Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter): The 77W however, represents a decrease in capacity rather than an increase and (from what I understand) requires 2 rotations to provide the same capacity on a route as a 748I. |
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 1): so why buying a 4 engine jet of the one with 2 engines can do (almost) the same. |
Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter): The 77W however, represents a decrease in capacity rather than an increase |
Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter): requires 2 rotations to provide the same capacity on a route as a 748I. |
Quoting UA735WL (Thread starter): Is the 748 really that uneconomical? |
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): The A-380 another 70 seats above that. |
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Yes, the B-77W carries more cargo with 7120 ft3 in the holds, the B-744 has 6025 ft3 in the holds. |
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 7): I think the late to the party part is a big part of it. if the 748 was flying in 2004 like the 77W was, it may have been a different story. |
Quote: This wouldn't be true if there were either no A380 (which itself is only useful on a small and specialized number of routings), or no 773/W. |
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): No. The B-748 is not "uneconomical" if used on missions it is designed for. LH seems very happy with their B-748s, even though the do not use the full pax capability in their configuration (but a more premimum service). The B-77W is a great airplane, but in a normal pax configuration is a 350 seat airplane, the B-748 can carry anout 100+ seats in the same configuration. The A-380 another 70 seats above that. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): And if you need more capacity than the 777-300ER can offer, the A380-800 appears to be the more economical option than the 747-8 thanks to it's greater size. |
Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): There are the type of engines, there is the fact that if you send an A380 with say 554 passengers one way and returns with 390 passengers, which one would have the advantage? |