I calculate 14% more profit per flight with a 779.
I have seen you say this in a few threads, but I still don't see how you reached that conclusion. There's no doubt that 779 will have the higher profit per seat, but it wouldn't make sense that it would generate more profit per flight.
profit per flight = profit per seats * number of seats
If we assume both are in a 3 class configuration, then we have A380 with 41% more seats than the 779.
In order for the 779 to have the same
profit per flight as the A380, then it has to have a higher profit per seat by 41%. In other words, not a chance.
If 779 has a higher profit per seat by 20%, then A380 has to sell anything more than 444 seats to bring more profit per flight overall. (based on a 3-class confiugraion for both).
I am curious, how did you get the 14% more profit per flight figure?
My costs and revenue
The 779 burns 20% less fuel per seat than the 77W and the 77W already burned a few percent per seat less. The 779 also has the latest avionics and is receiving the 787 predictive maintenance algorithms. That will save about 10% in maintenance costs (pulling parts to inspect is so 2005 and inefficient).
So about 23% * 40% = 9% cost reduction. Plus a few percent for maintenance plus a few percent as more passengers spread over fixed expenses.
The CFRP wing also cuts costs.
I would love to see your numbers. But there is a reason mk2 777 sales were not impacted and now we are at mk3.
In general, every generation cuts the cost per seat 15% to 20%. From what I've seen in the wing, avionics, and fusalage improvements as well as GE9x...
The LEAP engine is competitive with the game changing GTF. The GE9x has all that technology including variable cycle), CMC turbine blades, and an amazing cooling system that I cannot say more.
The T900 and GP7200 are conservative old school engines lacking technology. When I worked on the GP7200 I was appalled at what ready technology wasn't implimented due to having to Frankenstein that engine together.
. The T900 is similar tech that the PIP missed promise.
So the more I think about this, the more I think 12% savings is low. But what I do not know is 779 OEW...
My job is to improve performance and cut costs. The 777x has a lot of what it needs.
A380 profit= (revenue-costs)*591
779 profit=(revenue 2-costs2)*420
Fewer seats means fewer empty seats. First seats sold have a slightly higher revenue than last (only so many last minute full fare)
I assume competitive reduces fares, so revenue=cost*1.07
A380=(1.07-1)*591=41.37*cost per seat
779=(1.02*1.07-.87)*420=92.88 cost per A380 seat
So I errored. Due to the HUGE cost advantage, the profit per seat is much more than double.
What are your numbers?
I must have done a cut paste error to arrive at my prior numbers. I think I neglected to reduce revenue on the A388.
Profit margins are heavily dependent on costs for low margin industries such as airlines.
So the 779 should make about double the profit per flight.
Seriously, I expect prior generations of widebodies to be scrapped early due to the step function changes that the 787, A350, and 777x bring to market. In particular once the 787 and A350 receive CMC high turbine PIPs (first static than rotating parts).
The zero chance of selling more A380 engines in quantity (>400 engines) means late PIPs. That is the brutality of aviation economics of scale.
There is a simple answer to congestion, build new runways for London and Tokyo. Since the other high yeild markets are expanding, the market is adapting (by this I mean new IST, new airport at WAW and SVO, continued expansion in Florida, ATL, and CLT, new Daxing, 2 new runways for PVG, new runway at HKG, new Sydney airport, new runway at Jakarta finally A380 ready, HYD/BLR expansion).
I really think the prior generation will be retired quick, say a third the pace of the 707 & DC-8. Sadly that includes the A380. Partially as the A321LR and 797 will fragment markets
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.