waly777
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:23 am

mjoelnir wrote:
lightsaber wrote:


Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition? So if fuel goes up (either by tax or just supply and demand), that hurts the A380 case unless there is a NEO and a significant stretch. Even then, the 779 is likely to cost less per passenger. The A380 and 747 are done. I think due to how much tech GE put into the engines the 777X will sell more (TK and ET are two possibilities, other airlines after the airframe matures).

Lightsaber


Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..


Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:44 am

The A380 still burns less fuel if configured in the same density as other aircraft.
The B787 in a 9-abreast is the equivalent of 11 or perhaps 12 abreast on the A380's main deck in Y.
A fully loaded B789 is going to approach 6 tons per hour, roughly half the A380`s fuel burn. The A380 can easily carry twice the amount of pax versus the B789.
Cargowise the B789 can squeeze more volume out of it, but it doesn't pay anywhere near like the self-loading version. The handling coat and additional fuel burn make it low margin anyway.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:08 am

waly777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
lightsaber wrote:


Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition? So if fuel goes up (either by tax or just supply and demand), that hurts the A380 case unless there is a NEO and a significant stretch. Even then, the 779 is likely to cost less per passenger. The A380 and 747 are done. I think due to how much tech GE put into the engines the 777X will sell more (TK and ET are two possibilities, other airlines after the airframe matures).

Lightsaber


Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..


Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.


Most users of the A380 take their money through high numbers of premium passengers.

The biggest user of A380, Emirates, has clearly declared that the A380 is their most profitable frame. That are the guys who should know the numbers.

It is the A380 detractors and bashers here on a.net coming up with the ridiculous comparisons. You need to compare apples with bananas to let the A380 look bad in regards to it economics.

The max pax of a 787-9 is 420 passengers. Two 787-9 will be able to carry 840. Compare that to the max pax of the A380 with 853. Furthermore you will have to equip the 787-9 with a dense 9 seats per row, compared to the standard full size seats in 10 and 8 seats per row on lower and upper deck of the A380
Two 787-9 burn more fuel than one A380, will use a similar number of cabin crew, but need twice the number of pilots. You will not buy two 787-9 for the price of one A380.
Regarding service you will need to service 4 engines and 2 frames on the 787 and 4 engines and one frame regarding the A380. I can hardly imagine, that when you have to refurbish the frames, that 2 787 will be done for less money than one A380.

The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:34 am

The strangest thing with this discussion seem to me, that people accept the 777-9 because of the need for high capacity. With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders, when their is no indication that those frames will exceed the A350-1000 or 777-300ER in payload range capacity.
Than the same poster turns around and talk about the A380 being to big.

The Leeham article talks about all of the A380, 777-8/9 and the A350-1000 being to big. So according to that buyers will keep to buying the A350-900 and 787-9/10 and smaller frames and frames bigger than that will have a difficult time.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:04 am

mjoelnir wrote:
waly777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..


Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.


The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I personally would like to know what sort of routes can be run without ass load factors on 700-800 pax A380s, many airlines have certainly thought themselves able to stuff 350+ seats on a 787

Besides, one airline CEO has said on record that 2 of their 787s cost less to run than 1 of their A380s.
Last edited by JustSomeDood on Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:13 am

mjoelnir wrote:
waly777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..


Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.



The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


That's funny, we have at least one airline CEO on record saying that 2 of his 787-9s cost less to run than one of his A380, :roll:
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9753
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:16 am

mjoelnir wrote:
With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders,

Well since every Airbus is more comfortable because they are right sized - no 9 or 10 abreast - and quiet with less noise in and out, why else would anyone buy a Boeing but for its range and payload? Well they can get cheap 777W's so maybe that is an offset.

All Lehman has to do is wait, the A380 is ahead of its time and as more airports are made slot restricted or climate changes forces regulators to create markets for which the A380 will be ideal, it will come into its own and claim its rightful place in aviation.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:30 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
waly777 wrote:

Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.


The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I personally would like to know what sort of routes can be run without ass load factors on 700-800 pax A380s, many airlines have certainly thought themselves able to stuff 350+ seats on a 787

Besides, one airline CEO has said on record that 2 of their 787s cost less to run than 1 of their A380s.


What airline is that and do they use both the 787 and A380?
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:37 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes.

Can't we discuss this topic without bashing the A380? It's about the B779 and A35K. I guess haters gonna hate.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:38 am

par13del wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders,

Well since every Airbus is more comfortable because they are right sized - no 9 or 10 abreast - and quiet with less noise in and out, why else would anyone buy a Boeing but for its range and payload? Well they can get cheap 777W's so maybe that is an offset.

All Lehman has to do is wait, the A380 is ahead of its time and as more airports are made slot restricted or climate changes forces regulators to create markets for which the A380 will be ideal, it will come into its own and claim its rightful place in aviation.


The point is that they will not be any payload wonders, a enduring a.net myth.

The MTOW of the 777-8/9 is capped at the same number as the 777-300ER, 351.5 t. Add to that, that the 777-8 will be heavier empty than the 777-200LR and the 777-9 heavier empty than the 777-300ER. Any increase in payload has to come through a reduced fuel load and the reduced fuel load would have to cover both the increase in OEW and the increase in payload while leaving enough fuel to cover the advertised range.
My take is, that the 777-8/9 will fly the same payload the same range as the 777-200LR/300ER at a reduced fuel burn.
 
Ufsatp
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:21 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:59 am

mjoelnir wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I personally would like to know what sort of routes can be run without ass load factors on 700-800 pax A380s, many airlines have certainly thought themselves able to stuff 350+ seats on a 787

Besides, one airline CEO has said on record that 2 of their 787s cost less to run than 1 of their A380s.


What airline is that and do they use both the 787 and A380?


Qantas, and yes they do.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:06 pm

Bricktop wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes.

Can't we discuss this topic without bashing the A380? It's about the B779 and A35K. I guess haters gonna hate.


The topic is VLAs. That would include the A380.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:25 pm

The 747-8I isn't bashed because everybody, including Boeing, knows that it has become irrelevant in the passenger aircraft market. There will be no more new orders, it will just soldier on as a freighter.

The A350-1000, the 777X and the A380 are the only large aircraft worth discussing when it comes to future orders.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:33 pm

FatCat wrote:
maybe ain't gonna happen, but we've seen VA revive an already dead A346, so who knows?

The A346 was a retired / mothballed aircraft still in flyable condition. That's very different from spending a couple hundred million dollars and waiting a year or two for a new delivery.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
FatCat
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:35 pm

Agree - I didn't want to say that the 748 line will be shutting down - it will not, as -8F version is alive and well (ish).
But sure The Queen still generates revenue, some of her development costs being already paid, some parts being in common with other planes.

And agree also on A380 thin profitability - or worse - for Airbus, as it was an all-new project, and a big one.

Definitively - I do hope for some more -8i and -8F order - maybe ain't gonna happen, but we've seen VA revive an already dead A346, so who knows?
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The point is that you do not fly two 787 for less money than one A380, even regarding fuel. furthermore has the A380 the lowest acquisition cost per seat of any wide body frame sold. You use half the number of pilots.

People have to be deaf and blind not to realize the current and coming problems with global warming. Denial does not make facts go away.


Data please on what your post has remotely to do with global warming and the A380. If what you said was true why isn’t Europe mandating A380 flights on all trunk routes?


That's a bit sad way of augmenting your point of view. The EU will never demand a certain type. What they might do, and some might argue ought to do, is fair pricing and thus all external cost of an airstrip taking into account of the airfare with taxes. Aviation is quite exempt from taxes and excise duty, thus from these external costs. I think by 2025 we will see airlines threated the same way as other forms of transportation, VAT and excise duty on fuel. In that way more fuel efficient craft will have even more an edge. If this does mean more A380's, I doubt it, it might bring forward the proposed A380NEO, if the CSAM drops enough in relation to the CSAM of the Boeing 777-9 or Airbus A350-1000 or proposed -1100/2000.


If it is fuel efficiency, the A-380 and the 747-8 are already dead; they just do not know it.
 
Swadian
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:12 pm

Noshow wrote:
The 747 took several generations with seriously improved engines to become the 747-400 success we know today. It could compete with the 767 and 777 back then.
The A380 will need the same improvements (and investments) while the market grows to need aircraft her size more than ever. We haven't seen China or India taking many A380s yet. Just a matter of time. Look at market growth and overcrowded airports.
Put the same engine generation of A350, 787 and 777X on the A380 and you gain her big size efficiencies in a minute.


The 777, 787, and A330 were successful without having to go through numerous generations. Even the 747 sold well from the beginning. Everyone wanted a 741 or 742.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4063
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:03 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Is aviation really underpaying? High taxes drive away business. It won't drive to larger gauge, it will result in less air travel.
Lightsaber


One does not (necessarily) exclude the other.



lightsaber wrote:
Push it too far and you will get a smaller aviation industry, which does not equal more trains. IN the United States, passengers pay at least some of the costs for the FAA, airports etc. Passenger rail operating costs on the other hand are subsidized and Amtrak only makes money on the NE Corridor.
. . .

What external costs aren't being paid? Aviation is an elastic market. If costs go up, passenger count goes down. Eventually, you just shift business to low tax areas.
Lightsaber


Not wanting to participate or take sides here. Just think it may be useful to point out that on this side of the Atlantic (central Europe), people view government influence, or even base tasks perhaps a bit differently than in the Americas.

In most of central Europe it is considered normal, and even a fundamental government task, to take active control over certain activities that has impact on all of the population. And yes, that sometimes national borders are crossed is not out of the question.
The main tools for government to take control over certain activities is subsidies (pro) and taxes (contra).
And another important thing to consider is that here it is not considered a requirement that taxes go back into the same sector; it is accepted that for instance aviation taxes go into general tax pots, welfare, or even railway construction . . . :-)

Aviation, and its environmental impact - both in terms of noise pollution, air pollution, but also in terms of “plain” CO2 pollution, will most likely become one of those fields where people will demand government action.
While CO2 pollution and associated claimed climate change is still a bit controversial in most of the world, in Europe that is rapidly going into general acceptance.

Now without going into CO2 debate, I just want to point out that people here expect the government to take action on CO2 (and other) pollution. It applies to many sectors here in Europe, except aviation. Aviation has escaped thanks to the 1944 Chicago convention. Or better the fundamental reason behind this of course is that (international) aviation by definition is cross borders and tax affects are therefore by definition cross border.

However, as I stated before, people more and more now demand our government to take action on the aviation CO2 exemption. Now that Trump is cancelling or even ignoring many international treaties, folks here see that as a perfect moment to ignore this part of the Chicago convention.

Believe me, whether you (or me) like it or not, start getting used to the idea, because it Is not a question if Europe will do this, but when they start taxing aviation fuel.

Again, not to stir the pot, just hope to bring some back ground to an interesting discussion.

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:41 pm

The big changes taking place cleaning up the marine freighters will do a lot for clean air. Many are going to LNG because of it, vs huge Diesels without any pollution control equipment. In regards to carbon emissions, getting the most efficient engines in use should solve most of it.

In regards to other emissions today's cars put out only about 2% of the emissions of a 1964 Dodge.
 
M1ssilez
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:08 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:52 pm

Geez how off-topic can this thread get?!
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9899
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:32 am

Please stay on topic, for those discussing things related to climate change keep it to non-aviation
Forum Moderator
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:32 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
The A380 still burns less fuel if configured in the same density as other aircraft.
The B787 in a 9-abreast is the equivalent of 11 or perhaps 12 abreast on the A380's main deck in Y.
A fully loaded B789 is going to approach 6 tons per hour, roughly half the A380`s fuel burn. The A380 can easily carry twice the amount of pax versus the B789.
Cargowise the B789 can squeeze more volume out of it, but it doesn't pay anywhere near like the self-loading version. The handling coat and additional fuel burn make it low margin anyway.


But if the seats are empty because their are too many of them on a [particular flight, it does not matter.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11882
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The max pax of a 787-9 is 420 passengers. Two 787-9 will be able to carry 840. Compare that to the max pax of the A380 with 853. Furthermore you will have to equip the 787-9 with a dense 9 seats per row, compared to the standard full size seats in 10 and 8 seats per row on lower and upper deck of the A380


And if you go 11 per row on the main deck, you can have 853 pax and some J and PE/Y+ seating instead of Y only, 12J, 21 PE, 820Y or so.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10051
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:38 pm

I don’t know why you all are talking about 2 787s vs 1 A380 and whatnot. 2 787s may be more expensive to operate than one A380...but that is not why the smaller aircraft are popular. Airlines like the smaller aircraft because of flexibility. They can reduce frequencies during slower periods, or offer flights at different times to make their offering more attractive to customers. If it doesn’t work out it is easier to find a new route for the plane. You can’t split a A380/VLA in half if it is not working on a route, and if you want to take it off the route you need to find somewhere else where it’s capacity would be useful. That is it’s largest issue. Contrary to what seems to be popular A.net opinion, wingtip to wingtip flights on long haul routes on the same carrier is rare. Consolidating two flights usually means something (flight time offerings) has to give.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Topic Author
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:40 pm

waterbomber wrote:
The A380 still burns less fuel if configured in the same density as other aircraft.
The B787 in a 9-abreast is the equivalent of 11 or perhaps 12 abreast on the A380's main deck in Y.


This is the kind of delusional A380 thinking that plagues a.net, but is mercifully becoming less common.
12 abreast or even 11ab on A380 is worse than 787 and you can know this from interacting with reality in a way so simple that calling it "math" is gradiose:

-787 cabin is 216in wide at armrests
-A380 cabin is 248in wide at armrests
-A380 is 32in wider than 787

How do you fit 2, let alone 3, additional seats in 32in at the same comfort level?

Let me clue you in - you can't. For the arithmetically-challenged:
32 / 2 = 16
16 < 17; also 16 < 18; also you need space for armrests

There's a reason nobody has sprung for 11ab A380 seats, not even A380 operators who use 10ab 777's.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:53 pm

The original question is a good one, how big is big enough?

There are two components to this which are not mutualy exclusive but each informs the other.

1) What is the largest aircraft that a company can sustainably make, in such a way that it covers its costs and returns profit. Now if something has already been produced it becomes a decision of how long can you wait. What is the miniumum number of viable frames that has to be made to ensure continued production and with all these things as point production ends simply because technology or regulations move on. The market seems to have said that aircraft of A380 and B747 are not desirable for whatever reason, they might plod along with a few orders here and there within their niche (High prestige luxury travel and very large freighter) but they are not the dominant force in the market place, so what size down makes sense? Well the next largest in both lineups have an advantage over the A380 and B747, they are built on an existing design, in the case of A35K it is an up gauge from another design that has successfully entered the market it would seem, therefore reducing its outright cost as it is shared over other models. The 777-X is a development of an existing aircraft, reducing risk by inheritance of the previous model, ie assembly can be switched from the old model, not a new line made etc. Although that didn't save the B748. So with the reduced costs from both these programs by being extensions of other works that risk is reduced.

2) What is the largest aircraft a company can profitably operate. This is partially influenced by acquisition cost (see point 1). But also all those other things like CASM etc, based on the whole yield thing. If you cant fill it reliably then its to big. So how many seats do airlines need? If you don't provide them then the competition might, but not everyone wants to go to the same place. Just because some airlines can operate a giant plane efficiently, does not mean that enough will be built to make it profitable for the builder. Likewise just because it might make sense on some routes some of the time doesn't make it the best frame for the airline. Slot constraint has an effect but there seems to be few of these locations to really be the driving force. Range is the other consideration, but as planes improve, the smaller planes have started to catch up with their larger brethren.

I sometimes wonder reading posts here if everyone should just fly the smallest plane possible that can reach the distance to make sure the yield is high. Or maybe if these planes are as efficient as lots of people like to talk about. Only selling so many seats on them to keep the price high and not worry about the empty space because they are so efficient is the way to go.

At the end of the day transport is a service, that has a greater economic impact than the revenue it generates, and therefore external factors will impinge on it, ie government.

After many years we will be able to add up the numbers and see what was viable and that which was not, and argue where the border between the two lies.

My best guess is that size will cap out at the A350K it will do well, and the B777-X being less successful than its previous incarnation and the best selling plane wide body for the next few years being will be the B787, taking a lot of the 777 replacement cycle as the customers seem to like to stick to the same manufacturer most of the time.
 
waly777
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:32 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
The A380 still burns less fuel if configured in the same density as other aircraft.
The B787 in a 9-abreast is the equivalent of 11 or perhaps 12 abreast on the A380's main deck in Y.
A fully loaded B789 is going to approach 6 tons per hour, roughly half the A380`s fuel burn. The A380 can easily carry twice the amount of pax versus the B789.
Cargowise the B789 can squeeze more volume out of it, but it doesn't pay anywhere near like the self-loading version. The handling coat and additional fuel burn make it low margin anyway.


"Can's" and "if's" are hypotheticals airlines do not care about. We have real world configs with airlines who have both aircraft in their fleet. The actual numbers disprove anet fantasy about the 380. Airlines do not stuff them with these fantasy numbers to get world record CASK as it is pointless if you cannot fill those seats.

CASK is not the 380's strong suite, RASK is and thus it will remain on routes which can support that sort of demand.. except for EK who use them like 77W's. One aircraft cannot be everything and aircraft have their eras come and go. The 380 was largely a misfire from the part of Airbus and it's niche numbers is proof of that no matter how much you want to argue, facts are not disputable.

Leehams assertion that 779/35K market is over, i think that's nonsense, there is a whole market of 346, 77W and 380 for both those aircraft to replace. Whilst there is a fair bit of route framentation from hub to hub, there is still a need to connect mega cities to other mega cities across continents and thus a market remains. The 380 on the other hand is largely done regarding new sales, barring a 380 NEO which i doubt Airbus will be paying for anytime soon.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3118
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:40 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The strangest thing with this discussion seem to me, that people accept the 777-9 because of the need for high capacity. With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders, when their is no indication that those frames will exceed the A350-1000 or 777-300ER in payload range capacity.
Than the same poster turns around and talk about the A380 being to big.

The Leeham article talks about all of the A380, 777-8/9 and the A350-1000 being to big. So according to that buyers will keep to buying the A350-900 and 787-9/10 and smaller frames and frames bigger than that will have a difficult time.


Actually, I see the 777-9 as likely a threat to the dedicated freighter, given how great a belly cargo frame the 777-300ER is. Just-in-time logistics will change greatly. Now, as for the A35K, the real issue there is that one can comfortably fit 348 seats in an A359. The A35K is primarily for airlines that have high premium seating requirements (for instance, CX configured its A35Ks with 46 J and 32 W seats). Within the Lufthansa group, I have actually suggested that Lufthansa should swap 10 A359s at LH for the LX B77Ws as the Y cabin at LX is way too big - larger than the total seat count on the A333s. That said, the 777X and the A35K are geared primarily towards those with big J cabins, while everyone else can go with the A359, B789 or B78J.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:02 am

Dutchy wrote:
These are interesting times indeed. Within the next five years, there will a shift because airlines will be part of the environmental measure and will be brought within the Paris framework. That might result in a move back towards bigger planes and, especially within the European context and perhaps within South East Asia, a move back towards the hup and spoke system, just the spokes being a high-speed train.

So I can see a move back towards A380, but it must be a NEO-ed one. B777X, don't know about this one. And a MOM-Boeing. The CSAM needs to come down fast, very fast if we want to keep within the Paris accords.


We are not going to a governmental imposed system of your trains and huge planes. To many nations, many of which either opted out of the Paris Agreement or have no restraints under the agreement, such as China. The economics are such that the most efficient aircraft will prevail and, right now, those are the 787 and the A-350 for long haul travel. There may be others, but they will be twins, not the A-380 even if a NEO model. Doubtful Airbus will even emark on such a project, given the failure of the A-380 and the lessoning of demand.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:18 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The strangest thing with this discussion seem to me, that people accept the 777-9 because of the need for high capacity. With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders, when their is no indication that those frames will exceed the A350-1000 or 777-300ER in payload range capacity.
Than the same poster turns around and talk about the A380 being to big.

The Leeham article talks about all of the A380, 777-8/9 and the A350-1000 being to big. So according to that buyers will keep to buying the A350-900 and 787-9/10 and smaller frames and frames bigger than that will have a difficult time.


Actually, I see the 777-9 as likely a threat to the dedicated freighter, given how great a belly cargo frame the 777-300ER is. Just-in-time logistics will change greatly. Now, as for the A35K, the real issue there is that one can comfortably fit 348 seats in an A359. The A35K is primarily for airlines that have high premium seating requirements (for instance, CX configured its A35Ks with 46 J and 32 W seats). Within the Lufthansa group, I have actually suggested that Lufthansa should swap 10 A359s at LH for the LX B77Ws as the Y cabin at LX is way too big - larger than the total seat count on the A333s. That said, the 777X and the A35K are geared primarily towards those with big J cabins, while everyone else can go with the A359, B789 or B78J.


The 777-9 will hardly be more of a threat to dedicated freighters than the current twins flying. It has a few more LD3 positions, 46 LD3, 48 with the large aft cargo door, but that is not a step change. All of the current wide body twins that take LD3 containers and the corresponding pallets are a threat to dedicated freighters. The 777-300 takes 44 LD3, the 777-200 32. 787-10, 787-9, 787-8 take 40, 36 and 28 respectively. The A350-1000, A350-900, A330-300/900 and A330-200/800 manage 44, 36, 32 and 26.

Even if the 777-9 has more LD3 positions, it could run into weight restrictions. It carries more passengers and bags than the 777-300ER and A350-1000, but will hardly manage a higher payload, so less weight left for cargo.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:11 pm

Personally, the A350XWB-900 actually stands a chance to be pretty successful because many airlines need to replace their aging 777-200ER fleets. I don't expect the 777-8/9 and A350XWB-1000 to be really selling until the 2020's, when the last of the 747-400's are retired and the 777-300ER replacement cycle begins.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26719
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:57 pm

Think we can move this thread to Non-Aviation, mods, since it's now about Carbon Offsets and Power Generation.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3548
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:00 pm

And perhaps a final gentle post on topic: The 350 esp the 9 and to a lesser extent the 10 and the 787 all three models are sufficiently efficient, long range, and cargo capable that one really needs to work at making a case for the larger models, EK obviously does. The 330 esp 9 and the maybe 797 don't help the case for larger planes either. This might be analogous to the largely disappearance of wide bodies intra-US
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:22 am

Matt6461 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/06/18/vla-era-is-over-are-777x-a350-1000-too-large/

Story is behind a paywall; this isn't one of my catch-up on Leeham premium months, but the broad argument is in the summary.

I don't disagree that VLA's aren't selling well, obviously. The 748i and A388 are terrible products; A35K and 777-9 are suboptimal products that will likely occupy only a niche for the biggest network carriers on their thickest routes.

Per Leeham's analysis, A35K has only a ~2% cash operating cost per seat edge over A359 (~13% higher COC trip cost), while 779 has ~3-4% COC/seat edge at ~10-11% higher trip cost. A380 has ~3-5% higher COC/seat than 777-9 per Leeham at similar seating density. 748i's COC/seat is worse than 77W.

Given those stats, I remain flabbergasted that Leeham continually propounds on the state of the size-category market, rather than addressing the individual planes. It should be obvious that (1) longhaul upgauging is rare absent compelling economies of scale and that (2) today's large planes don't offer compelling economies of scale - especially above 777-9 size.

So Leeham has gone from arguing for the A380NEO business case to declaring the death of the VLA. That's sad. The A380 has burned seemingly all of its (non-EK) boosters and killed appetite and even imagination for VLA's. Instead of giving up on the whole sector, Leeham - and other analysts/stakeholders - should be considering which analytical errors caused their past misfires.

I'm still convinced a successful A380NEO is possible next decade with substantial investment and that a clean sheet VLA should appear around 2030. Pronouncements like Leeham's are boring, discouraging conventional wisdom.


It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18835
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:29 am

RickNRoll wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/06/18/vla-era-is-over-are-777x-a350-1000-too-large/

Story is behind a paywall; this isn't one of my catch-up on Leeham premium months, but the broad argument is in the summary.

I don't disagree that VLA's aren't selling well, obviously. The 748i and A388 are terrible products; A35K and 777-9 are suboptimal products that will likely occupy only a niche for the biggest network carriers on their thickest routes.

Per Leeham's analysis, A35K has only a ~2% cash operating cost per seat edge over A359 (~13% higher COC trip cost), while 779 has ~3-4% COC/seat edge at ~10-11% higher trip cost. A380 has ~3-5% higher COC/seat than 777-9 per Leeham at similar seating density. 748i's COC/seat is worse than 77W.

Given those stats, I remain flabbergasted that Leeham continually propounds on the state of the size-category market, rather than addressing the individual planes. It should be obvious that (1) longhaul upgauging is rare absent compelling economies of scale and that (2) today's large planes don't offer compelling economies of scale - especially above 777-9 size.

So Leeham has gone from arguing for the A380NEO business case to declaring the death of the VLA. That's sad. The A380 has burned seemingly all of its (non-EK) boosters and killed appetite and even imagination for VLA's. Instead of giving up on the whole sector, Leeham - and other analysts/stakeholders - should be considering which analytical errors caused their past misfires.

I'm still convinced a successful A380NEO is possible next decade with substantial investment and that a clean sheet VLA should appear around 2030. Pronouncements like Leeham's are boring, discouraging conventional wisdom.


It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

If the A380 could seat that many, it would be selling better. Unfortunately, it has space that doesn't sell seats. Since it isn't selling and nor will the 748I, we're left with the A35K.

If the A35K only has a 2% seat cash cost advantage, then it won't sell very well.
Now what is the 779 cost versus? A35K or A359? The 779 has amazingly advanced engines, so it should save quite a bit of fuel.


The other downside is double deck planes are poor combis. Let's see:
77X, about 300 orders after excluding EY, but we have the possibility of TK and ET? :scratchchin: The 778 has great potential as a freighter too...
A35K is at 168 orders. I expect PIPs will improve the sales (reduces the costs more of the larger version than the smaller).

Compare to the A380 with 311 net orders (sorry Amadeo... We would have heard something by now.).

I think we will see more A35K and 777X orders. A380? Not unless there is a NEO stretch. The 748 is for freight.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:20 am

lightsaber wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/06/18/vla-era-is-over-are-777x-a350-1000-too-large/

Story is behind a paywall; this isn't one of my catch-up on Leeham premium months, but the broad argument is in the summary.

I don't disagree that VLA's aren't selling well, obviously. The 748i and A388 are terrible products; A35K and 777-9 are suboptimal products that will likely occupy only a niche for the biggest network carriers on their thickest routes.

Per Leeham's analysis, A35K has only a ~2% cash operating cost per seat edge over A359 (~13% higher COC trip cost), while 779 has ~3-4% COC/seat edge at ~10-11% higher trip cost. A380 has ~3-5% higher COC/seat than 777-9 per Leeham at similar seating density. 748i's COC/seat is worse than 77W.

Given those stats, I remain flabbergasted that Leeham continually propounds on the state of the size-category market, rather than addressing the individual planes. It should be obvious that (1) longhaul upgauging is rare absent compelling economies of scale and that (2) today's large planes don't offer compelling economies of scale - especially above 777-9 size.

So Leeham has gone from arguing for the A380NEO business case to declaring the death of the VLA. That's sad. The A380 has burned seemingly all of its (non-EK) boosters and killed appetite and even imagination for VLA's. Instead of giving up on the whole sector, Leeham - and other analysts/stakeholders - should be considering which analytical errors caused their past misfires.

I'm still convinced a successful A380NEO is possible next decade with substantial investment and that a clean sheet VLA should appear around 2030. Pronouncements like Leeham's are boring, discouraging conventional wisdom.


It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

If the A380 could seat that many, it would be selling better. Unfortunately, it has space that doesn't sell seats. Since it isn't selling and nor will the 748I, we're left with the A35K.

If the A35K only has a 2% seat cash cost advantage, then it won't sell very well.
Now what is the 779 cost versus? A35K or A359? The 779 has amazingly advanced engines, so it should save quite a bit of fuel.


The other downside is double deck planes are poor combis. Let's see:
77X, about 300 orders after excluding EY, but we have the possibility of TK and ET? :scratchchin: The 778 has great potential as a freighter too...
A35K is at 168 orders. I expect PIPs will improve the sales (reduces the costs more of the larger version than the smaller).

Compare to the A380 with 311 net orders (sorry Amadeo... We would have heard something by now.).

I think we will see more A35K and 777X orders. A380? Not unless there is a NEO stretch. The 748 is for freight.

Lightsaber


It’ll be interesting to see if your A380 prediction holds true. Airbus is still talking up potential sales.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:17 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The strangest thing with this discussion seem to me, that people accept the 777-9 because of the need for high capacity. With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders, when their is no indication that those frames will exceed the A350-1000 or 777-300ER in payload range capacity.
Than the same poster turns around and talk about the A380 being to big.

The Leeham article talks about all of the A380, 777-8/9 and the A350-1000 being to big. So according to that buyers will keep to buying the A350-900 and 787-9/10 and smaller frames and frames bigger than that will have a difficult time.


Now, as for the A35K, the real issue there is that one can comfortably fit 348 seats in an A359. The A35K is primarily for airlines that have high premium seating requirements (for instance, CX configured its A35Ks with 46 J and 32 W seats). Within the Lufthansa group, I have actually suggested that Lufthansa should swap 10 A359s at LH for the LX B77Ws as the Y cabin at LX is way too big - larger than the total seat count on the A333s. That said, the 777X and the A35K are geared primarily towards those with big J cabins, while everyone else can go with the A359, B789 or B78J.



Nice post I think you hit the nail on the head.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14657
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:42 am

lightsaber wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/06/18/vla-era-is-over-are-777x-a350-1000-too-large/

Story is behind a paywall; this isn't one of my catch-up on Leeham premium months, but the broad argument is in the summary.

I don't disagree that VLA's aren't selling well, obviously. The 748i and A388 are terrible products; A35K and 777-9 are suboptimal products that will likely occupy only a niche for the biggest network carriers on their thickest routes.

Per Leeham's analysis, A35K has only a ~2% cash operating cost per seat edge over A359 (~13% higher COC trip cost), while 779 has ~3-4% COC/seat edge at ~10-11% higher trip cost. A380 has ~3-5% higher COC/seat than 777-9 per Leeham at similar seating density. 748i's COC/seat is worse than 77W.

Given those stats, I remain flabbergasted that Leeham continually propounds on the state of the size-category market, rather than addressing the individual planes. It should be obvious that (1) longhaul upgauging is rare absent compelling economies of scale and that (2) today's large planes don't offer compelling economies of scale - especially above 777-9 size.

So Leeham has gone from arguing for the A380NEO business case to declaring the death of the VLA. That's sad. The A380 has burned seemingly all of its (non-EK) boosters and killed appetite and even imagination for VLA's. Instead of giving up on the whole sector, Leeham - and other analysts/stakeholders - should be considering which analytical errors caused their past misfires.

I'm still convinced a successful A380NEO is possible next decade with substantial investment and that a clean sheet VLA should appear around 2030. Pronouncements like Leeham's are boring, discouraging conventional wisdom.


It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

If the A380 could seat that many, it would be selling better. Unfortunately, it has space that doesn't sell seats. Since it isn't selling and nor will the 748I, we're left with the A35K.

If the A35K only has a 2% seat cash cost advantage, then it won't sell very well.
Now what is the 779 cost versus? A35K or A359? The 779 has amazingly advanced engines, so it should save quite a bit of fuel.


The other downside is double deck planes are poor combis. Let's see:
77X, about 300 orders after excluding EY, but we have the possibility of TK and ET? :scratchchin: The 778 has great potential as a freighter too...
A35K is at 168 orders. I expect PIPs will improve the sales (reduces the costs more of the larger version than the smaller).

Compare to the A380 with 311 net orders (sorry Amadeo... We would have heard something by now.).

I think we will see more A35K and 777X orders. A380? Not unless there is a NEO stretch. The 748 is for freight.

Lightsaber


Sorry don’t agree with what you are saying, the GE9X is such an amazing engine it is looking like not being ETDO capable at EIS.

I fully expect the A350 to outsell the 77X, likewise I expect the 787 to outsell the A350. There is more demand for smaller aircraft, that is just a market fact.

Apart from the new engine, there is not much to get excited about the 77X, it is an old airframe that predates the A380.

The A380neo will happen, we just don’t know when. It is not a stationary target. When it does happen the 77X will have very little going for it.

The A350 and it’s engine has had a extremely smooth EIS, and is performing quite a better than guaranteed, and is getting better with each block change. It is not a stationary target either.

Many of the statements regarding the 77X assume the rest of the market is stationary, it is constantly improving.

There is a number of airlines that are reaching close to the point where they can pull out of 77X orders before metal is cut. The 77X order book is not set in stone, with the start of trump induced economic downturn, combined with the bubble with wide body leasing (particularly with the 77W) is making another type not particularly attractive.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:

If the A35K only has a 2% seat cash cost advantage, then it won't sell very well.
Now what is the 779 cost versus? A35K or A359? The 779 has amazingly advanced engines, so it should save quite a bit of fuel.


The 777-9 will also be a very heavy frame compared to A350-1000 (or any 787), so I would not be sure that better engines will be sufficient.

lightsaber wrote:
The other downside is double deck planes are poor combis. Let's see:
77X, about 300 orders after excluding EY, but we have the possibility of TK and ET? :scratchchin: The 778 has great potential as a freighter too...
A35K is at 168 orders. I expect PIPs will improve the sales (reduces the costs more of the larger version than the smaller).


The A350 and 787 will be good combies. The 777-9 could run into payload problems as a comby. Slightly higher LD3 numbers than the A350-1000, 48 against 44, but the 777-9 will have more passengers and bags and not more payload.

The 777-8 will be worse as a freighter than the 777F, a heavier frame with a similar MTOW.

lightsaber wrote:
Compare to the A380 with 311 net orders (sorry Amadeo... We would have heard something by now.).

I think we will see more A35K and 777X orders. A380? Not unless there is a NEO stretch. The 748 is for freight.

Lightsaber


I think we can well see no further orders for the 777-9 or rather a reduction of orders, keeping those numbers near the A380 numbers. The A350-1000, the smaller and much lighter frame with similar or better comby potential will win out over the 777-9.
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:52 pm

par13del wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
With that comes the myth about the 777-8 and 777-9 becoming payload wonders,

Well since every Airbus is more comfortable because they are right sized - no 9 or 10 abreast - and quiet with less noise in and out, why else would anyone buy a Boeing but for its range and payload? Well they can get cheap 777W's so maybe that is an offset.

All Lehman has to do is wait, the A380 is ahead of its time and as more airports are made slot restricted or climate changes forces regulators to create markets for which the A380 will be ideal, it will come into its own and claim its rightful place in aviation.

Really? What about the 767? (Although that's no VLA)
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
waly777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..


Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.


Most users of the A380 take their money through high numbers of premium passengers.

The biggest user of A380, Emirates, has clearly declared that the A380 is their most profitable frame. That are the guys who should know the numbers.

It is the A380 detractors and bashers here on a.net coming up with the ridiculous comparisons. You need to compare apples with bananas to let the A380 look bad in regards to it economics.

The max pax of a 787-9 is 420 passengers. Two 787-9 will be able to carry 840. Compare that to the max pax of the A380 with 853. Furthermore you will have to equip the 787-9 with a dense 9 seats per row, compared to the standard full size seats in 10 and 8 seats per row on lower and upper deck of the A380
Two 787-9 burn more fuel than one A380, will use a similar number of cabin crew, but need twice the number of pilots. You will not buy two 787-9 for the price of one A380.
Regarding service you will need to service 4 engines and 2 frames on the 787 and 4 engines and one frame regarding the A380. I can hardly imagine, that when you have to refurbish the frames, that 2 787 will be done for less money than one A380.

The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I am pretty sure airlines are not playing into A-380 bashing by people on this forum. Emirates seem to be in a unique position given their operations and location. One thing you overlook is the fact merely having seats does not mean people are in the seats. IN reality the sales numbers say it all. Airbus predicted a 1,200+ market for the A-380 when they started the program. That has not happened and does not appear the A-380 is on track to even get near break even. With the exception of Emirates, airlines seem to be looking elsewhere.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:31 pm

zeke wrote:

The A380neo will happen, we just don’t know when. It is not a stationary target. When it does happen the 77X will have very little going for it.


Seems you didn't get the memo from Airbus.

Airbus/Leahy were very clear that A380neo isn't happening - remarks echoed by Sir Tim Clark too in a Bloomberg interview.

Even if it were happening, just as the A359 is not stationary, nor it's engine, Boeing wouldn't be sat idle on 777X or GE9X either.

All oem's look to improve products, as I'm sure you'll agree.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:53 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
waly777 wrote:

Yes, but this reflect real world values and not Anet ideals of what pax configuration should be. No one has 853 pax on a 380 and thus there is little point calculating that figure.

Cost and cost per pax is not the A380's strong suite, what it does do however when placed on the right routes is it's ability to earn ludicrous amounts of revenue thanks to the high J capacity found on most carriers. Looking at EK or EY, filling up 70 to 76J seats is quite the endeavour catering to that demand year round. But on routes like LHR etc, the added revenue brought in due to the demand, is worth the cost.


Most users of the A380 take their money through high numbers of premium passengers.

The biggest user of A380, Emirates, has clearly declared that the A380 is their most profitable frame. That are the guys who should know the numbers.

It is the A380 detractors and bashers here on a.net coming up with the ridiculous comparisons. You need to compare apples with bananas to let the A380 look bad in regards to it economics.

The max pax of a 787-9 is 420 passengers. Two 787-9 will be able to carry 840. Compare that to the max pax of the A380 with 853. Furthermore you will have to equip the 787-9 with a dense 9 seats per row, compared to the standard full size seats in 10 and 8 seats per row on lower and upper deck of the A380
Two 787-9 burn more fuel than one A380, will use a similar number of cabin crew, but need twice the number of pilots. You will not buy two 787-9 for the price of one A380.
Regarding service you will need to service 4 engines and 2 frames on the 787 and 4 engines and one frame regarding the A380. I can hardly imagine, that when you have to refurbish the frames, that 2 787 will be done for less money than one A380.

The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I am pretty sure airlines are not playing into A-380 bashing by people on this forum. Emirates seem to be in a unique position given their operations and location. One thing you overlook is the fact merely having seats does not mean people are in the seats. IN reality the sales numbers say it all. Airbus predicted a 1,200+ market for the A-380 when they started the program. That has not happened and does not appear the A-380 is on track to even get near break even. With the exception of Emirates, airlines seem to be looking elsewhere.


Again one of the enduring a.net myth. Airbus predicted a market of 1200 VLA. A market they expected to need to share. Airbus expected for the A380 to take about half of it, that means 600 frames. Airbus expected also to sell some A380 freighters. Airbus also expected a production break even after 250 frames. Airbus did not expect execution of the program to go of the rails.
 
waly777
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

If the A35K only has a 2% seat cash cost advantage, then it won't sell very well.
Now what is the 779 cost versus? A35K or A359? The 779 has amazingly advanced engines, so it should save quite a bit of fuel.


The 777-9 will also be a very heavy frame compared to A350-1000 (or any 787), so I would not be sure that better engines will be sufficient.

lightsaber wrote:
The other downside is double deck planes are poor combis. Let's see:
77X, about 300 orders after excluding EY, but we have the possibility of TK and ET? :scratchchin: The 778 has great potential as a freighter too...
A35K is at 168 orders. I expect PIPs will improve the sales (reduces the costs more of the larger version than the smaller).


The A350 and 787 will be good combies. The 777-9 could run into payload problems as a comby. Slightly higher LD3 numbers than the A350-1000, 48 against 44, but the 777-9 will have more passengers and bags and not more payload.

The 777-8 will be worse as a freighter than the 777F, a heavier frame with a similar MTOW.

lightsaber wrote:
Compare to the A380 with 311 net orders (sorry Amadeo... We would have heard something by now.).

I think we will see more A35K and 777X orders. A380? Not unless there is a NEO stretch. The 748 is for freight.

Lightsaber


I think we can well see no further orders for the 777-9 or rather a reduction of orders, keeping those numbers near the A380 numbers. The A350-1000, the smaller and much lighter frame with similar or better comby potential will win out over the 777-9.


You keep making the assertions that the 777-8 & 9 will carry less payload than the 77L and 77W because of the increase in OEW and constant TOW.
You do realise the MZFW is the key to determining max payload?

As far as I'm aware, the MZFW and MLW of the 779 per Boeing are roughly 15tons higher than that of the 77W, I assume the -8 will see a larger value as well vs the 77L (likely much closer to the 77W figures). Until we know the exact OEW, we won't know what the MSP for the -8/9 will be. And to be fair, very few airlines will ever come close to using the max payload values for the 77L and 77W, except you're filling the cargo hold after bags with boxes of lead.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:22 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Most users of the A380 take their money through high numbers of premium passengers.

The biggest user of A380, Emirates, has clearly declared that the A380 is their most profitable frame. That are the guys who should know the numbers.

It is the A380 detractors and bashers here on a.net coming up with the ridiculous comparisons. You need to compare apples with bananas to let the A380 look bad in regards to it economics.

The max pax of a 787-9 is 420 passengers. Two 787-9 will be able to carry 840. Compare that to the max pax of the A380 with 853. Furthermore you will have to equip the 787-9 with a dense 9 seats per row, compared to the standard full size seats in 10 and 8 seats per row on lower and upper deck of the A380
Two 787-9 burn more fuel than one A380, will use a similar number of cabin crew, but need twice the number of pilots. You will not buy two 787-9 for the price of one A380.
Regarding service you will need to service 4 engines and 2 frames on the 787 and 4 engines and one frame regarding the A380. I can hardly imagine, that when you have to refurbish the frames, that 2 787 will be done for less money than one A380.

The point is that few airlines have a need for the capacity of the A380 on most of their routes. If you need the capacity, one A380 will move the same number of passengers for a lower cost than two 787-9 and you can live with a lower load factor on the A380 before going into red on each flight.


I am pretty sure airlines are not playing into A-380 bashing by people on this forum. Emirates seem to be in a unique position given their operations and location. One thing you overlook is the fact merely having seats does not mean people are in the seats. IN reality the sales numbers say it all. Airbus predicted a 1,200+ market for the A-380 when they started the program. That has not happened and does not appear the A-380 is on track to even get near break even. With the exception of Emirates, airlines seem to be looking elsewhere.


Again one of the enduring a.net myth. Airbus predicted a market of 1200 VLA. A market they expected to need to share. Airbus expected for the A380 to take about half of it, that means 600 frames. Airbus expected also to sell some A380 freighters. Airbus also expected a production break even after 250 frames. Airbus did not expect execution of the program to go of the rails.


He didn’t say they expected to sell 1200 A380s. He said they expected a market for that many - not that they’d get 100% of the sales.

It sounds like Airbus expected a lot of things that didn’t happen. Par for the course with such long term programs. It ain’t over till it’s iver, though.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:26 pm

If AB took the risk to develop the 380 based on achieving only 600 deliveries than their decision making process was dumber than any of us ever knew.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9315
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:01 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
If AB took the risk to develop the 380 based on achieving only 600 deliveries than their decision making process was dumber than any of us ever knew.


The decisions to build models were based on completely different numbers in those times, than put forward today. The aim was a production break even after 250 frames. Something Airbus had managed on the A330/340 and A320.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Topic Author
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:27 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
If AB took the risk to develop the 380 based on achieving only 600 deliveries than their decision making process was dumber than any of us ever knew.


The decisions to build models were based on completely different numbers in those times, than put forward today. The aim was a production break even after 250 frames. Something Airbus had managed on the A330/340 and A320.


Unfortunately for Airbus projections, demand influences both quantity demanded and price. The demand projections were too rosy on both; thus even with perfect execution Airbus would have lost money after 250 frames.

Any effort to do defend the wisdom of this program has to rely on some elementary intellectual error like not understanding the basics of a demand curve.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:45 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
If AB took the risk to develop the 380 based on achieving only 600 deliveries than their decision making process was dumber than any of us ever knew.


The decisions to build models were based on completely different numbers in those times, than put forward today. The aim was a production break even after 250 frames. Something Airbus had managed on the A330/340 and A320.


Unfortunately for Airbus projections, demand influences both quantity demanded and price. The demand projections were too rosy on both; thus even with perfect execution Airbus would have lost money after 250 frames.

Any effort to do defend the wisdom of this program has to rely on some elementary intellectual error like not understanding the basics of a demand curve.


Well said, I wish somebody would publish a story on the decision making process for the 380 and the 748.

Two of the worst product development decisions of all time in any industry.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:46 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
If AB took the risk to develop the 380 based on achieving only 600 deliveries than their decision making process was dumber than any of us ever knew.


The decisions to build models were based on completely different numbers in those times, than put forward today. The aim was a production break even after 250 frames. Something Airbus had managed on the A330/340 and A320.


Unfortunately for Airbus projections, demand influences both quantity demanded and price. The demand projections were too rosy on both; thus even with perfect execution Airbus would have lost money after 250 frames.

Any effort to do defend the wisdom of this program has to rely on some elementary intellectual error like not understanding the basics of a demand curve.

It's very hot here in Belgium currently, not conducive to search back through old threads about the A380, and Matt6461's contributions to them. What I do see is a complete about face, 180degree turn, to a point now where it seems he is having some trouble even coexisting with the current A380s out there

Back then, no snide and snarky comments like now, but excessively long relatively technical posts telling us all how with a bit of effort here, and a bit there, the A380 would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! Coupled with a large streak of arrogance now ("...... elementary intellectual error ........").

I wonder what caused this change of heart. I'm sure that it wasn't a breakfast with the heads of EK, SQ, BA (and maybe others) for whom the plane is very highly regarded. But maybe you know something that they don't!
Last edited by sassiciai on Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos