Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:35 pm

In an interview, Dr. Dinesh Keskar, Boeing vice-president for sales, asserts the following with respect to fuel efficiency: 777-200LR saves US$ 3.6 million a year in fuel alone when compared to A340-500 and there are additional benefits from more payload, cargo and passengers, and lower maintenance costs. Airbus product can not compete even with a 70-80% discount!!

My comments:
An annual savings of $3.6 million in fuel is worth about $25 million in present value over the life of the aircraft. Does anyone have estimates on additional yield from higher payload and savings on maintenance? I find it hard to believe that Airbus would need to discount its A340-500 70-80% to negate the operating/yield advantages of 777-200LR.

Link:
http://specials.rediff.com/money/2006/apr/05sld4.htm
Quotes:
The reason is very simple, our planes are more fuel efficient. If you flew a 777-200 LR side by side with A340-500 for a year, you will save two million gallons of fuel per year per airplane. Couple that with the fact that Boeing airplanes can carry more cargo and more passengers, we also have low maintenance cost and two engines as opposed to four. That's why Quantas, Air Canada, Air India placed big orders. Jet chose two 777s, so I think we have the right product strategy.

First you have to look at the cost -- on the revenue side we had more seats, we had more cargo carrying capacity, lower maintenance cost. The saving of 2 million gallon (of fuel) per year -- so you have that 3.6 million advantage year after year, the cash flow is so big that even if Airbus discounts its price by 70 to 80 per cent, they still can't make it.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:54 pm

Who ever said Airbus is offering the A345 at a "70-80%" discount????

I mean, look at the numbers, and you can see that quote makes zero sense.

An A345 lists for around $185 million

A 772LR lists for about $200 million

(source: http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_26648.shtml)

A 75% discount on an A345 puts it at about $50 million, or $150 million cheaper than the 772LR. At the numbers your post supplies you would have to fly the A345 41.6 years to get to a point where the 772LR is cheaper to operate based on the cost of fuel.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:55 pm

Regardeless of the numbers provided, as they're given by a Boeing person and are most likely to be taken with a bag of salt (dont get all worked up now, Airbus would likely do the same), this quote attracted my interest...

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
If you flew a 777-200 LR side by side with A340-500 for a year, you will save two million gallons of fuel per year per airplane.

Is that a year of 365 days and 24 hours of running the engine or is that a normal year in the life of an aircraft, including groundtime and checks? In case it's the first option, add an extra bag of salt to these numbers.

note that 2 million gallons is a bit over 5470 gallons a day.
 
studentflyer
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:58 pm

Quote:
Quantas

Hahaha.. what sort of source is that??

[Edited 2006-04-07 09:00:13]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:02 pm

Clearly, Airbus are not discounting more than about 50% from list price. So, if Keskar's claims were true, then no airline would be buying the A340-500. Given the parallel between the B777-300ER and the A340-600, then no airline would be buying the A340-600 either. Since airlines are buying (a few) A340s, either Keskar's claims are wrong, or these airlines are unable to calculate their revenues and costs.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:07 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
At the numbers your post supplies you would have to fly the A345 41.6 years to get to a point where the 772LR is cheaper to operate based on the cost of fuel.

Boeing claim is based on fuel efficiency as well as increased yield(cargo and passenger) and lower maintenance costs. Does anyone have numbers on yield and lower maintenance costs? These would have to be in the range of US $10 million a year in favor of 772LR for Boeing claim to have any credibilty.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:15 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
Since airlines are buying (a few) A340s, either Keskar's claims are wrong, or these airlines are unable to calculate their revenues and costs.

Lack of capital can not be a major factor as most airlines can either finance or lease aircrafts. Therefore, if Boeing claims are correct, then airlines should always buy B772LR over the A345 as the operating/yield gains will be realized immediately.

I repeat my request for estimates on yield and maintenance cost advantages of B772LR.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:21 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
note that 2 million gallons is a bit over 5470 gallons a day.

That implies fuel efficiency advantage of 12% for 772LR over A345 for an avg. of 16 hours a day of flying. Entirely possible.
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:27 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
So, if Keskar's claims were true, then no airline would be buying the A340-500

How many have been bought since the 772LR came to market? Or more to the point, how many have been ordered since testing revealed what a good machine the 772LR actually is?
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:52 pm

I found a very interesting analysis of SQ's SIN-LAX flight using 772LR and 345. The analysis shows that 772LR will have a total advantage of $13.5 million per year, both from fuel savings and increased yield, over the A345. The numbers, if correct, certainly warrant a 70% discount on A345. Link:
http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/...22472fb0a14554b1f4&threadid=149036

Quotes:
FUEL SAVINGS:

Fuel savings SIN-LAX 6000USg X $1.30/USg = $7,812 X 183 days = $1.430mil
Fuel savings LAX-SIN 6800USG X $1.30/USg = $8,840 X 182 days = $1.609mil

INCREASED REVENUE:

Increased cargo cap: SIN-LAX = 10,000Kgs X 3.75/Kg X 183 days = $6.86mil
Increased cargo cap: LAX-SIN = 3,000Kgs X 1.25/Kg X 182 days = $.683mil

Increased Pax cap: 21 pax X 80% L/F X net yield $475 X 365 days = $2.95mil

Trying to keep this very simple without leaving too much out...
Fuel savings based on Boeing per hour fuel burn rates for 777-200LR and A340-500 fuel burn from SIA ops surveys. Cargo revenue figures from current market yields on SIN-LAX-SIN route and believe me SQ is no cut-rate freight operator. Increased pax cap and revenue based on my own cabin space analysis of a possible SQ 777-200LR and actual SQ economy class net yields SIN-LAX-SIN.

Starting with the price of the aircraft:

Again trying to keep this simple, you factor in that at least two aircraft are required to run a daily flight SIN-LAX-SIN. The price difference for two aircraft is 6-$41.6mil.

The simple segment breakdown is for a years continuous operation for two aircraft. The total estimated fuel savings for one year amounts to $3.039mil. Increased cargo Revenue comes out to $7.543mil and Increased net passenger revenue amounts to $2.95mil. Adding up the savings and increased revenue figures comes out to $13.53mil/year and dividing that into the high price difference comes out to 3.07 years to make up the difference in purchase price.

Now this is a very crude analysis without even factoring in difference in maintenance cost requirements, more detailed passenger yields based on class of service, Lower landing fees, possible turn-around time savings, and aircraft finance terms. But I think the point is made pretty clearly.

[Edited 2006-04-07 10:06:35]
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:10 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 9):
Increased cargo cap: SIN-LAX = 10,000Kgs X 3.75/Kg X 183 days = $6.86mil
Increased cargo cap: LAX-SIN = 3,000Kgs X 1.25/Kg X 182 days = $.683mil

Increased Pax cap: 21 pax X 80% L/F X net yield $475 X 365 days = $2.95mil

Interesting calculations, but allow me to rework them a bit, because the numbers you have provided, unintentionally, seem to be very unrealistic.

The average loadfactor of SIA cargo seems to be around 65%. The increased cargo capacity will be partially taken up by the bags of these 16 or 17 extra passengers it can carry and the extra flight attendant that might be required. No big numbers a day, but a whole different number on a yearly basis. The average loadfactor for passengers on SIA seems to be around 75% so I have reduced your 21 extra passengers.

Using the number you provided, not counting a possible extra flight attendant.

In. cargo cap. would be (3000KG - 350KG) x 0.65LF x 182 x 1.25$ = $0.392 mil (revenue, not extra profit)

In. cargo cap.(10000KG - 350KG) x 0.65LF x 183 x 3.75$ = $4.304 mil (revenue, not extra profit)

pax 16.5 x 475$ x 365 days (no maintenance) = $2.860 mil

350KG is a fictive number for the bags and carry on of the 16.5 extra passengers. At less than 22KG a passenger a very modest number.

All this makes for a total of $7.516 mil. add to that the fuelsavings (based on Boeings and SIA's number, with the advantage for Boeing providing the number for their own aircraft), an you get $10.595 million wich is a number made of fuelsavings, extra revenue and passengers. This number has further no meaning. The cargo breakeven load is 59%, with an average loadfactor of around 65%, there's little left of the extra cargo revenue that we can call actual profit and therefore could match against the A345. Did I mention that these figures are for aircraft flying 365 days a year and that we assume that the crewing for both the A345 and 777LR are the same? How about routing, can the 777LR fly the same route as the A345?

I could be way of here. But if those who like to comment on that keep it civilised and polite I'm open to different interpretations and/or corrections.

[Edited 2006-04-07 11:14:28]
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:21 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
In. cargo cap. would be (3000KG - 350KG) x 0.65LF x 182 x 1.25$ = $0.392 mil (revenue, not extra profit)

In. cargo cap.(10000KG - 350KG) x 0.65LF x 183 x 3.75$ = $4.304 mil (revenue, not extra profit)



Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
for their own aircraft), an you get $10.190 million wich is a number made of fuelsavings, extra revenue and passengers. This number has further no meaning. The cargo breakeven load is 59%, with an average loadfactor of around 65%, there's little left of the extra cargo revenue that we can call actual profit and therefore could match against the A345

Hi Manni,
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that what ever SIA are currently charging for shipping cargo, 59 percent of that is eaten up by the extra fuel burned to fly the payload?

Thanks,
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:34 pm

I think this is the 5236th thread about the issue. Boeing can claim what they like, they need to say that it is under thousands of conditions. They also neglect issues like the fleet commonality or maintenance cost gurantees.

Besides, 25 millions for the whole aircraft life saved by lower fuel costs? Even if that was true, the lower purchase price and the fleet commonility with Airbus A32X and A380, that a good airline has, would more than even that out.

Besides, how many 772LRs have Qantas and SQ ordered yet? Why did EK, EY and TG buy the A345 at times when the 772LR was already available?

Political deals like the one with Air India or the deal with AC, which probably had a 70-80% discount by Boeing, do not really say much.
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:36 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 11):
Hi Manni,
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that what ever SIA are currently charging for shipping cargo, 59 percent of that is eaten up by the extra fuel burned to fly the payload?

No. Carrying extra cargo involves more extra costs than just fuel. There's the warehouse that has to be payed at both ends, the shipping companys at both ends, extra containers and pallets that need to be leased/purchased and maintained etc, administration etc. The 59% figure was taken from SIA, wich was actually 59.9 but as not to bend the numbers in an advantage towards Airbus ( I could certain people see jumping on that) I rounded it to 59% for easy calculation.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:51 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 13):
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 11):
Hi Manni,
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that what ever SIA are currently charging for shipping cargo, 59 percent of that is eaten up by the extra fuel burned to fly the payload?

No. Carrying extra cargo involves more extra costs than just fuel. There's the warehouse that has to be payed at both ends, the shipping companys at both ends, extra containers and pallets that need to be leased/purchased and maintained etc, administration etc. The 59% figure was taken from SIA, wich was actually 59.9 but as not to bend the numbers in an advantage towards Airbus ( I could certain people see jumping on that) I rounded it to 59% for easy calculation.

So we are talking the entire operation, including overhead. So, if the 777 could carry more cargo, the breakeven point would actually be lower, as the warehouses are already in place, administrative costs are pretty much fixed.... but the revenue increases???

If you took all of fixed costs, then subtracted them from the revenue derived from the A340-5 vs the 777-2LR, I wonder what the result would be.

Thanks for the reply.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:14 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 14):
So, if the 777 could carry more cargo, the breakeven point would actually be lower, as the warehouses are already in place, administrative costs are pretty much fixed.... but the revenue increases???

In Singapore that could well be the case, as SIA load, unload, build and breakdown their own pallets with cargo, fill and empty their own containers. But the difference won't be spectacular. In JFK or EWR however a third party would be doing that for SIA, and most likely this would be at a fixed price for each KG. Building pallets is very labor intensive and it doesn't stop with that. Several trucks need to be loaded and unloaded, that deliver the goods or accept the goods, by the handling company. Unknown cargo and mail needs to be screened. The papermill for customs and security is huge aswell. Often these warehouses have no acces to the tarmac with their own vehicles and the airline needs to hire an additional company that takes the prepared cargo from/to the tarmac. With 10000KG extra capacity, assuming a 65% loadfactor, an additional cargo driver would certainly be needed.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:56 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 15):
n Singapore that could well be the case, as SIA load, unload, build and breakdown their own pallets with cargo, fill and empty their own containers. But the difference won't be spectacular. In JFK or EWR however a third party would be doing that for SIA, and most likely this would be at a fixed price for each KG. Building pallets is very labor intensive and it doesn't stop with that. Several trucks need to be loaded and unloaded, that deliver the goods or accept the goods, by the handling company. Unknown cargo and mail needs to be screened. The papermill for customs and security is huge aswell. Often these warehouses have no acces to the tarmac with their own vehicles and the airline needs to hire an additional company that takes the prepared cargo from/to the tarmac. With 10000KG extra capacity, assuming a 65% loadfactor, an additional cargo driver would certainly be needed.

SQ already has the infrastructure at the places they fly to, to process cargo. There specific costs are the same if they inrease the cargo in the amounts relative to the discussion...

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 9):
Quotes:

That's from a post I made here some time ago. Wow, it was cross quoted in another language! Cool...Yes very crude but accurate from the perspective of aircraft performance and revenue potential. I would however say that fuel burn was from a rather static analysis so with increased payload relative to A340-500 fuel burn delta falls to around 10%. But that is for a 777-200LR flying the same route with 50% more payload which the 777-200LR is capable of relative to the A340-500 on the route discussed.

Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
The average loadfactor of SIA cargo seems to be around 65%. The increased cargo capacity will be partially taken up by the bags of these 16 or 17 extra passengers it can carry and the extra flight attendant that might be required. No big numbers a day, but a whole different number on a yearly basis. The average loadfactor for passengers on SIA seems to be around 75% so I have reduced your 21 extra passengers.

Actually the extra baggae container use does not impact significantly on cargo space. With a 100% load factor on 202 passengers you would need not use more than eight LD3 for bags which leaves six pallets for cargo. At market density ex SIN that capacity fits well with 14-19t cargo loads. If the load factors are in pratice 65-70% that is an additional PLA or two LD-3 with repect to that cargo load, maybe one more pallet if things work out. Cargo space management ex EWR or LAX is a different story however, because passengers tend to have a whole lot more bags going back...

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 11):
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that what ever SIA are currently charging for shipping cargo, 59 percent of that is eaten up by the extra fuel burned to fly the payload?

No way, on their belly cargo ops Ton-mile fuel cost are about $0.02...fuel as a direct cost of carrying it on the airplanes is about $0.22/KG and Ex SIN net/net cargo rates are more than 10 times that amount...

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Besides, 25 millions for the whole aircraft life saved by lower fuel costs? Even if that was true, the lower purchase price and the fleet commonility with Airbus A32X and A380, that a good airline has, would more than even that out.

Savings on pilot rating commonality are way overblown and do not outweigh the costs of completely different maintenance supply chains for different sub types of the same aircraft familiy. I.e what you save on pilot training you spend on maintenance as 80% of the suppliers are different between A340-200/300 and A340-500/600. Pilots don't have to be trained every day but planes always have to be maintained.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:00 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
note that 2 million gallons is a bit over 5470 gallons a day.

The 772LR uses approximately 6,000 fewer gallons of fuel on a given 9,000 mile trip than A345, or atleast that's the stastic that Boeing throws around. The A345 does carry more fuel than 772LR and has a shorter range.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
SQ already has the infrastructure at the places they fly to, to process cargo. There specific costs are the same if they inrease the cargo in the amounts relative to the discussion...

I seriously doubt that SIA has these infrastructures in place outside Changi. What they have is a contract with the handling company and in some cases someone of their own staff with a little office who overlooks the operation. Airlines pay typically a flat rate, with a few exceptions such as dangerous goods or goods that need to be stored in cooling rooms (the rate for these will be higher) for each KG handled to the handling companys. If SQ carrys today 15 Tonne on their 777LR they will pay that flat fee 15000 times. If they carry only 6 Tonne they'll pay it 6000 times.

Quoting Manni (Reply 15):
In JFK or EWR however a third party would be doing that for SIA, and most likely this would be at a fixed price for each KG
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Why did EK, EY and TG buy the A345 at times when the 772LR was already available?

Let me guess? because the 777-200LR didnt enter revenue service yet, and didnt even have its first flight, meaning that an airline wouldnt buy it without the performances clearly on paper and the A345 flew a lot earlier than the 772LR, showing that you are an airbus fan with very little knowledge.

And dont start with an A vs B thread now please because the simple fact tis that the 777 killed the 340.

Cheers Leo
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Political deals like the one with Air India or the deal with AC, which probably had a 70-80% discount by Boeing, do not really say much.

1. You have said so many times that AC's order has a political motive behind it, yet you have never proved it with a source. With AI's order, at least there are some clues that Keesje has provided.

2. Although I cannot provide the evidence because it is "classified" by AC, and ACE, and I would not risk my friend's job to make my point on A.Net... But I have seen the price difference between A & B with my own eyes while AC was deciding between the two fine aircraft makers... The price difference between A345/6 and B772LR/773ER was less than 5 percent, with Boeing being more expensive. Which means that Boeing had a heavier discount due to their higher listed price, which is more like a marketing tool.

Quoting Manni (Reply 13):
No. Carrying extra cargo involves more extra costs than just fuel. There's the warehouse that has to be payed at both ends, the shipping companys at both ends, extra containers and pallets that need to be leased/purchased and maintained etc, administration etc. The 59% figure was taken from SIA, wich was actually 59.9 but as not to bend the numbers in an advantage towards Airbus ( I could certain people see jumping on that) I rounded it to 59% for easy calculation.

I agree with what you're saying, however, each extra cost to carry more cargo is passed on to the customer, otherwise no cargo operators would want to carry more cargo because the cost will eat into the revenue. Cargo operators make a certain amount of profit per unit carried, so the more unit they carry, the more they make.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Besides, 25 millions for the whole aircraft life saved by lower fuel costs? Even if that was true, the lower purchase price and the fleet commonility with Airbus A32X and A380, that a good airline has, would more than even that out.

This can only be applied if you have a 100% airbus fleet, which are few and far in between.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:40 pm

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 20):
I agree with what you're saying, however, each extra cost to carry more cargo is passed on to the customer, otherwise no cargo operators would want to carry more cargo because the cost will eat into the revenue. Cargo operators make a certain amount of profit per unit carried, so the more unit they carry, the more they make.

Yes these costs are included in the priece set for each KG. The 3.75 figure given is the price the airline has to pay to carry that additional KG plus profit (depending on the market served). It is not just profit minus a few cents for fuel.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:45 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
How about routing, can the 777LR fly the same route as the A345?

Yes, it can.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Why did EK, EY and TG buy the A345 at times when the 772LR was already available?

Why did EK buy the 772LR after they has already bought the A345?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:02 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Besides, how many 772LRs have Qantas and SQ ordered yet? Why did EK, EY and TG buy the A345 at times when the 772LR was already available?

the 777-200LR at it is right now wasn't known...once more numbers were known, not only has EK purchased the 777-200LR, they also ordered the 777-200F.....will TG and Etihad purchase the-200LR/-200F..maybe they no longer need a plane like that for now..

nobody is saying that all carriers such as AC will dump their A345's and purchase the 777-200LR..but if there is a choice to be needed between the two, then its clear that the 777-200LR is the better plane to go with as an initial purchase....

same goes for the A346 and 777-300ER also...
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14431
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:36 am

I think we seeing some very interesting comparisons here between 772LR & A340-500.

Fact is airlines like SQ can fly polar routes like SIN-New York that can't be done with a twin. It saves nearly an hour and the associated costs.

If you have an engine shutdown (for what ever small reason) with an A350 or 777LR there is automatically an emergency & airlines can end up in place like Irkutsk, trying to get the people out for 2/3 days & the 777/GE90 afterwards.

4 Engined aircraft like the 748/346 will always be more reliable in mission completions then twins like the 777, A350 and 787.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:41 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 18):
I seriously doubt that SIA has these infrastructures in place outside Changi. What they have is a contract with the handling company and in some cases someone of their own staff with a little office who overlooks the operation. Airlines pay typically a flat rate, with a few exceptions such as dangerous goods or goods that need to be stored in cooling rooms (the rate for these will be higher) for each KG handled to the handling companys. If SQ carrys today 15 Tonne on their 777LR they will pay that flat fee 15000 times. If they carry only 6 Tonne they'll pay it 6000 times.

JFK they are handled by Swissport and EWR by Virgin. At SFO they have their own facilities and handle other airlines. Their cost is a rate as any other carries cost is. As they increase their tonnage the amount they pay for handling increases. This is standard for everyone who does not has bespoke handling throughout their supply chain. On the East Coast they pay about $0.19/KG for ground handling. So what, so does everyone. Is that a reason to limit the growth of your business?



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Fact is airlines like SQ can fly polar routes like SIN-New York that can't be done with a twin. It saves nearly an hour and the associated costs.

This is totally untrue. Twins and Quads can both fly polar routes. Where are you getting the information that says they can't? Continental has been flying the JFK-HGK route for years on a polar routing that is similar to the route flown by Singapore on SIA-EWR. How can you deny this?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
4 Engined aircraft like the 748/346 will always be more reliable in mission completions then twins like the 777, A350 and 787.

Also untrue. Quads have a higher diversion rate than twins. I agree that Twins will occasionly force you to divert to out of the way airports like Irkutsk, but Quads complete a smaller number of scheduled missions.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:54 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
4 Engined aircraft like the 748/346 will always be more reliable in mission completions then twins like the 777, A350 and 787.

Oh, this is great now we have a new mantra for the ETOPS haters. "mission completion reliability" Well here is something to thing about;

At current reliability levels, 777-300ER has .000 IFSD/1,000h operation there will never be a diversion so that's not practical to analyze... At .02 IFSD/1,000h there would be a diversion every 50,000h or 2,600 trips on this route. So every 10 years you'd have a diversion that would cost you whatever it costs. The money saved and increased revenue over that period from 777-200LR operations would amount to as much as, (or more than) $100,000,000...

That one diversion won't cost nearly that much.


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2542
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:29 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
How about routing, can the 777LR fly the same route as the A345?

Yes. To my knowledge, SQ has never had problems with ETOPS.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Even if that was true, the lower purchase price and the fleet commonility with Airbus A32X and A380, that a good airline has, would more than even that out.

Lower purchase price would certainly be very applicable. But as widebodyphotog already stated, fleet commonality is very overblown on this site (as are a number of issues, but that's for another discussion).

BTW - would be interested if you could qualify your "that a good airline has" statement. Am I to believe that the former Independence Air was a "good airline" simply because they had A319's?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Why did EK, EY and TG buy the A345 at times when the 772LR was already available?

Interesting question. So are these: why did EK buy the 772LR after already operating the A345? Why did AC? Why did SQ buy the 773ER after they, too, have operated the A345?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Political deals like the one with Air India or the deal with AC, which probably had a 70-80% discount by Boeing, do not really say much.

There's no doubt that the AI deal was influenced by politics. But then, I don't think you would have brought that up if politics told AI to buy Airbus, would you?  sarcastic  You probably also wouldn't want to talk about the politics behing TG's purchase either, would you?

And would you mind telling me how AC was a political deal, or giving evidence where Boeing offered a "70-80% discount"? Of course you won't, cause there is no evidence. Not that you'll listen anyway, but AC actually admitted that Boeing's price was slightly higher than Airbus's.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
The 772LR uses approximately 6,000 fewer gallons of fuel on a given 9,000 mile trip than A345

True, but manufacturer's usually try and use the extremes. The best comparison is to use a selected stage length (ex: SIN-LAX) where both aircraft can be compared on the same mission. Thankfully, widebodyphotog has done that for us.  Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Fact is airlines like SQ can fly polar routes like SIN-New York that can't be done with a twin.

Source?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
4 Engined aircraft like the 748/346 will always be more reliable in mission completions then twins like the 777, A350 and 787.

Once again, source? Actually, never mind you won't find one because this is statistically untrue. Twin engined aircraft (777, A330, etc.) have a higher rate of "mission completion" than quads (747, A340, etc.).

I know you've been told/shown that on countless occasions since I've been on A.net. I guess I just keep hoping one day you'll put your blind ignorance aside and actually believe it.


Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:46 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
4 Engined aircraft like the 748/346 will always be more reliable in mission completions then twins like the 777, A350 and 787.

Keesie you are making the same mistake Airbus made with the twin/quad argument. The simple facts are twins are more economical than quads.

Imagine if Airbus had built a larger longer range twin that could compete with 777 then we would see a different situation now. No we didn't Airbus hedged their bets and produced the A330 which while a good plane falls short on range and uplift and the A340 which was really screwed by not being able to obtain the right engine power (Superfan cancelled CFM too small!!) and then in the A346 by Rolls Royce and the Trent 500 which is really very sad in comparison to the GE90-115B.

The A350 is a reaction of 787 which is destined to be superior to it (Market thinks so) I guess the hardest thing here Manni is accepting that Boeing has not only caught up Airbus they have knocked them out (widebodys) with the 777/787 combo.

I myself have trouble believing that. All this happened whilst Airbus were using all of their resourses on A380.

I still believe 787 was the right size in the market and A380 was limited and I still believe that two aircraft a 787-10 and a 777-300ER will be better than one A380 and if you don't believe me compare how many 77Ws were sold in 2005 in regard to A380 passenger.

THe A350 will be a very good plane but Airbus needed it years ago and it will struggle against the 777/787 thats for sure.

Events in Aviation change quickly. it was not that long ago the A346 was launched and everybody thought the 77W would not even come close to matching A346. 77W as you know has slaughtered A346 and not because of oil prices but sheer efficiencey. Its wider, lighter carries more payload flies as far and has far superior fuel burn. Even SRB must be looking at 77W, CX did they dumped their 3 A346 and ordered 16 77W.

But I guess all of the above only shows that operating costs and efficiency mean a hell of a lot more than initial purchase price or 'commonality' that is frequently and incorrectly preached as all important.

Keesie Airbus may take the widebody lead again but it won't be with A330NG nor with a Quad... wake up and smell the coffee...  Wink Quads are a dying breed and will only continue in to decline.....
 
PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
they need to say that it is under thousands of conditions. They also neglect issues like the fleet commonality or maintenance cost gurantees.

Which seems to be quite irrelevant for all those carriers that have ordered the B777 in high numbers recently.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Even if that was true, the lower purchase price and the fleet commonility with Airbus A32X and A380, that a good airline has, would more than even that out.

Commonality doesn't totally apply to any Airbus operator.

And btw - an airline doesn't need to operate A320 or have A380s on order for being a "good airline".

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Besides, how many 772LRs have Qantas and SQ ordered yet?

SQ is just a matter of time. And QF doesn't have A345s either, so what?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):

Political deals like the one with Air India or the deal with AC, which probably had a 70-80% discount by Boeing, do not really say much.

You have posted that multiple times but never added a source. Prove your point.

And btw - how do you explain all the other B777 sales?


PH

[Edited 2006-04-07 20:22:04]
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:16 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Fact is airlines like SQ can fly polar routes like SIN-New York that can't be done with a twin. It saves nearly an hour and the associated costs.



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 26):
Continental has been flying the JFK-HGK route for years on a polar routing that is similar to the route flown by Singapore on SIA-EWR. How can you deny this?

add CO's EWR-DEL and AA's ORD-DEL which pending on the season will fly basically over the polar route......
"Up the Irons!"
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:29 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Fact is airlines like SQ can fly polar routes like SIN-New York that can't be done with a twin. It saves nearly an hour and the associated costs.

I was going to say, CO's been flying transpolar routes with 772ER's for some time. At one point, EWR-PEK over the north pole was the longest non-stop flight going. The 777 most definately can fly that route, without any issues, whatsoever. It'd be nice if 4 engines really were better (for airbus atleast) but ETOPS has leveled the playing field, and twins do tend to be more economical.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:37 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 32):
I was going to say, CO's been flying transpolar routes with 772ER's for some time. At one point, EWR-PEK over the north pole was the longest non-stop flight going. The 777 most definately can fly that route, without any issues, whatsoever. It'd be nice if 4 engines really were better (for airbus atleast) but ETOPS has leveled the playing field, and twins do tend to be more economical.

which is ironic, considering the great things Airbus did with the A300!
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:43 am

I have no idea whether his figures are even close to accurate, but what he is saying is that to sell an A345 and make it make sense now that the 772LR is available, Airbus would NEED to discount it more than is practical to make money.

What is that level of discount? I don't know.

But since the 772LR has taken some orders in recent battles and the 345 has taken zero, one would assume that whatever the discount level, Airbus is not willing to go down that low, so it most likely is a level where they would lose money on every plane.

Just my observation of the way the market has gone for the last year with regards to these jets.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 34):
But since the 772LR has taken some orders in recent battles and the 345 has taken zero, one would assume that whatever the discount level, Airbus is not willing to go down that low, so it most likely is a level where they would lose money on every plane. Just my observation of the way the market has gone for the last year with regards to these jets.

Very perceptive post.  praise 

Welcome to my RU list.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14431
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 26):
Twins and Quads can both fly polar routes.



Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 28):
SQ has never had problems with ETOPS.

 Yeah sure

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 28):
I know you've been told/shown that on countless occasions since I've been on A.net.

 Yeah sure exactly..

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 29):
Keesie you are making the same mistake Airbus made with the twin/quad argument. The simple facts are twins are more economical than quads.

 Yeah sure we better tell ´m..

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 31):
add CO's EWR-DEL and AA's ORD-DEL which pending on the season will fly basically over the polar route......

 Yeah sure The polar route or A polar route?

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 32):
The 777 most definately can fly that route

 Yeah sure Which route, The polar route?


I think the new siberia polar routes are being exploided by operators carefully. SQ is evolutionairy exploring them. Of course winds are taken into account, as well as more bureaucratic political issues, seasons and status of diversion stations.

The new routes have enormous potential, airlines are carefull. Stating 2 vs 4 engines isn´t another issue is for firm believers IMO.

For comparison: common & straight line routes EWR-SIN
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=e...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:09 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
The polar route or A polar route?

for practical purposes, it makes no differnece....... Smile

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Which route, The polar route?

yes.... yes 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
we better tell em..

the market has already told your beloved Airbus. Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11622
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:27 am

Seattle Times today:

"Singapore's Chew also said that Airbus is at a disadvantage in selling its four-engine A340 widebody models against Boeing's two-engine 777s because the A340s consume more fuel.

"The A340 now is in a position where it's disadvantaged by high oil prices," he said."Four engines take more fuel than two.""
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:42 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
Quoting Manni (Reply 10):
The average loadfactor of SIA cargo seems to be around 65%. The increased cargo capacity will be partially taken up by the bags of these 16 or 17 extra passengers it can carry and the extra flight attendant that might be required. No big numbers a day, but a whole different number on a yearly basis. The average loadfactor for passengers on SIA seems to be around 75% so I have reduced your 21 extra passengers.

Actually the extra baggae container use does not impact significantly on cargo space. With a 100% load factor on 202 passengers you would need not use more than eight LD3 for bags which leaves six pallets for cargo. At market density ex SIN that capacity fits well with 14-19t cargo loads. If the load factors are in pratice 65-70% that is an additional PLA or two LD-3 with repect to that cargo load, maybe one more pallet if things work out. Cargo space management ex EWR or LAX is a different story however, because passengers tend to have a whole lot more bags going back...

I don't know if this is still the case, but SQ used to block an entire LD3 for First Class bags even if there was only 1 pax. Although the A345 don't have F cabins perhaps this is a moot point.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:43 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
If you have an engine shutdown (for what ever small reason) with an A350 or 777LR there is automatically an emergency & airlines can end up in place like Irkutsk, trying to get the people out for 2/3 days & the 777/GE90 afterwards.

Unless you're BA, if you have an engine shutdown on a quad you're going to divert as well.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:46 am

Anybody on here know what the fuel burn (lbs per hour) for the 777F will be?

thanks...
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 26):
Twins and Quads can both fly polar routes.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 28):
SQ has never had problems with ETOPS.


Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 28):
I know you've been told/shown that on countless occasions since I've been on A.net.

exactly..

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 29):
Keesie you are making the same mistake Airbus made with the twin/quad argument. The simple facts are twins are more economical than quads.

we better tell ´m..

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 31):
add CO's EWR-DEL and AA's ORD-DEL which pending on the season will fly basically over the polar route......

The polar route or A polar route?

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 32):
The 777 most definately can fly that route

Which route, The polar route?

Come on Kessje, there are many possible polar tracks. You keep maintaining Twins can't fly polar routes. Tell us which tracks are unavailable for Twins and why. I know of no polar track a Twin can't fly. If you can come up with one then we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then your claim is unporven.

As I said earlier, if Twins can't fly polar tracks please explain how Continental has been operating the 777 from to New York to Hong Kong for years using these routes.

Here, I'll even provide you a link. Note that this article dates from 1 June 2001.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/...?pub=av&mon=0601&file=0601fans.htm

Go down to the paragraph labeled "Polar Hopping" Enjoy.

[Edited 2006-04-08 02:12:41]

[Edited 2006-04-08 02:14:43]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:08 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 42):
Come on Kessje, there are many possible polar tracks. You keep maintaining Twins can't fly polar routes. Tell us which tracks are unavailable for Twins and why. I know of no polar track a Twin can't fly. If you can come up with one then we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then your claim is unporven.

Here is a Great Circle Mapper diagram, using ETOPS-207. Keesje needs more evidence.

ETOPS-207 Polar routes
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
subkk
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:18 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 12):
Political deals like the one with Air India or the deal with AC, which probably had a 70-80% discount by Boeing, do not really say much.

Can you prove that AI deal was political? Do you have facts to back this up. It is not like India does not buy European equipment, most of India's short haul fleet is Airbus.

Subbu
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:59 pm

Quoting Subkk (Reply 44):
It is not like India does not buy European equipment, most of India's short haul fleet is Airbus.

Agree. Both Indian carriers, AI and IC, bought the better aircrafts for their needs. Did they get a good deal and no bribes were involved? Who knows. Were there any political considerations in the deals? Perhaps yes. India had to be concerned about reaction of one camp or the other(US and EU) if both deals had gone to one company.

All in all, both carriers get the better aircrafts, and India gets to keep both sides happy for important deals on civil nuclear energy.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:28 pm

Quoting Subkk (Reply 44):

Can you prove that AI deal was political? Do you have facts to back this up. It is not like India does not buy European equipment, most of India's short haul fleet is Airbus.

maybe it could be the Indian Govt. actually used good judgement for the first time in its history... spin 

look how the 777 crushed the A340, and judging from the 787 versus A350 battle, it also looks like a "no contest" so far..........
"Up the Irons!"
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A3

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:08 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 25):
JFK they are handled by Swissport and EWR by Virgin. At SFO they have their own facilities and handle other airlines. Their cost is a rate as any other carries cost is. As they increase their tonnage the amount they pay for handling increases. This is standard for everyone who does not has bespoke handling throughout their supply chain. On the East Coast they pay about $0.19/KG for ground handling. So what, so does everyone. Is that a reason to limit the growth of your business?

I never said that's a reason to limit business growth. Even when you try to read very hard between the lines you'll not read that. I've said that the figures provided by LAXDESI are not just profit. Obviously carrying more cargo and passengers will generate more revenue, but this isn't just profit, there are costs involved to. And this is what I've tried to point out. Regardless that SQ has their own facilities or not, even there SQ will have to pay the labor for the extra work involved, pay for the extra materials needed, etc.. And this at both ends. Furthermore the cargo consolidators and shipping companys will never pay the full price. The price quoted a KG on an airwaybill is the standard IATA price and is for reference only. Unless it's a one off, wich generally speaking almost never happens as individuals and companys will almost always use consolidators such as Nippon Express, DANZAS, Pan Alpina, Ziegler etc...
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Boeing Fuel Efficiency Claims: 772LR Versus A345

Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:58 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 47):
I never said that's a reason to limit business growth. Even when you try to read very hard between the lines you'll not read that. I've said that the figures provided by LAXDESI are not just profit. Obviously carrying more cargo and passengers will generate more revenue, but this isn't just profit, there are costs involved to. And this is what I've tried to point out. Regardless that SQ has their own facilities or not, even there SQ will have to pay the labor for the extra work involved, pay for the extra materials needed, etc.. And this at both ends. Furthermore the cargo consolidators and shipping companys will never pay the full price. The price quoted a KG on an airwaybill is the standard IATA price and is for reference only. Unless it's a one off, wich generally speaking almost never happens as individuals and companys will almost always use consolidators such as Nippon Express, DANZAS, Pan Alpina, Ziegler etc...

OK...I never acknowledged LAXDESI figures as all profit...what I pointed out is that SQ's supply chain costs are much less than the cargo rates they sell ex SIN. This is a fact. I think everyone understands that increased revenue is not all profit and furthermore from the tone of your previous posts it is evident that you are using the increased supply chain costs on increased volume of cargo as an argument against SQ operating the 777-200LR. Increasing cargo volumes throughout SQ cargo network is not an onerous thing for them to do. It is what they hope, plan, and work for everyday.

No matter how you slice it 777-200LR operation puts SQ in a more profitable position relative to revenues. Even if Dr. Keskar and myself are 50% off on the analysis the 777-200LR still gives more than substantial cost savings and revenue growth potential vs the current A340-500. Bigger deals have turned on much less of a difference in aircraft performance.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do

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