Byrdluvs747
Topic Author
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Does anyone have an idea of the weight of B6's IFE(total or individual screens)? I'm wondering how much extra does it cost B6 to fly their aircraft versus say HP on their LA - JFK transcons.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:33 pm

Love to know what all this IFE stuff does add to the weight!!
Along with the reduction in (in many cases) reduction in knee room and foot room in many seats. I could take it or... preferably leave it, give me a good book or two anyday!

Regards

Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Fly Lufthansa or Aeroflot, or an airline without PTV boxes. StealthZ
-Mr. X
What now?
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:46 pm

An IFE system with video screens at every seat weighs collectively about 2,000 pounds on the B767-300.
On the B777-200, it weights about 2,600lbs.
On the B747-400, such a system weighs a bit over 3,000lbs.

A rough number used in the industry is about 7-8lbs per passenger seat. This average covers cableling and other associated electronics beyond simply the in seat units.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:02 pm

Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 2):
Fly Lufthansa or Aeroflot, or an airline without PTV boxes. StealthZ

Not likely, no disrespect to either airline, but I would have to travel much of the way around the world to get to a place served by either!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Byrdluvs747
Topic Author
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:09 pm

Thanks Laxintl.

Ok so at 156 seats per plane that equals 1092-1248 extra pounds per flight. That's quite a bit of weight to be carrying around on every flight.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:56 pm

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 5):
Ok so at 156 seats per plane that equals 1092-1248 extra pounds per flight. That's quite a bit of weight to be carrying around on every flight.

One of the reasons airlines and espcially leasors are very excited about Boeing's plans go make wireless the standard option for IFE on the 787. Reduced weight, and much simpler/cheaper to reconfigure an interior.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4905
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:58 am

GOOD GRIEF!!!!
I had no idea.
2000 lb for a 767??? That's nuts!
No wonder Southwest has repeatedly chosen to skip it.
R
 
sebring
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:08 am

Doesn't live TV on B6 and WS carry an additional weight penalty? I am under the assumption that the satellite receiver adds weight over and above the cabling and in-seat video equipment.
 
Byrdluvs747
Topic Author
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:28 am

Reduced weight, and much simpler/cheaper to reconfigure an interior.

Yes, I'd rather have high speed internet access anyway.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 8):
Doesn't live TV on B6 and WS carry an additional weight penalty? I am under the assumption that the satellite receiver adds weight over and above the cabling and in-seat video equipment.

Yes, but I can't imagine it adding more than 100-150lbs. Most receivers these days are made of plastics.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
aogdesk
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:26 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:39 am

Don't take this as gospel, but I believe that I've read in the past that an object burns 4% of its overall weight in fuel.....I imagine that becomes a very real factor considering todays fuel prices.
 
FLAIRPORT
Posts: 3863
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 10:46 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:24 am

Wouldn't that be equivelent to the standard weight of an A320 if it was flown by a major without IFE but with extra seats and without 36 inch pitch?
NEXT FLIGHT: FLL-ATL-HPN on FL
 
Byrdluvs747
Topic Author
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:26 am

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 11):
Wouldn't that be equivelent to the standard weight of an A320 if it was flown by a major without IFE but with extra seats and without 36 inch pitch?

Only if a carrier was flying an all Y A320 with 31" pitch. But most often the difference is the F cabin.

Even if they had the same IFE setup, HP(12F & 138 Y) would achieve a lower weight due to the 2x2 F seating. A row of four 200lb men in F weigh less than six 200lb men in Y. If you average every adult at 150lbs, that comes to 900lbs less than a B6 A320 without the live IFE.

US flies their A320's with 142 seats(16 F & 126Y). That's 14 less seats than on B6. If you average every adult at 160lbs, it comes to at least a 2200lb difference.

Look at TED's config which is only a reverse of B6's seating(E+ in the front versus in the back). While Ted has the same number seats, it would still weigh 1200lbs less since there's no IFE
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:47 am

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 11):


Wouldn't that be equivelent to the standard weight of an A320 if it was flown by a major without IFE but with extra seats and without 36 inch pitch?

But the seats are filled with fare-paying passengers. LCD screens do not carry passengers.

AAndrew
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:40 am

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 11):
Wouldn't that be equivelent to the standard weight of an A320 if it was flown by a major without IFE but with extra seats and without 36 inch pitch?

B6 does not have a 36 inch pitch. They have 32" in the front third and 34" in the rear third.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 12):
US flies their A320's with 142 seats(16 F & 126Y). That's 14 less seats than on B6. If you average every adult at 160lbs, it comes to at least a 2200lb difference.

Remember, there is a not insignificant difference in the weight of the seat sets that does counter some of that. Weight is the main reason SQ does not have F on the A345 services.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
havaloc
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:45 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:22 am

What about those CRT style televisions hanging from the ceiling in NW's 757 that are never used? That must be a lot of weight too.
DC-9
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:36 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
B6 does not have a 36 inch pitch. They have 32" in the front third and 34" in the rear third.

So, uh...any idea what the middle third is? Seems kinda strange to leave that bit of info out. I'm kinda curious now.  Smile
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
JBLUA320
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:50 am

Any row up to the emergency exit row is 32" of pitch. Including and behind the exit rows, the pitch is 34".

For the record, jetBlue airplanes do not have a metal box under any seat. Absolutely no underseat or knee space is obstructed by the IFE on board any jetBlue airplane.

JBLU
 
Byrdluvs747
Topic Author
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:40 am

Quoting Havaloc (Reply 15):
What about those CRT style televisions hanging from the ceiling in NW's 757 that are never used? That must be a lot of weight too.

Good point. I Always wondered how much those weigh. They should convert them to LCD.

Quote:
For the record, jetBlue airplanes do not have a metal box under any seat. Absolutely no underseat or knee space is obstructed by the IFE on board any jetBlue airplane.

But they do have a box somewhere, right? If so, then the weight issue still applies.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
N200WN
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:09 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:48 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 7):
GOOD GRIEF!!!!
I had no idea.
2000 lb for a 767??? That's nuts!
No wonder Southwest has repeatedly chosen to skip it

I have to agree...and I hope it's not something that Southwest does in the future either. With a 420 aircraft fleet at 137 seats per airplane that would mean 57,540 units. That is A LOT of electronic equipment to purchase and maintain. And think of it like this...with the fast pace of changing technology it's not like once these things are installed they're good for the life of the airplane. How many times will they need to be upgraded and replaced over the life of the aircraft? Then there is the expense of maintenance in addition to the added weight being carried around.

Wouldn't it be better to just add power ports to every seat and let the Customers purchase, use, upgrade, and maintain the equipment of their choice?
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:01 pm

Quoting N200WN (Reply 19):
Wouldn't it be better to just add power ports to every seat and let the Customers purchase, use, upgrade, and maintain the equipment of their choice?

IMO that wouldn't play much into someone's buying decision.

Here's the test Southwest should be worried about.

Put WN and JB up against one another in a market neither one has a natural advantage in. JB will out yield Southwest, outperform Southwest in load factor, and holding for fuel hedging Jetblue has lower costs than Southwest.
They have a better product and a business model that produces lower costs.
Southwest better think twice about going with the status quo. The only reason Southwest is not craping their pants is they hit the jackpot in fuel hedging.
 
N200WN
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:09 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:51 pm

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 20):
IMO that wouldn't play much into someone's buying decision.

Here's the test Southwest should be worried about.

Put WN and JB up against one another in a market neither one has a natural advantage in. JB will out yield Southwest, outperform Southwest in load factor, and holding for fuel hedging Jetblue has lower costs than Southwest.
They have a better product and a business model that produces lower costs.
Southwest better think twice about going with the status quo. The only reason Southwest is not craping their pants is they hit the jackpot in fuel hedging.

Agreed...B6 does in fact offer a superior "product" (if assigned seats and IFE are important to you) and they are a more than outstanding operation. Herb has in fact made comments to this effect and believe me they are watching very closely. That is why there have been comments made over the last year about looking at things like RJ's, assigned seating, and IFE. But I think at this point in time B6's gains will come at the expense of the legacy carriers as there is little head to head competition between the B6 and WN. That will all come in due course.

Now in five to ten years (or how ever long it may take) when JetBlue, Southwest, and AirTran have a combined 50 to 60 percent of the US market I think we may be looking at a very different WN...but competition is great and will only bring about better customer service on more efficient airlines.

You hit the nail on the head with regards to fuel hedging. This has been communicated to all employees time and time again to keep everyone focused on costs. As someone who works here, trust me when I say that WN is insanely committed to being the lowest cost provider of air travel in the US.

That is why I don't think that adding IFE is a wise of necessary thing to do at this time, if ever, because as you say I don't believe it plays into most people's buying decisions.
 
LV
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 6:02 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:00 pm

IFE is a marketing point, and on at least one occasion it got them free publicity. Last night, coincidentally, Conan O'Brien was talking about a Jetblue flight were people started giving him strange looks, then next thing he realizes is that his show is on and the people are reacting to his jokes. He said it was the weirdest thing, to get that instant reaction and watch his show as he was flying.
 
SilentObserver
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:45 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:03 pm

Jetblue is making money, when everyone but Southwest is losing money. They hit a load factor of 90% for March, an increase of 6.6%. They have one of the lowest per seat costs of any airline in the market (with flying the IFEs on every flight). They are now rated as having the best product in the market.

If you can make a profit and continue to build on your brand, all while increasing you load factor, you are obviously doing a lot right!!!

So what does it matter if the IFE does add 2000lbs?? Things seem to be working extremely well for them. One could say that a lot of the "cult" following it because of those IFEs. It does seem to be hurting them too badly to have the extra weight.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:22 pm

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 20):
Here's the test Southwest should be worried about.

WN is the furthest thing from a sitting target possible. There is nothing to "worry" about. It's absolutely no secret how to match the "JetBlue Product." They just need to sit, wait, and mobilize when the time is right. I don't put that out of the capacity of the most capable leadership in the industry.

Quoting N200WN (Reply 19):
With a 420 aircraft fleet at 137 seats per airplane that would mean 57,540 units. That is A LOT of electronic equipment to purchase and maintain.

No kidding... and food for thought, that much IFE equippment is the equivelent weight of 4 unloaded, unfueled 737-700!
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:03 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):
There is nothing to "worry" about

Spoken like a Major airline back in the 80's. "Southwest is nothing to worry about. They are not even considered a major carrier by the DOT".


This not only about JB, Airtran has costs as low or lower than WN now without hedging at all. Song has put out an excellent product and lowered the CASM gap considerably. Airlines are rushing to simplify fleets, raise daily utilization, out source heavy maintenance just as Southwest does.

I'm not saying Southwest will not do what it takes, just that doing it sooner rather than later benefits them so much more.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Cos

Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:38 pm

all this is well and good..but B6 doesn't doesn't have the full cost structure that WN has......lets see what happens in a few years when B6 is saddled and bloated with lots of "legacy-type" costs (such as plane repairs, pensions, etc)....we'll see how profitable they are then......

WN has been around for three decades....don't' count WN out so fast!
"Up the Irons!"
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Costs?

Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:55 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
all this is well and good..but B6 doesn't doesn't have the full cost structure that WN has......lets see what happens in a few years when B6 is saddled and bloated with lots of "legacy-type" costs (such as plane repairs, pensions, etc)....we'll see how profitable they are then......

I've been wondering a lot time how maturity will affect B6's profitability. Obviously rising maintenance costs/pay-scales/pensions/etc. are managable (see, WN). And I have no doubt that an airline as well capitalized and managed as B6 has a solid business plan to deal with this inevitabilities. But it makes me think the stock is currently overvalued, though certainly more palatable than 18 months ago or so.

In a sense, it seems like B6 has nowhere to go but down. Management has quite a challenge ahead of them. Either way it goes, it should make for an interesting case study Big grin
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11862
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: The Weight Of B6's IFE In Relation To Fuel Cos

Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:02 pm

Quoting SilentObserver (Reply 23):
So what does it matter if the IFE does add 2000lbs?? Things seem to be working extremely well for them.

I agree. When is the last time you saw a B6 thread without discussion of the IFE? While I enjoy reading, the "pacification" value IFE has on other passengers is sweet!  Smile

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):

WN is the furthest thing from a sitting target possible. There is nothing to "worry" about

I agree WN can grow tremendously without "worrying" about B6. However, WN adapts, they're far less "static" in strategy than the majors, so the analogy to the legacy carriers isn't quite correct. And lets not forget the life vests go in the fleet in 2006! WN adapts and when they do the entire fleet adapts as one. (Ok, they do have "trial aircraft"... but that's 1% of the fleet, at most. e.g., the "hanging flaps" on the trial 733's.)

Heck, I'm still waiting to see the full impact of WN "turning on" the yield management software. What was it, six months ago when they first started re-arranging flights based on recommendations on the software? WN will be able to squeeze out a lot more value from their network in the coming years on that alone.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
lets see what happens in a few years when B6 is saddled and bloated with lots of "legacy-type" costs (such as plane repairs, pensions, etc)

???? B6 has a 401k (pay as you go) and profit sharing. Neelman has stated they will NEVER have a pension (with its uncertain liabilities and variable costs). Fixed benifit pensions make no sense for a private company.

Much of the B6 strategy is avoiding accumulating the bureaucratic costs of a major. Yes, the plane repairs have been stated to add ~ 0.5 cents to the CASM (if I recall correctly). But aren't they about ~0.17 cents into that ~0.5 cents already? There is no logical reason to have most of the costs the majors do. B6 takes 70 people per aircraft versus UA's 110 for the same A320. What are the UA people doing? Mostly do work that the customer never sees. B6 is using "electronic notebooks" and other methods so that they never incurr said costs.

Its all about making money and building market/mind share. WN is proven with making money. Right now B6 has shown they can make money (not as long a track record as WN, obviously) AND hold mind share. Both will do well in the long term.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain