|Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 7):|
I’ve been trying to figure out why an airline would order the 748I instead of the A380 and so far I’ve only really come up with earlier availability – So what else am I missing?
There are probably 15-20 United routes that could fill a 747-8i at 365-405 seats w/out sacrificing yield by giving up frequency. Raise that number to 480-520 on the A380, and the number is not so large, maybe 5 or 6. Remember also, there is a cost advantage (b/c of commonality) to keeping the 747-8i, the number is probably somewhere in the range of 2-3% advantage thanks to the nature of a VLA fleet. Whether that outweighs the seat-mile cost advantage of the 747-8i, I don't know. But you put together the following:
- Better availability
- Seat mile costs (assuming 388 is 8% better than 748i- Airbus says 8%, Boeing says its worse, reality somewhere in between closer to Airbus, but for the sake of argument we'll take 8%) w. 2.7% sfc improvement from PiP from GE
, plus the 2-3% advantage in commonality means that 747-8i is within 2-3% of 388 seat mile costs
- Can be filled on more UA
- has better cargo revenue potential (which is very important towards operating a VLA in the off-peak season)
|Quoting CXfirst (Reply 13):|
I would think that if EWR's biggest customer decided to order the A380, EWR would get the waiver.
Anyway, I would love to see the 748 with UA, but at the moment, I don't see it happening (all though I would predict 748 over A380).
Do UA need anything bigger than the A350? How much bigger would the proposed 777-8X/9X be in comparison, maybe this would be a suitable plane for the larger markets.
777-9X is actually slotted to come in very close to where the 747-8i is
|Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 28):|
I started a thread not long ago to discuss the differences in traffic numbers between US and European airlines. After almost 100 posts and some very in-depth discussions regarding frequency and multiple hubs the conclusion was simply that European passengers prefer European airlines.
The obvious problem with this conclusion is explaining the success of airlines like Emirates, tax breaks, free fuel and cheap finance aside EK obviously have something that other Airlines don’t as they are able to attract passengers without heavily discounted tickets. For me, I think it comes down to the product they are able to offer, a combination of great inflight service on modern well equipped aircraft.
I genuinely think that the US majors have lost the “premium carrier” feel, and investing in VLA’s outfitted with showers, casino’s or a small theme park might enable them to start re-building a quality imagine. I know such things are gimmick’s, but EK’s ever increasing traffic numbers and profits seem to indicate such things work.
[Edited 2012-04-07 11:51:50]
Ehh, I'm going to find fault with that conclusion. The reality is that for the most part, European carriers push their traffic through one hub, whereas US carriers run with 2-3 for each traffic segment.
, and BA
all follow this general principle, as do lesser players like TAP, SWISS, Finnair, Brussels Airlines.
is the one exception but even they only have two true long haul hubs (MUC
) plus a focus long haul market (DUS
Meanwhile, United has 3 true hubs for US-Europe connections: EWR
, and ORD
, as well as Euro flights from IAH
for connections from US west coast, and flts from SFO
to Europe as well. For Asia/Oceania, there are four hubs (EWR
), plus a few flights from IAH
Delta has two true Europe hubs (JFK
) that are huge ones, plus a large Euro operation in DTW
, and a few Europe flts from MSP
. They also run a feeder long haul operation in AMS
for KLM. On the Asia side, DTW
is the only true hub, but they run a scissors hub in NRT
, and an Asian focus in SEA
Point being, that US airlines are spreading long haul traffic over a bunch of hubs for trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pac which is why there are fewer city pairs (typically those with strong O+D demand) that can profitably fill VLAs.
Add in the fact that the Euro carriers run intercontinental hubs effectively connecting five continents to each other (N+S. America to EU/Asia/Africa/ME both directions, Asia-Europe/Africa in both directions, ME-Europe and Africa to Europe in both directions), whereas the US is only a true competitor for L. America to Asia flights. Thus the long haul traffic base isn't as large.
|Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 56):|
If your referring to the improvements recently posted on the Boeing blog then they are very miss-leading. It’s a case of the 748F not being quite as bad as they thought it was going to be, rather than it being better than expected. In summary it has still not managed to meet its initial fuel burn figures and won’t be able too until 2014 at the earliest.
I doubt this is going to have a major effect on the orders though, and it is of course going to sell more frames.
It will essentially push the 747-8i 1-2% fuel burn and/or tsfc below advertised spec at better payload/range, I agree that it won't drive huge uptick in orders, but it is a marginal gain and should help in selling freighters, as well as closing the real 5.5-6.5% (my estimate) seat mile cost gap between the A380 and 747-8i down to 3-4%.