WingedMigrator
Topic Author
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 1:55 pm

Greetings All,

I have often seen it mentioned on a.net, particularly by Zvezda, that the B787-10 (and possibly the future, all-new, all-new A350-1000) will have lower CASM (cost per available seat-mile) than the A388 or the B748. This is often passed off as fact, and I'm sorry if I missed the analysis that supported it.

So I'm asking, how do we figure that? Take me through the (rough) numbers please.

Some better-known numbers

For the proposed B787-10:
Cruise SFC - 0.508 lb/hr/lbt
MTOW - 272 tonnes
OEW - 125 tonnes
Cabin floor area (usable) - 291 m2

For the B748:
Cruise SFC - 0.515 lb/hr/lbt
MTOW - 435 tonnes
OEW - 203 tonnes
Cabin floor area (usable) - 407 m2

For the A388, the common nickname of which is unmentionable on A.net:
Cruise SFC - 0.525 lb/hr/lbt (GP7200), 0.561 lb/hr/lbt (T900)
MTOW - 560 tonnes
OEW - 278 tonnes
Cabin floor area (usable) - 552 m2

I am leaving out the A350-1000 because its specs are not sufficiently defined at this time.

I'm sure Widebodyphotog's charts will come in handy if more is needed.

Possibly more controversial assumptions

1) Assume the number of seats is proportional to usable cabin floor area
2) For figuring fuel-related costs, assume crude settles at $50/bbl
3) Since CASM depends on sector length, assume 7000 nm
4) Assume no cargo (isn't that on the revenue side, RASM rather than CASM?)
5) Landing fees proportional to MTOW
6) Assume similar overhead costs (management, IT, gate rental, insurance, regulatory fees, etc.)
7) Assume similar crew compensation

Some things I'm not sure about

1) If CASM is drawn as a pie chart, what are all the slices and how big do they tend to be with respect to each other?

2) What assumptions shall we make about maintenance costs? Perhaps it would be fair to assume the 787-10, as a newer aircraft, would have lower maintenance costs by design.

3) How to make the overhead costs "similar"... it probably costs more to rent an A380 gate than it does to rent a B787 gate. Is that included in the landing fee? Also, it probably costs more to insure an A380 than a B787. How to be fair here?

4) What is a fair way to figure in depreciation?

So... how do the B748, B787-10 and A388 really stack up against each other on the basis of CASM? Can the claims being made be documented? If it isn't too much to ask, please keep this discussion focused on numbers. Opinions are welcome if they help to quantify the assumptions.

Thanks for helping me nail this down a little better!  airplane 
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 2:04 pm

Too many variables and no real world data on any of them. If any of them turn maintenance pig/dispatch reliability pig, then what is projected is pointless. The 748 is probably the least likely to introduce such issues because its a varriant. You just don't really know until real world. The manufacturers however have the engineering data and are thus able to make better predictions on the potential, and thats what is marketed.

[Edited 2006-05-18 07:05:06]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 4:26 pm

If I understand the OP correctly, it is or can be stipulated that everything is proportional to size (cabin floor area) or TOW, except for fuel burn and (I'm take the liberty here) pilot salaries. If that's the case, then it's not too hard.

The three principle determinants of CASM are:
a) SFC,
b) aerodynamic efficiency, and
c) structural efficiency (usually measured as payload/OEW).

We'll stipulate that all other factors are proportional to TOW or cabin floor area i.e. number of seats, except those explicitly mentioned.

The OP posted the numbers for SFC. There will not be any great differences in aerodynamic efficiency among these, but those that enter service later will probably have a slight edge. The differences in structural efficiency are striking.

Pilot salaries will favor the larger aircraft over the smaller aircraft, but not by much for two reasons:
1) pilot salaries are not a huge component of CASM, and
2) many airlines pay more to those flying larger aircraft.

Also, the B787 is projected to require dramatically less maintenance than metal airliners, including greater MX intervals.

In every measure except pilot salaries, the B787 has the edge.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 1):
Too many variables and no real world data on any of them. If any of them turn maintenance pig/dispatch reliability pig, then what is projected is pointless. The 748 is probably the least likely to introduce such issues because its a varriant. You just don't really know until real world. The manufacturers however have the engineering data and are thus able to make better predictions on the potential, and thats what is marketed.

Very true. Calculating specific numbers is not possible from the data available. Only relative comparisons are possible based on interpolation.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 6:30 pm

Is the SFC for the T900 THAT much worse than the GP7200? (.561 vs .525) Surely they wouldn't have got any orders if that was the case?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
A350
Posts: 1011
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 6:53 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 3):
Is the SFC for the T900 THAT much worse than the GP7200? (.561 vs .525) Surely they wouldn't have got any orders if that was the case?

I wondered about the same. Perhaps its a kind of virtual A.net reality  Wink

A350
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
c) structural efficiency (usually measured as payload/OEW).

Does not say much - if anything - when comparing different models of aircrafts. The most structual efficient aircraft has no wings - also known as a rocket and the least structual efficent is known as a glider....

Quoting A350 (Reply 4):
I wondered about the same. Perhaps its a kind of virtual A.net reality

People who seems to know believe that to change the engines on the 380 to the higher by-pass version once they are ready (the RR version has been - as I underastand it - developed based on the ones developed for the 380) isn't much more than a simple 'cut-n'-past' job.

Abba
 
Zeus419
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 7:48 pm

>> Also, the B787 is projected to require dramatically less maintenance than metal airliners <<

All that extra high-current electrical power-generation equipment on the "bleedless" 787 is:

(a) expensive to procure;
(b) heavy;
(c) expensive to maintain;
(d) and the high-current ATE test equipment required will be far more costly than for hydro-mechnical ATE.

In addition, a lightening strike in the wrong place could potentially cripple the whole system.

Also, the inherent fragility of CFRP panels means that Boeing/Mitsubishi will have to make it so thick, as to negate much of the potential weight savings over Aluminium.

[Edited 2006-05-18 12:55:35]
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 7:56 pm

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 6):
Also, the inherent fragility of CFRP panels means that Boeing/Mitsubishi will have to make it so thick, as to negate much of the potential weight savings over Aluminium.

You have an interesting question here. SQ, EK, and LH (there might be more that I haven't seen) have all publicly (and its is everybody's guess what they did privately - did they fall to their knees crying?) urged Airbus to come up with something better than the 350 they were now offering (even if Airbus sales might have been satisfactory relative to the investment they had to make). That behavior seems pretty novel and unusual for some of the absolute deepest blue in industry! Why did they do that - rather than just going for the 787 as the better offer? That would have been normal business practice!!!!

Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the 787 in their eyes...

But what?

Abba
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 8:12 pm

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 6):
(a) expensive to procure;
(b) heavy;
(c) expensive to maintain;
(d) and the high-current ATE test equipment required will be far more costly than for hydro-mechnical ATE.

The 787 chief designer has addressed these comments publicly in the past:

In summary people criticizing the bleedless approach have a very narrow view of the aircrafts integrated systems scheme. In fact not having to build in provisions for bleed air systems saves a significant level of wieght and cost, and allows some remarkable future upgrade possibilities with very little change to the system architecture.

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 6):
Also, the inherent fragility of CFRP panels means that Boeing/Mitsubishi will have to make it so thick, as to negate much of the potential weight savings over Aluminium.

Where does this come from and in comparison to what is it based on? The A350 MkIV was a smaller aircraft in some respects to the 787 models but its structure was up to 19t heavier by comparable model. In point of fact the 787 skins at their thickest are 1 inch, but the density of the material is very low and strength is very high allowing greater frame spacing and elimination of many of the structural components that are needed for an aluminum fuselage. Make no mistake the 787 is has the lowest structural weight of any aircraft produced in it's size class by fold. On either an absolute or specific basis. There is really nothing comparable in that regard.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
steve6666
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:58 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 7):
Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the 787 in their eyes...

But what?

Only the fact it doesn't have a credible competitor. In a monopoly the supplier always commands premium prices. In a duopoly the seller at least has a choice.

As for calling LH and EK die-hard Boeing airlines.....erm...have you reviewed their fleets this century?
eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 8:30 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 7):
Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the 787 in their eyes...

That's not necessarily the case. The only thing that might be wrong with the 787 in SQ's and EK's eyes are the price Boeing are offering them.
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 8:38 pm

Quoting Steve6666 (Reply 9):
Only the fact it doesn't have a credible competitor. In a monopoly the supplier always commands premium prices. In a duopoly the seller at least has a choice.

I would have accepted that explanation as meaningful if

- The 330 hasn't reigned supreme in its class for years (the 767 never had a chance)

- The 777 in its class (nor did the 340)

- The 747 in its class

- The 380 in its class

It seems to me that having no real competitor - as far as the WB sector is concerned - is very much the rule rather than the exception. Your explanation - even if it might play a part - cannot stand alone.



Abba
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 9:09 pm

Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
Quoting Abba (Reply 7):
Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the 787 in their eyes...

That's not necessarily the case. The only thing that might be wrong with the 787 in SQ's and EK's eyes are the price Boeing are offering them.

I think you've got it right Brendows. Certainly, if there was something "seriously wrong" with the 787 in his eyes, Tim Clark of EK wouldn't be shy about saying so.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 10:03 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 11):
- The 330 hasn't reigned supreme in its class for years (the 767 never had a chance)

- The 777 in its class (nor did the 340)

- The 747 in its class

- The 380 in its class

It seems to me that having no real competitor - as far as the WB sector is concerned - is very much the rule rather than the exception. Your explanation - even if it might play a part - cannot stand alone.

This is misleading at best and I'll exmanine it aircraft by aircraft.

Comparison by most similar sub-type and relative capability:




Notes:

In terms of marketing Airbus has pitched the A340-600 as an alternative to the 747-400 citing more similar seating capacity and range relative to Boeing product as opposed to 777-300ER.

With respect to capacity and range the Airbus A340-200 product has had no direct competition.

With respect to capacity and range the Boeing 777-300A product has had no direct competition.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Thu May 18, 2006 11:17 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13):
widebodyphotog

Loving your form as always. Keep on posting, and thanks!
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:33 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13):
With respect to capacity and range the Boeing 777-300A product has had no direct competition

Well - what do you mean by 'competitor' - I believe it is a little bit more than the other just having a product in the same category to offer. 'Competitor' needs two very similar aircrafts in terms of capasity and quite close in CASM. This also means that the two offerings must have been developed about the same time - as is just now happening with the 787 and the 350.

Abba
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 2:27 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
'Competitor' needs two very similar aircrafts in terms of capasity and quite close in CASM.

I respectfully disagree. I would say that two airliners are competitors if airlines consider proposals to buy either or. If an airline were considering buying either A350s or B747-8s to fly transpacific routes, for example, that would be an indicator that they are competitors. Size doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 4:40 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
I respectfully disagree. I would say that two airliners are competitors if airlines consider proposals to buy either or. If an airline were considering buying either A350s or B747-8s to fly transpacific routes, for example, that would be an indicator that they are competitors. Size doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

Your are right: Not necessarily. But most of the time, however. Wonder how many airlines have ever evaluated the 350 against the 748?

Sure - the 300 and the 767 are still on the market. But I wouldn't consider them as serious competitors save for a few very special contexts and defiantly not in the general market.


Abba
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 4:56 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 7):
Something must be SERIOUSLY wrong with the 787 in their eyes...

But what?

Abba, please, take a deep breath and say to yourself '392 firm 787 orders'. Repeat this figure a number of times in your head. And then go back to attempting to say there is something 'seriously wrong' with the 787.

OK, there is something wrong. See the following qoute:

Quoting Abba (Reply 7):
You have an interesting question here. SQ, EK, and LH have all publicly urged Airbus to come up with something better than the 350...

There is no viable 787 competitor from Airbus, yet. These airlines want Airbus to come up with something better than their current offer. That is public info now. And you try to turn it into a 787 problem. Got the wrong manufacturer this time.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 6:26 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
take a deep breath and say to yourself '392 firm 787 orders'.

According to www.boeing.com, there are 350 firm orders for the B787, not 392. Has there been an announcment of another 42 in the last few days?
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 6:30 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
Abba, please, take a deep breath and say to yourself '392 firm 787 orders'. Repeat this figure a number of times in your head. And then go back to attempting to say there is something 'seriously wrong' with the 787

But only few deep blue (save for QF - forget the Japs. Their hands are being forced) and a few highly questionable and most in between.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
There is no viable 787 competitor from Airbus, yet. These airlines want Airbus to come up with something better than their current offer. That is public info now. And you try to turn it into a 787 problem. Got the wrong manufacturer this time.

Which is rather unusual. Why ask Airbus publicly rather than just go for the 787? This must be a first!

Abba
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 7:18 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 20):
Which is rather unusual. Why ask Airbus publicly rather than just go for the 787? This must be a first!

Why is it so difficult to understand that they want a better product from Airbus since it would put them in a better position when it comes to negotiating price with Boeing? As all should know, a monopoly doesn't press prices down, competition does, and at this point, the A350 isn't competitive enough.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 7:22 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 20):
But only few deep blue (save for QF - forget the Japs. Their hands are being forced) and a few highly questionable and most in between.

First of all there is no need for racial slurs in this forum...and second of all there is no "forcing" involved in the choice of 787 by the Japanese majors. If Airbus were offering something competitive it would have been seriously considered, but they have not been able to do that. Furthermore I can tell you from having worked closely with the launch customers of 787 that Airbus is seriously out of touch with the primary concerns and airliner development concepts the Japanese carriers have...


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:23 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18):
take a deep breath and say to yourself '392 firm 787 orders'.

According to www.boeing.com, there are 350 firm orders for the B787, not 392. Has there been an announcment of another 42 in the last few days?

What is your problem? Boeing will surely have more than 500 firm orders by the time the first prototype flies. Airbus didn't redesign A350 and that is a big mistake. Even if they redesign it wont have composites. In the meantime Boeing will extend or maybe open second 787 line
 
Tifoso
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:15 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
According to www.boeing.com, there are 350 firm orders for the B787, not 392. Has there been an announcment of another 42 in the last few days?

No, it is 350 firm + 43 unsigned commitments.

Regards
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:48 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
1) Assume the number of seats is proportional to usable cabin floor area

   The most realistic approach IMO.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13):
Comparison by most similar sub-type and relative capability:

B747-8 3 class : 450
A380-800 3 class : 555

  

These numbers you use are your choice & has huge implications for CASM.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 8):
The 787 chief designer has addressed these comments publicly in the past:

In summary people criticizing the bleedless approach have a very narrow view of the aircrafts integrated systems scheme.

Ah, thnx, now we know the truth.

[Edited 2006-05-19 13:51:10]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:54 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 22):
First of all there is no need for racial slurs in this forum...and second of all there is no "forcing" involved in the choice of 787 by the Japanese majors

Racial slurs - you have no clue as to what you are talking about. How long time have you been living and working in Aisa?

Japan has had a highly "coordinated" industrial policy for decades. Like it or not. It is a statemnt of fact.

Abba
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:57 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 20):
Which is rather unusual. Why ask Airbus publicly rather than just go for the 787? This must be a first!

It just means that A350 as of today sucks. That is what have been said, and nothing else. There is nothing behind it none, nada. If you think there is something I want prove. If you cannot offer any prove then you must be living in your own world.

If there is something wrong with 787 why won't SQ EK and LH say something about it? EK and especially SQ are big Boeing customers and they will tell Boeing what to do.

You do not know what negotiation behind the curtain right? so why make that stupid assumption. For all we know now, Boeing and SQ,EK might be typing up the last paragraph on the purchase agreement and prepare a ceremonial signature tomorrow, or they might not even speak with each other about 787 yet.

Also by your logic, nobody else beside EK, SQ and QF is talking about A380. That means there's something really wrong about A380. We even have not heard EK really praise 773ER in public and tell Airbus to improve A346. Does that mean there something really wrong about 773ER and do we expect EK not to place additional order on 773ER and buy 1000 of A346, and scrap 773ER because there is something wrong with it?

Come on Abba. Let's discuss about reality, let's not create something out of thin air. Else we will turn this forum to a "dumb and dumber" forum

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 8:57 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 26):
Racial slurs - you have no clue as to what you are talking about. How long time have you been living and working in Aisa?

The term "Japs" isn't considered appropriate/P.C. in the U.S.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 9:26 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 26):
Racial slurs - you have no clue as to what you are talking about. How long time have you been living and working in Aisa?

Nearly 10 years working for and with Japanese carriers, and five years as a trainer and consultant for four Asian airlines, thank you...And as my wife is Japanese I take offense to it...

Basically Japanese dealings with Airbus are done on the basis of maintaining good government relations. If you look at what the Japanese majors do with Airbus aircraft you can obviously see that they have no intention of making serious investments in organizing fleets around the Airbus product. The Airbus product in terms of operation simply does not fit the current and developing nature of what Japanese aviation will be. Not to mention the rather condescending approach Airbus takes in dealing with them (I've seen this first hand)...things are not going to happen for Airbus in Japan until they seriously reevaluate the way they are doing things...It's just that simple.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 25):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
1) Assume the number of seats is proportional to usable cabin floor area

The most realistic approach IMO.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13):
Comparison by most similar sub-type and relative capability:

B747-8 3 class : 450
A380-800 3 class : 555



These numbers you use are your choice & has huge implications for CASM.

Seat numbers by themselves are not wholly representative of seat specific cost with respect to comparisons of aircraft having the same class layout, seat size and pitch...

747-8 and A380-800 can not be compared in terms of size class but the former will have the lowest CASM for aircraft capable of seating 450 or more in three classes...

The A380 has 36% more cabin area but only 23% more seats by manufacturers generic seating configuration...Even with the Boeing having a greater percentage of business and First class seating.




-widebodyphotg
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 9:53 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 29):
The Airbus product in terms of operation simply does not fit the current and developing nature of what Japanese aviation will be.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 29):
747-8 and A380-800 can not be compared in terms of size class but the former will have the lowest CASM for aircraft capable of seating 450 or more in three classes...

The A380 has 36% more cabin area but only 23% more seats by manufacturers generic seating configuration...Even with the Boeing having a greater percentage of business and First class seating.

Are you serious?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 28):
The term "Japs" isn't considered appropriate/P.C. in the U.S.

Nor in Australia. I actually gasped out loud when I read it. It's been a long time since I've heard anyone refer to a Japanese person like that.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 29):
Seat numbers by themselves are not wholly representative of seat specific cost with respect to comparisons of aircraft having the same class layout, seat size and pitch...

The ideal thing to stop these arguments would be to have the figures the airlines themselves use in determining which aircraft to buy. As these are commercially sensitive, it will never happen. Personally, I'd love a look in the Boeing archives or the archives of failed carriers (Pan Am, TWA, and so on) to see why they chose certain aircraft over others.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 10:00 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
Are you serious?

Yes, of course I am, and do you have something more substantive to support your dispute regarding 747-8 vs A380-800 seat specific costs?



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 28):

The term "Japs" isn't considered appropriate/P.C. in the U.S.

Oh - I didn't know that. People arround here uses it often - and call people like me a white ghost. P.C might varry from place to place...

Abba
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 10:29 pm

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 31):
The ideal thing to stop these arguments would be to have the figures the airlines themselves use in determining which aircraft to buy.

LH is doing a 747-400 cabin upgrade at this moment : 330 seats. Their B748 /A380 would seat 360 / 510?

It's hard to predict, class build up plays a big role, & we don't know cabin configurartions, perhaps some airlines will put 11 abreast on A380 maindeck.

To compare apples to apples (shopping/bar area on A380 -> shopping/bar area on 748) I estimated ealier on:

The A380 has 35% more USEABLE floor space then the 748i (45% absolute floorspace).

So for a given (sober, luxurious or non-sense or whatever) specification that could mean:

- B747-8: 450 seats vs A380: 607 seats for a specification A (e.g. 2 class)
- B747-8: 400 seats vs A380: 540 seats for a specification B (e.g. AF)
- B747-8: 370 seats vs A380: 500 seats for a specification C (e.g. Korean)
- B747-8: 355 seats vs A380: 480 seats for a specification D (e.g. QF, SQ)

However when seat counts per aircraft are higher, the percentage of premium seats usually drops making the seat count difference between 748 and a380 probably bigger.

Choosing a 450-550 comparison & hiding behind published "typical" configs is a choice in it self, with far reaching consequences for CASM calculations.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 29):
Seat numbers by themselves are not wholly representative of seat specific cost with respect to comparisons of aircraft having the same class layout, seat size and pitch...

They have a huge impact & you know it. The seatnumbers are below the line; "per available seat"
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 10:50 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
They have a huge impact & you know it. The seatnumbers are below the line; "per available seat"

They make an impact but what you are discounting is the actual cost of operating the aircraft relative to that. From the generic baseline, trip cost for 747-8 would be about 27% lower than A380-800 and decreases with a lower density passenger payload only analysis...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
B747-8: 450 seats vs A380: 607 seats for a specification A (e.g. 2 class)
- B747-8: 400 seats vs A380: 540 seats for a specification B (e.g. AF)
- B747-8: 370 seats vs A380: 500 seats for a specification C (e.g. Korean)
- B747-8: 355 seats vs A380: 480 seats for a specification D (e.g. QF, SQ)

The seat numbers you assume for 747-8 are just remarkably low, lower than even a number of the operators you cite are using on their smaller 747-400's now. Why would you assume this? From what you provided I can understand why our perspective relative to 747-8 is off base...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm

I liked the start of this thread because I too would like to know more about these CASM figures.
What I seem to have gathered - correct me if I'm going off - is that some on this site who use CASM for A ver B aircraft don't really have any actual facts / figures, so in some cases they just throw them out to be more than just fans.

On an off note which is where this thread also went, regarding the so called not ordering the B787 because they want better prices from Boeing, I may have believed that a few months ago but not now, my opinion is that SQ Ek just do not want to order the B787. Lets be real, they are already Boeing customers, guess what they still need spares, maintenance updates etc. If an existing customer come's to you to order another aircraft, are you claiming that the only way they can negotiate a lower price is if they throw a competitor in your face, how long would Boeing be in business if that is what you had to do to get a better price? How many customer's would bite the bullet and get rid of your a/c just to get back at you, what would you as a customer do? I for one don't believe that those who make decision's for airlines are any more human than me, more educated yes, smarter, thats subjective, common sense, there you go.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 11:11 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 36):
I liked the start of this thread because I too would like to know more about these CASM figures.
What I seem to have gathered - correct me if I'm going off - is that some on this site who use CASM for A ver B aircraft don't really have any actual facts / figures, so in some cases they just throw them out to be more than just fans.

If you are referring to Widebodyphotog, his analysis is based upon professional experience and the figures he uses for his job.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
trex8
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 11:30 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 36):
On an off note which is where this thread also went, regarding the so called not ordering the B787 because they want better prices from Boeing, I may have believed that a few months ago but not now, my opinion is that SQ Ek just do not want to order the B787. Lets be real, they are already Boeing customers, guess what they still need spares, maintenance updates etc. If an existing customer come's to you to order another aircraft, are you claiming that the only way they can negotiate a lower price is if they throw a competitor in your face, how long would Boeing be in business if that is what you had to do to get a better price? How many customer's would bite the bullet and get rid of your a/c just to get back at you, what would you as a customer do? I for one don't believe that those who make decision's for airlines are any more human than me, more educated yes, smarter, thats subjective, common sense, there you go.

you are correct that there is an element of human nature in all business decisions but ultimately when there are only effectively 2 suppliers of the equipment you need to run your business you may have to put gut feelings aside. its like folks saying AA will not buy Airbus in the future after the A300 crash in New York and recriminations from A vs AA etc, well, AA were upset with Douglas after the DC10 crash in Chicago too but that didn't stop them buying an enormous fleet of MD80s. Airbus and CI still have suits against each other over the A300 crash at Nagoya but that didn't stop CI buying A340s in 99 and then A330s 3 years later. there comes a point when you have to do whats right for the business and swallow your pride and be "professional".
the reality is that if an OEM sees there is indeed a real competition with a competitor for a sale, there will be actions they may take which they may not if they know its not a real competition and they or the other side have the deal sewn up already. of course they may have read the tea leaves wrong and end up in a situation where they lost a contract for something they really had a very good chance of getting for minimal concessions by taking a take it or leave it attitude as they didn't think the customer was serious about considering their product.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 11:34 pm

NK328F I was not, it's why I said some, did not want to get into a naming thing listing names. I have looked at his charts previously, and things that I did not understand or believe I was able to do research and verify his numbers, not to a tee but to the point where I'm sure they were not just made up to impress.

There is no question that there are professionals on this site, I think they tend to leave threads when they de-generate into a A versus B thing, unfortunately, I don't have a "screener" on my Explorer, so I usually have to read the whole thread.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Fri May 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 20):
But only few deep blue (save for QF - forget the Japs. Their hands are being forced) and a few highly questionable and most in between.



Quoting Abba (Reply 33):
Oh - I didn't know that. People arround here uses it often - and call people like me a white ghost. P.C might varry from place to place...

I think this is pretty universal, like the "N" word.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 29):
Basically Japanese dealings with Airbus are done on the basis of maintaining good government relations. If you look at what the Japanese majors do with Airbus aircraft you can obviously see that they have no intention of making serious investments in organizing fleets around the Airbus product. The Airbus product in terms of operation simply does not fit the current and developing nature of what Japanese aviation will be. Not to mention the rather condescending approach Airbus takes in dealing with them (I've seen this first hand)...things are not going to happen for Airbus in Japan until they seriously reevaluate the way they are doing things...It's just that simple.

Add to that the fact that since WWII, the US and Japan have together developed a combined and interwoven 15 trillion dollar GNP powerhouse pretty much equal to the combined GNP of the rest of the world. The Japanese see no benefit in changing what works so well. Since Japan is smaller than the US, trade will never be even, but that doesn't matter really, they make up for it in other ways.

Boeing has, over the last several decades, developed a business relationship with the Japanese that is in line with their business AND cultural expectations and needs, and the Japanese respect that and reciprocate. Long standing successful business relationships matter in Japan more so than in the west.

BUT, if Boeing all of a sudden modified their product line in a way that demonstrated a lack of consideration for the Japanese market, or if they dealt with the Japanese in a disrespectful way, they would be put out with the garbage, and phones would be ringing in France. The Japanese are loyal, but not stupid.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
'Competitor' needs two very similar aircrafts in terms of capasity and quite close in CASM.

I respectfully disagree. I would say that two airliners are competitors if airlines consider proposals to buy either or. If an airline were considering buying either A350s or B747-8s to fly transpacific routes, for example, that would be an indicator that they are competitors. Size doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

I disagree too, there is nothing to stop an airline from considering two 787's or one 747 as possibilities for a certain route. Adding frequency might make all the other issues involved with using two planes instead of one moot as long as they are both efficient in thier own right.

[Edited 2006-05-19 16:53:23]
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:09 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
- B747-8: 355 seats vs A380: 480 seats for a specification D (e.g. QF, SQ)

Qantas seats 343 passengers in their B747-400. SQ seats either 372 or 375 in their B747-400.

You assume that QF would only gain twelve more seats and that SQ would lose twenty after being stretched 3.5 meters??
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:26 am

I don't we should get to romantic on US-Japanese relations.

If they have a 600 seat requirement in a few years for China-Pacific hubs they probably have an open competitiont & order the what's best for them.

Narita will be parked with A380's too in a few years. The best billboards for A in Japan. Not if but when IMO

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...inerphotos/photos/big/00006404.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:36 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 40):
I disagree too, there is nothing to stop an airline from considering two 787's or one 747 as possibilities for a certain route. Adding frequency might make all the other issues involved with using two planes instead of one moot as long as they are both efficient in thier own right.

Sure - but this is (more!) a matter of strategy (but not only). Once you have decided to go for two smaller aircrafts you will then look at which of the aircrafts on offer suits your specific needs best. And here comes the A v B competition (as far as there are any real one) in to the picture.

My point remains, though, that for many categories in the wb sector there is really only one serious offer in most sizes as either As or Bs offer is so much better than the other's that there is no real choice. Sure you can 'technically speaking' still get an A300 (the 310 is out of production?), a 767, or a 744. Nobody (save for a few cargo carriers) has bought any of these aircrafts for years. And if you include the lackluster sales of most (if not all) of the 340 models and remember that the 777-200LR and 340-500 are both extreme aircrafts build for very special routes then you will see, that there is not much real competition going on.

Abba
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:40 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 41):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 34):
- B747-8: 355 seats vs A380: 480 seats for a specification D (e.g. QF, SQ)

Qantas seats 343 passengers in their B747-400. SQ seats either 372 or 375 in their B747-400.

You assume that QF would only gain twelve more seats and that SQ would lose twenty after being stretched 3.5 meters??

If you put a consistent spec on both aircraft, the same seat width, pitch, lounges etc., I'm not sure what the seat countdifference would be, about 35% ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 43):
Sure you can 'technically speaking' still get a 767. Nobody has bought any of these aircrafts for years.

74 767-300ER's and 10 767-200ER's have been ordered since April 2000 (and I'm not counting freighters.) The last order for 763ER was for LAN on the 31st of March this year...
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 45):
74 767-300ER's and 10 767-200ER's have been ordered since April 2000 (and I'm not counting freighters.) The last order for 763ER was for LAN on the 31st of March this year...

And how many of these are from new operators of the model?

Abba
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
I don't we should get to romantic on US-Japanese relations.

I am actually agreeing with you in my post, I just dont think that if a need arisses for a 600 seat plane in Japan, Boeing will get blindsided.

Nothing romantic about it, they have thier fingers on Japans pulse much more so than Airbus.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 1:08 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 46):
And how many of these are from new operators of the model?

Hainan with three 763ER
Turkmenistan Airlines with one 763ER
Kazakhstan Airlines with one 762ER
Shanghai Airlines with two 763ER.
Except from three 763ER ordered in 1997, all out of LAN Chile's orders for 763ER have been placed from 2004 and later (for a total of 15.)
Of course, not many, but as I showed in the former post, quite a few 767's have been ordered since 2000.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388

Sat May 20, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 43):
Sure you can 'technically speaking' still get an A300 (the 310 is out of production?), a 767, or a 744

All models of B767 are still in production and still on offer, there's nothing technical about it.

The B747-400 only has about 3-5 unsold delivery slots remaining for 2008 delivery, after which Boeing will close the line to prepare for -8 production.

The A300/A310 is in the process of closing. Once the backlog is completed, that's all she wrote. Ordering either model is likely impossible due to the fact that suppliers have already been notified of the line closing. In any event, it's no different than the B717 or B757: those who wanted the A300 had their chance.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 44):
If you put a consistent spec on both aircraft, the same seat width, pitch, lounges etc., I'm not sure what the seat countdifference would be, about 35% ?

"Consistent" specifications are a figment of your imagination. Airlines ordering or opperating the B747-8 have no perrogative to fit a pair of lounges the size of my foot ottoman to offer a competitive product.

Airlines have much more precise tools for derriving passenger capacity than your crude estimates. The fact that you assume airlines will fit lower density cabins in a -8 than their already low density cabins they have in their B744 is absurd. Perhaps they will fit equally dense cabins which would yield a capacity increase?  Yeah sure

Who is online