|Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 25):|
Lots of people usually forget this when it comes to ULH; how many people actually would fly 17/18 hours on a plane, and if so, would they fly it in, say, Emirate's 772 cattle config? I don't think too many.
See my thread on this kind of comment. You can place it there. Do a search for the official flight to long thread, or something like that.
|Quoting SNATH (Reply 28):|
So, roughly the same as the A345, HOWEVER with higher-yielding F class passangers and lower fuel burn.
NOT roughly the same. As you state, the 772LR already has lower CASM, but that's based on factors that when placed in reality, make it even worse for the A345, so much so it would be very cost effective to dump the A345 as quickly as possible.
The 772LR already has better CASM than the A345 as advertised, no matter how skewed the advertising is.
B bases it's efficiency numbers for the 772LR on 301 pax in a "typical" 3-class configuration. According the this 200 seat for 2 class idea (huge J), you have to figure the numbers at 50% more CASM (not taking cargo into account). 301/200 = 1.5 = 50% more cost per pax vs. base numbers. Obviously, this doesn't take into account the lighter aircraft due to fewer pax and even fewer premium seats than in the B example, but just leave it as is.
But A bases their efficiency numbers for the A345 at 313 pax in a "typical 3-class configuration. So at 181, that is 313/181 = 73% more expensive CASM than their base calculations! And those base calcs are already higher than the 772LR.
One would also NOT assume that SQ
would add 19 more Y seats but no more J seats in the 772 plan, considering the J traffic backlog they have now. So, they might instead add 2 more rows of J where 31-33 are. That takes out 8+4=12 seats. But also with 777 increased width, they might be able to reconfigure size and shapes of galleys, closets and lavs throughout, putting back that row of 8. I think they can. So, that would be a net loss of 4 over the 200 seat plan. A better way to look at it is an addition of 12J (76J) and 0Y (117Y), or 193 seats. Or something along those lines. 7 fewer pax than the 200 example, but with a much higher yielding ratio.
|Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):|
Can you please explain how you think the extra F class would be accomodated at the 7772LR without cutting the total number of seats?
Swap out rows 1-2 with 8F pods. Change the shape of the galleys and lavs due to greater width of 777, and you can still put 2 J-rows ahead of door 2. Then, replace what the 345 calls rows 31-33 with 2 J-rows, again rearrange galleys and lavs due to greater width, pull out that center closet/rest for 2 more J seats total, and you should be able to fit the same number of Y seats as before. That would be 8F/66J/117Y = 191 pax in a 3-class, with 74 premium seats versus 64, including 8 very expensive F seats.
But I bet with the right configuration of all components, SQ
could get 200 3-class into the 772LR without compromising the level of comfort they want to provide. We are just basing this on the A345 plan, but that plan includes various galley and lav fittings and crew rest stairs and such that would be rearranged and moved and resized in a 772. Further, we don't know how much space SQ
"wasted" with these fittings because they had the room and couldn't carry any more pax anyway. Prep counters and larger lavs don't really take up much weight.
might also trim down both the Y cabin, decreasing the Y pitch to 36", and providing a Premium Y section with 40" and 2-3-2 seating. Maybe something like 8F, 60J, 42Y+, 90Y or something like that. For such a long flight, being able to choose among more versions of Y and J could be desriable. Who knows?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.