ual747-600
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:54 am

Someone on the orders group posted that LH technical folks are saying that thet fuel burn is 10% more than advertised. Anyone know this to be true??

Here's the quote.

"fuel burn is supposed to be about 10% higher than
what Airbus promised airlines. It is currently at 3.2
L/passenger/100km, instead of at 2.9 L/passenger/100km (at least that
is what Lufthansa is currently estimating)."

UAL747-600
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting UAL747-600 (Thread starter):
Someone on the orders group posted that LH technical folks are saying that thet fuel burn is 10% more than advertised. Anyone know this to be true??

Here's the quote.

"fuel burn is supposed to be about 10% higher than
what Airbus promised airlines. It is currently at 3.2
L/passenger/100km, instead of at 2.9 L/passenger/100km (at least that
is what Lufthansa is currently estimating)."

First time I'm hearing of this. . . do you have a link? Where did you find this little snippet?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:18 am

Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..
"Up the Irons!"
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:23 am

The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.
 
7e72004
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:15 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:38 am

If it was true, then they might as well shut the program down  Big grin
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
 
max999
Posts: 947
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

How is fuel burn calculated?
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:43 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

and 10% would be on target, as LH is looking at 505+ pax

Bx/500=By/555, Bx/By=555/505=1.1
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:45 am

If there was even a glimmer of truth to this rumor, then I suspect we'd have seen a reaction by the airlines by now. I can't give this any credibility. Sorry.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:48 am

The fuel burn figure is evidently from internal LH sources, so even if it is an accurate figure, we don't know the context.

As Scorpio noted, this figure may be what LH is calculating for their ~500-seat config vs. what Airbus calculated for the "base" 555-seat config. Since there are no A380s in flight test with an LH configuration aboard, these figures have to be computer modeled on LH's part.

Also, since LH F is "lighter" then SQ F on a per-person basis (being paired seats instead of individual suites), LH can't directly apply the flight-test numbers from the airframe with SQ's internal seating config. (I am guessing the frame currently flying with an interior is SQ's? Or are they using a "boutique" interior like Boeing sometime does before final delivery?)

So I would not be quick to assume that the A380 in "passenger trim" is going to be 10% less fuel efficient then the customers were told for their individual configs.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:53 am

Quoting Max999 (Reply 5):
How is fuel burn calculated?

As said in the thread opener: per seat, and per 100km
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:03 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..

Actually, that's what Airbus has claimed. Only time will tell.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:13 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
Actually, from what I've read, the fuel burn is better than expected..

I readed that to just dont remember where.  scratchchin 

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout

 point  Thats right! I couldnt agree more  Smile
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
since LH F is "lighter" then SQ F on a per-person basis (being paired seats instead of individual suites), LH can't directly apply the flight-test numbers from the airframe with SQ's internal seating config. (I am guessing the frame currently flying with an interior is SQ's? Or are they using a "boutique" interior like Boeing sometime does before final delivery?)

Have you seen the new LH F seats? I don't think they're public yet. No, the aircraft currently flying do not have real airline interiors fitted. They have drums of water fitted to simulate various loads.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
So I would not be quick to assume that the A380 in "passenger trim" is going to be 10% less fuel efficient then the customers were told for their individual configs.

It's clear that the WhaleJet does not suffer a 10% fuel efficiency deficit. I would have trouble believing anything over 2%.

However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:19 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

Huh? So you're claiming LH only puts 505 passengers in because of the OEW? Do you have anything that backs that up, as I'm having an extremely hard time believing that...
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
The classic mistake, and how bad rumors get started. Here's what I make of it:

-The Airbus figure (2.9) is the projected fuel burn per passenger for a 'typical' layout of 555 seats (the typical layout Airbus always seems to be using). The 3.2 figure is probably the figure for LH's layout. I don't remember how many people LH are going to put in, but it was less than 555. Less people means higher fuel burn per passenger.

Correct regarding the fuel consumption issue and correct as to the comment as to how bad rumors get started.

Quoting A332 (Reply 11):
Typical Boeing fanatic trying to stir the pot... nothing more.

That is really not fair - there have been comments and information suggesting that the fuel burn on the A380 is 10% higher that projected - I have seen these comments. And, on the most simple (and incorrect) computation, is almost correct....if you dont factor in the very important element of the number of seats that will be on the aircraft. Airbus (and Boeing to a certain extent) dont base their numbers on "real-life" pax configurations as used by most tier one international carriers.....555 pax sounds real good on an A380, but in real life SQ or LH or QF cannot and will not fit that many seats into the airplane due to their premium cabins. If an airline configures its A380 with 500 instead of 555 seats, thats a 10% decrease in seating which means a 10% increase in per seat costs. This is not Airbus bashing, this is statistics being mis-used and mis-analzyed.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):

It's clear that the WhaleJet does not suffer a 10% fuel efficiency deficit. I would have trouble believing anything over 2%.

However, the 2.9 lt/pax/100km spec is based on a theoretical 277 tonne OEW. It's now looking like the lightest OEW that an actual airline will fit may be 289 tonnes. That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

The OEW is a whole other issue - any solid info on this?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:37 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 15):
So you're claiming LH only puts 505 passengers in because of the OEW?

No, I have claimed no such thing. Decisions about cabin configuration are much more complicated than that. LH might still put in 505 seats if the OEW were 12 tonnes lighter or 12 tonnes heavier. Or they might not. There are many variables involved. However, a 505 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 3.2 lt/pax/100km would be consistent with a 555 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 2.9 lt/pax/100km.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23211
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
Have you seen the new LH F seats? I don't think they're public yet. No, the aircraft currently flying do not have real airline interiors fitted. They have drums of water fitted to simulate various loads.

No I have not, as I was not aware they planned to install a new style of First Class cabin (but then I admit that I do not follow LH closely). My comments are based on LH's and SQ's current F cabin (and I do know SQ is said to be launching a new cabin with the A380 and 773ER).

Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:40 am

If this was true, Clark and others would b all over it and as we've seen lately, Clark doesn't reserve his negative comments.

Scoropio probably said it best. First time ever I agreed with his comments  biggrin 
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:43 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
No, I have claimed no such thing.

No? Then what else does this mean:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
That 12 tonne difference means about 50 fewer passengers can be carried, which explains LH's expectation of 3.2 lt/pax/100km.

...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
However, a 505 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 3.2 lt/pax/100km would be consistent with a 555 passenger cabin with a fuel burn of 2.9 lt/pax/100km.

That's what has already been said before. I still don't see what that has to do with the rise in OEW.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.

I thought I saw a pic somewhere of an A380 with various interior fittings....differerent versions of F/J/Y seating on both levels. I have no idea is this was a complete installation or was in any representative of what the airlines are putting on to their aircraft.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 20):
...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

He did not say "and this is why LH is only using 505."

Get off it.

He is saying that to fly 8000nm, you could only fit the cabin with 505 seats, not 555 seats. It has nothing to do with what any particular airline will do with the planes.

But, as you can see, most carriers ARE only doing 510 or fewer and this might indeed be in part because of the range tradeoff 550 seats would require. Other reasons, of course, are premium ratio, luxury and amenities, and the fact that 555 is not a real number as it assumes 62" F seats and 40" J seats, just like Boeing and all other Airbus planes use a baseline that isn't real world.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:53 am

If it's true, the news couldn't be coming at a worse time for them. Better check the source.....
One Nation Under God
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):

The OEW is a whole other issue - any solid info on this?

The general rumors have been floating around the industry for years. I've only been hearing concrete numbers in the last few months. I waited to post anything about it (since it's just a rumor), but now Widebodyphotog has updated his charts with the same number I've been hearing, so I think it's fairly reliable now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.

It's not an actual airline configuration. It's just for testing by Airbus.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 20):
...in which you directly relate the OEW increase to LH putting in 50 seats less.

I was just trying to point out the consistency. Fuel consumption depends on OEW. If one were to remove 50 seats and passengers from a given configuration, it would lower the fuel consumption. It appears the fuel consumption (total, not per passenger) has stayed the same, which implies the TOW has stayed the same. That could be explained by an increase in OEW that matches the decrease in passenger weight. We don't have enough information to say for sure that's the case, but it is consistent with everything we do know.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:09 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
He did not say "and this is why LH is only using 505."

Why else relate the two? No matter what he meant, the sentence I quote, and which caused the confusion, relates things that shouldn't be related, e.g. the 3.2 figure being a result of the OEW increase and thus, on the whole, makes little sense.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
He is saying that to fly 8000nm, you could only fit the cabin with 505 seats, not 555 seats.

Has this ever been confirmed by Airbus, or by any airline, i.e. that the plane will not be able to carry a full load as far as Airbus said it could? Because that would mean the plane is underperforming, and I haven't seen any crdible sources claim that...
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting Khobar (Reply 10):

Actually, that's what Airbus has claimed. Only time will tell.

Khobar, that isn't what Airbus has claimed..those are numbers which I've read from different sources..

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):

I readed that to just dont remember where

I've read in various places such as flightinternational.com, etc..in fact, I have a .pdf file somewhere stating that though the plane is still 2.5% above OEW, because of the fact the SFC is better than originally planned, the A380 is making its "numbers"...what that means, I can't say..but it does seem that the fuel burn is better than "expected".

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 24):
The general rumors have been floating around the industry for years. I've only been hearing concrete numbers in the last few months. I waited to post anything about it (since it's just a rumor), but now Widebodyphotog has updated his charts with the same number I've been hearing, so I think it's fairly reliable now.

are you refering to this?

http://theaviationspecialist.com/747adv_vs_a388.gif
"Up the Irons!"
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:47 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
stating that though the plane is still 2.5% above OEW, because of the fact the SFC is better than originally planned, the A380 is making its "numbers"

Together with less thirsty engines, fuel consumption is also lower due to a lower than expected drag IIRC.
 
mham001
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:56 am

Well, we can quote various sources that are quoting Airbus, but are there any real independent sources?
Given recent history, I wouldn't believe much of anything Airbus claims. We just won't know until it hits service.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:05 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 24):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Are all of the flight test frames fitted only with water drums? I thought one of the flight test frames (MSN-002?) had an actual complete cabin with seats and IFE and fittings.

It's not an actual airline configuration. It's just for testing by Airbus.

MSN 002 has a 474 seat cabin. Perhaps MSN 007 will have denser fit-out.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...trip+with+474+passengers+this.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
anstar
Posts: 2872
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 4):
it was true, then they might as well shut the program down



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
If there was even a glimmer of truth to this rumor, then I suspect we'd have seen a reaction by the airlines by now. I can't give this any credibility. Sorry.

If it were true then we would have seen more airlines cancelling. To date no one has cancelled an A380 order.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
I have a .pdf file somewhere stating that though the plane is still 2.5% above OEW

How old is that file ? IIRC Airbus has solved the weight issue now. For about half a year, we haven't heard about the 569-tonne MTOW which was considered because of higher OEW some time ago.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 25):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 22):
He is saying that to fly 8000nm, you could only fit the cabin with 505 seats, not 555 seats.

Has this ever been confirmed by Airbus, or by any airline, i.e. that the plane will not be able to carry a full load as far as Airbus said it could? Because that would mean the plane is underperforming, and I haven't seen any crdible sources claim that...

Nothing to confirm. Zvezda was under the impression that the actual airline configuration OEW would be heavier than the airbus typical OEW. If you see the payload range chart, with 555 pax and lugages at typical OEW, an A380 can only fly 8000nm. If you put extra OEW that is equivalent to 50pax, that means A380 can only haul 505 pax + lugage for 8000nm

On side note though to Zvezda, 12tonnes extra OEW seems to be too high. 12 tonnes is the equivalent of ~115 pax + lugage payload. That means A380 would not be able to run 8000nm with 500 pax.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
GEnxPower
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:17 am

10% in any situation is a pretty big miss, especially in the aviation industry. If it was true, I reckon alot more noise and reaction from customers, airlines, engine makers and Boeing.

A large part of aircraft's efficiency is from those jet engines. Again, it's hard to miss 10% efficiency calculation by aerodynamics/weight/structure alone because Airbus has very smart engineers (I work with them) to miss by that much.

From what I hear, both RR's Trent 900 and GP7200 has been doing very well in terms of efficiency, based on expectations and design intent.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:21 am

They could just tug the a/c all the way out to the active for take-off?  bouncy 
 
GPS787
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:47 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:25 am

So I am confused...if fuel burn is airline airplane configuration specific and will vary due to the number of seats a airline puts into an aircraft (any aircraft) then that airline expresses that the fuel burn is 10 % higher then they expected why is this seen as a hit on the manufacturer?

The only thing that would make sense in that case is that the manufacturer promised them a specific fuel burn with their intended configuration and it now is coming out as different...right?

So lets wait and see what happens and when there is a verifiable reliable source that says the fuel burn is different then what was promised to that specific airline to tag the airplane manufacturer. That is the real issue. Promising one thing and delivering another is a problem for any manufacturer no matter what the commodity.

I think it's way to early to tell how the A380 will perfrom in service. (since it's not yet in service…duh!!)

Time will tell.
I feel the need to go screaming through the air in a pressurized metal(??!??) tube...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:40 am

Quoting FXramper (Reply 34):
They could just tug the a/c all the way out to the active for take-off?

 Wink But seriously, at airports with 30-mins takeoff queues, this could be a way of saving fuel, for all aircraft.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 31):
How old is that file ? IIRC Airbus has solved the weight issue now. For about half a year, we haven't heard about the 569-tonne MTOW which was considered because of higher OEW some time ago.

2006...and its within the "range" according to Charles Champion...
"Up the Irons!"
 
aerosol
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:37 am

I read the 3,2 L number as well. But I forgot if it was Spiegel or FAZ. They said LH corrected the number from 2,9l to 3,2l per pax per seat.

By the way - what engine did LH choose?

Luckily the 380 has more engine choices that the 342/3, 345/6 which I think is and was a part of the problem.
 
airmailer
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:28 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
If there was even a glimmer of truth to this rumor, then I suspect we'd have seen a reaction by the airlines by now. I can't give this any credibility. Sorry.

Or... It might have had a lid put on it, and some elaborate cause for the delay concocted so as to hide the real reason for the delay while they engineer a solution...
Because if they came right out and said that there was a performance problem they would get this:

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 19):
If this was true, Clark and others would b all over it and as we've seen lately, Clark doesn't reserve his negative comments.

(I don't normally participate in rumors of this size, but hey it's Friday!)
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:50 am

Quoting GPS787 (Reply 35):
if fuel burn is airline airplane configuration specific and will vary due to the number of seats a airline puts into an aircraft (any aircraft) then that airline expresses that the fuel burn is 10 % higher then they expected why is this seen as a hit on the manufacturer?

The airline (LH in this case) didn't express anything. Most likely someone saw the LH number, compared it to Airbus' typical configuration number, and made the rest (about fuel burn being 10% higher than advertised) up, ignoring the difference in the seat numbers. As I said before: that's how rumors start.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 23):
If it's true, the news couldn't be coming at a worse time for them. Better check the source.....

If you actually call this "news", then it's VERY old news - this stuff has been circulating for at least a year IIRC.
Regards
 
GPS787
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:47 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:13 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 40):

The thread starter mentioned an airline "quote" and several other posters have expressed hearing the "same" like-type comments from diverse parties within and outside of airlines. While I share your hesitancy to validate any "rumor" prior to nay reliable source it seems that there are a few more "sources" then you'd think if it were juse "made up".

I am more then willing to wait and see and I am not given over to believing any unverified rumor but ignoring a rumor that seems to have been heard by more then one source even if it's just word of mouth is kinda dangerous. And short sided. Investigation, due diligence and patience s is required.

The truth will come out.

And in the end what is a A-net rumor worth anyway?

:D
I feel the need to go screaming through the air in a pressurized metal(??!??) tube...
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:14 am

Quoting UAL747-600 (Thread starter):
Someone on the orders group posted that LH technical folks are saying that thet fuel burn is 10% more than advertised. Anyone know this to be true??

Here's the quote.

"fuel burn is supposed to be about 10% higher than
what Airbus promised airlines. It is currently at 3.2
L/passenger/100km, instead of at 2.9 L/passenger/100km (at least that
is what Lufthansa is currently estimating)."

UAL747-600

Oh how I want this to be so wrong, but the way news of a380 has come to public notice, it cannot be discounted.

Now sensisble thing for Airbus to do is to publicly counter this, just like Boeing did with the 787 (though to be fair, that was as a result of a BusinessWeek report). Let's see how this develops, PR wise at least.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:29 am

Quoting GPS787 (Reply 42):
The thread starter mentioned an airline "quote"

Actually, he posted something he himself had seen posted by someone who had heard it from someone who worked for Lufthansa.

That's hardly an 'airline quote'...

Furthermore, I already provided the most likely source of this rumour. Just for the two different numbers to exist (3.2 vs 2.9) is more than enough for this kind of rumor to start.

Trust me, if fuel consumption was indeed 10% higher than advertised, airlines would be cancelling their orders en masse, and there would be a huge outry.

And with all the criticism there has been of the A380's progress by its customers, none of it has dealt with unhappiness about fuel consumption. That alone should tell you something.

[Edited 2006-06-23 23:34:11]
 
katekebo
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:31 am

My two cents....

10% difference in fuel burn would be a disaster, and if this was true, there would be a major uproar from the airlines already. Given that SIA pilots have been already flying the plane, and nothing has been said so far, I would rather disregard this rumor. Airbus could not keep it secret from the customers, nor any of the customers would keep quiet if this was the case.

However, what is interesting to see is that with the proposed number of seats, the fuel burn per passenger is similar, if not bigger, to airplanes already in use, such as the A340 and B777. What this means is that in order to make the A380 pay for itself, airlines will quickly have to increase the number of seats in order to offset the high fuel costs. I expect to see that very soon the A380 will be packed with 550+ seats, more likely into te 600+ numbers.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:34 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
Khobar, that isn't what Airbus has claimed..those are numbers which I've read from different sources..

I've only seen regurgitation of what Airbus is claiming. As an example:

"A380, which completed its ninth test flight over the weekend, has exceeded its fuel burn goals, Airbus sources told ATWOnline. While coy on confirming the results, a spokesperson told this website that the aircraft is having a near-perfect flight test program."
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=1136

[Edited 2006-06-23 23:41:06]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:34 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 25):
Why else relate the two? No matter what he meant, the sentence I quote, and which caused the confusion, relates things that shouldn't be related, e.g. the 3.2 figure being a result of the OEW increase and thus, on the whole, makes little sense.

They may very well be related. I believe they are, though I don't know that they are.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 25):
Has this ever been confirmed by Airbus, or by any airline, i.e. that the plane will not be able to carry a full load as far as Airbus said it could? Because that would mean the plane is underperforming, and I haven't seen any crdible sources claim that...

This is clear from Airbus' Z-chart.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 32):
On side note though to Zvezda, 12tonnes extra OEW seems to be too high. 12 tonnes is the equivalent of ~115 pax + lugage payload. That means A380 would not be able to run 8000nm with 500 pax.

You're right. I think I counted the weight of the seats as well. Oops! Sorry! Mea culpa!

Quoting GPS787 (Reply 35):
So I am confused...if fuel burn is airline airplane configuration specific and will vary due to the number of seats a airline puts into an aircraft (any aircraft) then that airline expresses that the fuel burn is 10 % higher then they expected why is this seen as a hit on the manufacturer?

The only thing that would make sense in that case is that the manufacturer promised them a specific fuel burn with their intended configuration and it now is coming out as different...right?

This is the source of the scandal that arose when Airbus blamed the airlines for selecting heavy cabin interiors. Airbus quoted a spec for OEW. If (as it seems but is not yet publicly proven) that all the airlines will configure their WhaleJets at a much higher OEW (despite far fewer seats), then Airbus were either incompetent or fraudulent. I note that Boeing also understate OEW, but neither Airbus nor Boeing have ever understated OEW to the degree which Airbus seem to have with the WhaleJet.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4797
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:37 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 47):
This is clear from Airbus' Z-chart.

Does that take into account the A380's apparent lower than expected fuel consumption we've been hearing about?
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 45):
10% difference in fuel burn would be a disaster, and if this was true, there would be a major uproar from the airlines already.

That assumes the airlines having been notified. The Airlines seemed very surprised by delays, rumours of which were floating around here before it became official.

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

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:30 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 48):
Does that take into account the A380's apparent lower than expected fuel consumption we've been hearing about?

The fuel burn affects the Z-chart, of course. Given a Z-chart, it's easy to see the nature of the payload/range tradeoff required by an increase in OEW.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: A380 Fuel Burn = 10% Higher Than Advertised?

Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:28 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 49):
That assumes the airlines having been notified.

This whole program seems to have been "dogged" by sub-standard communication with the future operators.
Assuming that the purchasers thus far all have the same performance guarantees from A. they will receive cash to offset any performance shortfall.
Does anyone have an opinion whether any options to purchase are likely to be subject to the same performance guarantees?