From the "Alaska Sells 20 MD-80's" Thread:
Alaska Sells 20 MD-80's (by Laxintl Jul 3 2007 in Civil Aviation)
[ When the last MD-80 leaves the airline late next year, Alaska Airlines will have an all-737 fleet that is one of the youngest in the industry.
“The 737-800 is a much more fuel-efficient aircraft,” said Brad Tilden, executive vice president of finance and real estate. “If you think in terms of the family car, a 737-800 gets 80 seat miles per gallon of jet fuel, compared to 55 seat miles per gallon for an MD-80.” ]
Dividing a typical car into 4 passengers then a 737 is roughly compatible on a trip with a 4 passenger sedan that gives 20 mpg with a full load of 4 and luggage.
This is definitely making progress and is pretty impressive. Would be curious as to these estimates for the A380, 350, 77W, 787 and 748.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- SailorOrion
- Posts: 1960
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Liters per 100km, you can convert to mpg yourself 
Note: this is per passenger kilometer, not seat kilometer.
A330-200: 4.4
A330-300: 4.1
A340-300: 4.0
A340-600: 4.2
747-400: 4.3
A380-800: 3.3 (estimated)
747-800: 3.5 (estimated)
Source: LH
SailorOrion
Note: this is per passenger kilometer, not seat kilometer.
A330-200: 4.4
A330-300: 4.1
A340-300: 4.0
A340-600: 4.2
747-400: 4.3
A380-800: 3.3 (estimated)
747-800: 3.5 (estimated)
Source: LH
SailorOrion
-
- Boeingluvr
- Posts: 347
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Now with their 737-900's as well as 8's and 7's they will have a young fleet. Also do they still have any 400's??? Only fleet younger I believe is Westjet with all 737-6,7,800NG's.
-
- bayareapilot
- Posts: 61
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 2): Also do they still have any 400's??? |
Yep, I flew on one last week PDX-SJC. I think they'll be around for a while, since they use them in Alaska for cargo and combi ops.
-
- Boeingluvr
- Posts: 347
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Oh okay. So they use those as the cargo/pax conversion like they did the old 200's to ancorage? Busy and profitable route, so I've heard!
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
What colour do they want and any other options they're looking for? 
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 1): A330-200: 4.4 A330-300: 4.1 A340-300: 4.0 |
Just wondering, if the A340-300 is cheaper to operate fuel wise than either A330's, why are the 300's flying out the door but no 340's are being sold.I would think that the differences in fuel add up to alot over the life of the airframe, enough to offset increased maintenence cost of 4 engines, purchase costs etc. Any one got any ideas?
-
- SailorOrion
- Posts: 1960
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 6): Just wondering, if the A340-300 is cheaper to operate fuel wise than either A330's, why are the 300's flying out the door but no 340's are being sold.I would think that the differences in fuel add up to alot over the life of the airframe, enough to offset increased maintenence cost of 4 engines, purchase costs etc. Any one got any ideas? |
That may have to do with LH's utilization of the planes, different average stage lengths, different average loading factors, etc. (While the "default" configuration of the 343 and 333 is identical, there are some higher-capacity 343 in LH's fleet; a 'feature' which the 333 lacks)
SailorOrion
-
- justloveplanes
- Posts: 1014
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 1): Note: this is per passenger kilometer, not seat kilometer. A330-200: 4.4 = 53.333 Passenger Miles per Gallon. Converted A330-300: 4.1 A340-300: 4.0 A340-600: 4.2 747-400: 4.3 A380-800: 3.3 (estimated) = 71.11 Passenger Miles per Gallon Converted 747-800: 3.5 (estimated) Source: LH |
What is the difference between Passenger Miles and Seat Miles? Load Factor? If you take WN's 80 seat miles per gallon and add a load factor of about 65% you get 52 or pretty close to an A330-200. I am guessing LH is using about 65% load factor in their calculations, which is the proper thing to do for their particular ops, or maybe even different load factors for what they expect on each aircraft.
Bottom line is an A380 is about 20 to 25% better than the legacy widebodies shown here, so probably over 100 seat miles per gallon...Not bad
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 8): Bottom line is an A380 is about 20 to 25% better than the legacy widebodies shown here, so probably over 100 seat miles per gallon...Not bad |
Using goggle (convert 3.3l per 100km to mpg) I get:
3.3 l per 100km = 71.2771468 miles per gallon
Perhaps you were using a Imperial gallon?
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 8): I am guessing LH is using about 65% load factor in their calculations, which is the proper thing to do for their particular ops, or maybe even different load factors for what they expect on each aircraft. |
Or even the actual fuel consumption per passenger mile for each type in the LH fleet, perhaps during 2006?
| Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 8): A380-800: 3.3 (estimated) = 71.11 Passenger Miles per Gallon Converted |
| Quoting ANother (Reply 10): Using goggle (convert 3.3l per 100km to mpg) I get: 3.3 l per 100km = 71.2771468 miles per gallon Perhaps you were using a Imperial gallon? |
No. The Imperial Gallon is 20.1 per cent larger than the US Gallon. 3.3 l per 100km equals 71.28 miles per US Gallon and 85.6 miles per Imperial Gallon.
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Very interesting and important thread.
If you know the fuel burn characteristics of a jet, and the average flight distance, you can pull out MPG per seat-mile.
Some typical values from my sources:
CRJ-200: 36 MPG
757-200: 68 MPG
A320: 68 MPG
A330-300: 65 MPG
Turboprops: 35 to 50+ MPG
These are approximate values +/- 10%.
Since widebodies are so very heavy and long in range, they do not necessarily beat an A320 for MPG. A Singapore 777-300ER with 240 seats would get pretty bad MPG, say 45. A Northwest 757-300 may push approx 85 MPG. The 757-300 is probably the best MPG aircraft in existence.
The Emirates 77W with 420 seats probably gets good MPG as well.
Just remember a Mercedes diesel sedan that seats 4 people can get 140 MPG per seat. So aircraft do not match cars in efficiency. Most people are shocked when they learn that, overall, flying is no better than driving with 1 passenger beside you. Also, you're less likely to go as far by car. Hence, air travel does increase a person's lifetime fuel consumption, dramatically so.
If you know the fuel burn characteristics of a jet, and the average flight distance, you can pull out MPG per seat-mile.
Some typical values from my sources:
CRJ-200: 36 MPG
757-200: 68 MPG
A320: 68 MPG
A330-300: 65 MPG
Turboprops: 35 to 50+ MPG
These are approximate values +/- 10%.
Since widebodies are so very heavy and long in range, they do not necessarily beat an A320 for MPG. A Singapore 777-300ER with 240 seats would get pretty bad MPG, say 45. A Northwest 757-300 may push approx 85 MPG. The 757-300 is probably the best MPG aircraft in existence.
The Emirates 77W with 420 seats probably gets good MPG as well.
Just remember a Mercedes diesel sedan that seats 4 people can get 140 MPG per seat. So aircraft do not match cars in efficiency. Most people are shocked when they learn that, overall, flying is no better than driving with 1 passenger beside you. Also, you're less likely to go as far by car. Hence, air travel does increase a person's lifetime fuel consumption, dramatically so.
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Economy figures really depend greatly upon the trip length, how much fuel you have to take with you, how many people you have on board, etc. Most fuel is expended during takeoff and landing, so shorter trips are usually much more costly. Then again, if you have to take a lot of fuel with you, you are adding substantially to the weight. You also have to figure in head winds, how direct your flight is, etc.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
I just did a rough calculation for "seat miles per gallon" on the C-5 Galaxy and came up with about 13
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
Just a note.
An empty aircraft will burn less fuel than the same aircraft with all seats occupied, for the same distance flown. Are those figures for a full aircraft?
An empty aircraft will burn less fuel than the same aircraft with all seats occupied, for the same distance flown. Are those figures for a full aircraft?
Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Paparadzi (Reply 15): ust a note. An empty aircraft will burn less fuel than the same aircraft with all seats occupied, for the same distance flown. Are those figures for a full aircraft? |
Are you asking about my estimate? I assumed an "average" load, with bums in every single seat 100% of the time which of course never happens.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
-
- flyingclrs727
- Posts: 2692
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Flighty (Reply 12): Just remember a Mercedes diesel sedan that seats 4 people can get 140 MPG per seat. So aircraft do not match cars in efficiency. |
The fact that gasoline has less energy density than jet fuel or diesel should also be taken into account. It takes more crude oil to make a gallon or liter of diesel than it does to make a the same volume of gasoline. Shouldn't efficiency be measured in Joules per kilometer?
-
- SailorOrion
- Posts: 1960
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting VV701 (Reply 11): Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 8): I am guessing LH is using about 65% load factor in their calculations, which is the proper thing to do for their particular ops, or maybe even different load factors for what they expect on each aircraft. Or even the actual fuel consumption per passenger mile for each type in the LH fleet, perhaps during 2006? |
Afaik LH does use actual figures, no assumed load factors or stuff. BTW: figures are per 100PKM of course.
SailorOrion
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): So aircraft do not match cars in efficiency. Most people are shocked when they learn that, overall, flying is no better than driving with 1 passenger beside you. |
Want something more shocking ? Consider this. The Audi A2 (with a turbo diesel engine, NOT a hybrid) has a fuel economy of 108 mpg and can easily seat four (with more leg room). Hence, a fuel economy of 400+ miles per gallon per seat. It is interesting to note that, like most airliners in service today, the A2 body is made out of aluminum.
One thing to keep in mind is the vast difference in the speeds of jets and cars. As the speed (more correctly, the velocity) increases, the air resistance increases dramatically, and more energy is needed to overcome it. So, it is not exactly a fair comparison.
And I would venture to guess that the new generation of trains (EU and Japan) probably beat the A2 even at high speeds, but this is just a guess.
Cheers, and thanks for raising this interesting topic.
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
I once flew a Corsair B747-400 IIRC and they had more than 500 seats on the Caribbean routes and all where filled.
What would the seat mileage be for these flights??
Nasty experience but it must achieve great mileage.
What would the seat mileage be for these flights??
Nasty experience but it must achieve great mileage.
[edit post]
-
- SailorOrion
- Posts: 1960
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting ViveLeYHZ (Reply 18): And I would venture to guess that the new generation of trains (EU and Japan) probably beat the A2 even at high speeds, but this is just a guess. |
Nope, no way. About 100mpg for an ICE3 per seat, not counting off-train losses, which can be tremendous.
However, per-seat comparisons are imho not relevant. per-passenger is much more interesting.
SailorOrion
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
108 MPG???????? HOw big is this thing - is it one of those motorcycle cross breed things?
Wait, an Audi?
Wait, an Audi?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
| Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 21): 108 MPG???????? HOw big is this thing - is it one of those motorcycle cross breed things? Wait, an Audi? |
I think the 108MPG is slightly optimistic, more like 60-65MPG (ideally used), still pretty good but not anywhere near the 100 mark.
BTW the most fuel efficient car is also from the Volkswagen group, namely the Polo 3L tdi which achieved something like 2.67L/100KM on a car magazine test that aimed specifically for lowest fuel consumption.
In everyday use it is more something like 3-3.3 L/100KM when driving grandma style and around 4-5L driving with a somewhat heavy foot.
[edit post]
-
- naritaflyer
- Posts: 259
- Joined:
RE: Jets Versus Cars...Seat Miles Per Gallon
What would fuel consumption be between the A380 and B777 and B787? On the same basis as the numbers presented earlier?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 11C, A388, ARNPEK, Boof02671, boquera, CometOrbit, CrewBunk, ddaly241, dfw88, Geoff1947, Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, JannEejit, JBirdAV8r, kolnamrhein, L.1011, Midwestindy, MIflyer12, N737ER, Opus99, panamair, PI4EVR, QF744ER, RJNUT, Ronaldo747, SELMER40, smokeybandit, speedygonzales, steex, StTim, Trk1 and 216 guests