thus people refer to airplanes as "He".
 
richie87
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:02 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:48 am

Given that the A380 does have the fuel capacity of a few tanker trucks at over 80 K gallons, I suppose it's reasonable to eventually expect a fill-up bill at over 100 K $ USD regardless of whether it's measured in US or Imperial gallons. Whew. Hope they take credit cards, ha ha.

Another subject that interests me about the A380 is the venting systems that are designed-in to cope with pressurization loss. That was a huge problem in the early DC-10 series aircraft, where sudden depressurization caused floor collapse and other assorted disasters. I know they eventually retro-fitted something like "blow out" panels in the floor with a 3 psi-g differential or something like that. The A380 has two floors, of course, and a whole lotta cubed volume of pressurized air. Any comments?

Regarding the gender referance of ships and such... it's been traditional for ages to refer to ships in the feminine "she", although there have been exceptions. I do know that Russian Submarines were nearly always referred as "he", which, well- just does not sound right ! As it is... subs were almost always called "boats", although the US Navy and their nuclear fleet has adopted the "ship" phrase.

As regards most Airbus products.... I tend to refer to them as "it". IT is one big bloody mother of an aircraft !!
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5027
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:55 am

The average fuel cost in the us is 2.15 from what I have heard that airlines have been paying, which is 176,063.50. However, some places on the east coast are 3.05 a gallon, but the airlines typically pay $2.75, which is 225,197.50. Now lets say they still have 2200 gallons when the land and such, which then it may only need 95% of her tanks full, which is 77795.5-2200= 75595.5 multiply that by the average of $2.15 that comes to $162,530.33
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:39 am

At a major airport near a shipping harbor or near a refinery $100,000 will be pretty close to the final bill.

So when the 555 three class seats are filled, and if it lands with empty tanks (which it doesn't) then it will be $180 and 18 cent for each passenger for bringing him (her) to practically the other side of the globe.

No other airliner can do it that cheaply.

With a relatively generous all economy class layout it will bring each seat 7,000 miles away for a roughly $100.00 fuel bill per seat. How far does your car go with $100 worth gas?

My VW Golf will bring me 551.34 miles, which is 6,448.66 miles less. But then there are places where gas is less heavily taxed than here. In the US I would go slightly over 1,000 miles.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:48 am

>I totally agree with you, the A380 is the only Queen of the Skies.<

Apparently you don't agree with me, or have no idea what you are thinking.


Burnsie, I believe those numbers for fuel are the FBO prices, which the airlines pay much, much less than
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5027
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:52 am

Nope they are not the FBO prices, for instance, the FBO prices at msp are something like $4.40 a gallon.
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:21 am

Let's see...

Average 747-400 has 416 seats.

Average A380 will have 550 seats.

747-400 (range 7,260nm) :

57,285 / 416 = 137.70432 gallons per seat

52.721657 seat miles (nm) per gallon

-

747-400ER (range 7,670nm):

63,705 / 416 = 153.13701 gallons per seat

50.085867 seat miles (nm) per gallon

-

A380 (range 8,000nm estimated):

81,890 / 555 = 147.54954 gallons per seat

54.219077 seat miles (nm) per gallon

All data from each manufacturer's website.

So, basically, you're gaining two seat miles per gallon over the 747-400 and four seat miles over the 747-400ER, a 4%-8% improvement. On those routes where an airline can fill every seat, the A380 makes more sense.

However, on a route where the A380 would run at 70% full (389 passengers) and a 747 would run at 85% full (354 passengers), the numbers change drastically. The Airbus runs at 210.5... gallons per passenger, while the 747-400 runs at 161.8... gallons per passenger. Airbus efficiency drops to approx 38 passenger miles (nm) per gallon while 747-400 efficiency drops only to slightly less than 44.9 passenger miles (nm) per gallon.

So as you can see, if the A380 is running at the same capacity as a 747, it is more efficient. However, if routes are more appropriate for 747s than A380s in terms of demand, the A380 will actually be a big waste of both fuel and space.

Of course, these numbers are imperfect because we're calculating based upon a) total fuel capacity, not the actual amount of fuel required to travel the max specified range and b) the A380 hasn't yet actually flown, so we don't know what it's actual efficiencies are.

Personally, I think Airbus would have been better off choosing an aircraft with significantly greater efficiency (say, 7E7 material?) than going with a behemoth that needs to be full to beat the competition.



As for the $100,000 price tag, depending on hedging and all, I can easily see an A380 using $100,000 of fuel or more on a given flight. Some flights originating in some cities could easily top $200,000. Fortunately, if that were, say, LAX-SYD, that $200,000 price tag would be shared among the 555 passengers at $360 apiece.

Since the lowest-price fare I could find between those two cities is $1275 round-trip and that's a heavily discounted coach fare, I don't think there will be too much of a problem with all the economy-plus, business and first-class seating available (which is readily bought, I might add!)...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:29 am

$100,000 to fill up an A380 gas tank! And I thought filling up my Honda Pilot with $40 was a lot!! Sheesh!
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:32 am


No other airliner can do it that cheaply.


Not true. There are planes currently in service that can do better than the A380.

For example, the 773er has a fuel capacity of 47,890 US gal.

47,890 US gal / 365 pax = 131.2 US gal / pax

For the a380:

81,890 US gal / 555 pax = 147.5 US gal / pax

The 773er has slightly less range than the a380, 120nm to be exact. That's 1.5% less than a380's.

Taking this into account, the a380 burns about 10% more fuel per seat than the 773er.

This is not a very scientific comparison. We have to see the acutal fuel burn on specific missions. But it does give you a rough idea.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:11 am

"Since the lowest-price fare I could find between those two cities is $1275 round-trip and that's a heavily discounted coach fare,"


I found this on orbitz.com (random check)

$879
per person
Leave
Thu, Mar 10 Qantas Airways 108
Depart: 11:45pm
Arrive: 9:15am

Non-stop Los Angeles, CA (LAX)
Sydney, Australia (SYD)

Economy | 14hr 30min | Boeing 747

This flight arrives two days later.
Choose this flight

Return
Sun, Mar 20 Qantas Airways 149
Depart: 11:35am
Arrive: 6:00am

Non-stop Sydney, Australia (SYD)
Los Angeles, CA (LAX)

Economy | 13hr 25min | Boeing 747

---------------------

thats a whopping 31% cheaper....how will the economics of the 380 come then?

"Up the Irons!"
 
jeffrito
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 3:17 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:03 am

This is an interesting discussion ...

Anybody care to extend the cost / revenue comparisons between models to include crew & freight?
 
teva
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 12:31 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:47 am

Dynkrisolo,
One elemenet is missing in your demonstration: For some of those very long flights, a huge portion is over oceans. In this case, the flown distance frm A to B could be much longer for the 777, due to the Etops regulations.

As Jeffrito says, do not forget all the cargo the A380 can carry.

And for evryone, Airbus claims are not only on feul consumption, but on a cost/mile/seat

If so many profitable airlines choose it, they probably have a good reason...
And it is not because they don't know how to spend their money.
Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
 
JFKviaPHX
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:31 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:56 am

I'm ready... We do 744s from JFK to NRT and ICN everyday. A few days we do FJK to PEK. It depends on the flights conditions, but the pounds range from 310k to 382k a flight. The A380 only means more business for us at JFK.
 
OO-VEG
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:31 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:06 am

How about 1st class?? The statements that airfares get cheaper because the A380 is cheaper to operate may be true. But wouldn't the real benefit come from those who pay 1st class?? What are the odds that flying 1st class (which must be a dramatic improvement given all the snapshots from Airbus) will be a lot more expensive?? That way you can give your economy pax a discount, to fill-up the aircraft.

And how about that Casino/Stand-up bar concept from VS?? That's a LCC money-making principle, could be usefull to get ticketprices down as they will earn-it back once the passengers are trapped inside and get bored.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:55 am

Teva:


One elemenet is missing in your demonstration: For some of those very long flights, a huge portion is over oceans. In this case, the flown distance frm A to B could be much longer for the 777, due to the Etops regulations.


In most cases, it's irrelevant. With 180-minute ETOPS, twins fly the same routes as non-twins. You can compare schedules of twins and quads of different airlines, and you'll see that's true. For trans-oceanic travel within the Southern Hemisphere, 180-minute ETOPS can be severely handicap. But how many city pairs within the Southern Hemisphere can sustain profitbale A380 services?


As Jeffrito says, do not forget all the cargo the A380 can carry.


The a380 can hold 38 LD3s. The 773er can hold 34 LD3s. Each LD3 can hold 25-30 passengers' luggage. Since the a380 carries 190 more passengers, it needs 6-8 more LD3s than the 773er for passenger luggage. So, it means the a380 has 2-4 less LD3s for revenue cargo.


And for evryone, Airbus claims are not only on feul consumption, but on a cost/mile/seat


True, fuel cost is only a part of the total cost. But this thread is about fuel burn.


If so many profitable airlines choose it, they probably have a good reason...


They all probably had a good reason, but ...


And it is not because they don't know how to spend their money.


Many profitable airlines ordered the MD-11, too. Did they not know what they were doing?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:14 am

Dear Dynkrisolo (refering to reply #24), your comparison between A380 and B777ER is a little like apples and oranges.

If we configure an A380 with the same seat arrangement as a 365 pax 777ER, then the A380 will not acommodate 555 pax, but something like 100 more than that.

But we can in fact fly "cheaper" or more fuel efficient per seat/mile. Then we only have to go on shorter distances.

The problem with long range airliners is that they spend a lot of energy on transporting a heavy fuel load to be used on the later part of the flight.

Let's imagine an A380 with 555 pax fueled for max range 8,000nm.
It will take of with some 50 tons payload and some 250 tons fuel.
On the first 4,000nm it will spend a lot of fuel on hauling along the roughly 100 tons of fuel to be used on the last 4,000nm.

That is the reason why the A380F freighter is a somewhat different plane: Max payload 150 tons and somewhat less fuel capacity and range. An en route fuel stop obviously pays off dramatically.

If a pax A380 shall compete in fuel efficiency with for instance a B737-800 configured with the max certified 189 seats, then the A380 first of all has to be configured with the same seat density which means roughly 800 seats. Still the 737 will be more fuel efficient per seat/mile on a 1,000 - 1,500nm sector never mind what sector length we choose for the A380.

May God (or anyone else in power) forbid that any long range plane ever gets configured that way. That would create a health problem similar to shipping African slaves to America 400 years ago.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
jeffrito
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 3:17 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:46 am

If we configure an A380 with the same seat arrangement as a 365 pax 777ER, then the A380 will not acommodate 555 pax, but something like 100 more than that.

Is this true? The sample 777ER config contains a far higher proportion of F & J classes than the sample A380 config.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:54 am


If we configure an A380 with the same seat arrangement as a 365 pax 777ER, then the A380 will not acommodate 555 pax, but something like 100 more than that.


Simply not true. Let's get some facts:

The a380 555-seat configuration consists of

22F @ 68" pitch, 96C @ 48" pitch, 437Y @ 32/33" pitch and the percentage of seats in each class is 4% in F, 17% in C, and 79% in Y. Two lavs for F (11 pax per lav), 4 lavs for C (24 pax per lav), and 11 lavs for Y (40 pax per lav).

The 773er 365-seat configuration consists of

22F @ 61" pitch, 70C @ 39" pitch, 273Y @ 31/32" pitch and the percentage of seats in each class is 6% in F, 19% in C, and 75% in Y. Two lavs for F (11 pax per lav), 4 lavs for C (17.5 pax per lav), and 7 lavs for Y (39 pax per lav).

The Boeing configuration has more premium seats, relatively more lavs but less favorable pitch. So, if you configure the two planes using exactly the same distribution, the ratio wouldn't be too different from the current ratio of 555:365.

For the sake of argument let's say what you said is true. The problem here is with 655 pax, the a380 will lose about 1,000nm of range. So comparing the seating numbers at a similar range is an apple to apple comparison.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:19 am

First of all... Gas is running $1.18 a gallon plus 34% overhead, for a total cost of $1.58 delivered. Second, as you increase the number of seats on the 380, your range decreases and increases your fuel burn. A short haul 380 (say 3,000nm) with 700 pax will be no more effiicient than a 767-200 on a per pax basis. Just like a high density 7E7-8 will burn about the same per pax as a 767-400. It's all relative to the configuration.
 
cloudboy
Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: $100,000 To Fill 'er (him) Up-A380

Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:07 pm

OK, for all of us who suck at math, could someone put together a kind of graph for this?

Let's pick three planes. Let's also say that they are all configured with 5% F, 20% C, 75% Y. Or whatever is standard. for any given range, there is obviously an amount of fuel that would be burned. So if you had a chart with the X axis as range, and the Y axis as Fuel Burned, then you will get a nice graph. And we can compare the planes together.

Oh, and assume that they are filled with fuel at the beginning of the flight.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski