f4f3a
Topic Author
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:49 pm

With carriers like wow and Norwegian starting to use narrow bodies on long sectors I was wondering how economic it is compared to using s wide body. Narrow bodies I can understand on 5 he sectors where you can get 4 trips a day being economic but on 6 plus your only getting 2 plus poor crew utilisation. The only advantage I can see is that there are more narrow body gates available at airports other than that the cost per seat must be better on a wide body . If this being the case why is there the move to narrowbodies on these sectors?
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:50 pm

Frequency and fleet flexibility come into mind. Also, it allows you to bypass hubs in many cases.

I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I think the aircraft weight per passenger is a bit less on a narrowbody vs the weight per passenger of a type that is capable of 12 hour missions.

[Edited 2016-04-04 08:52:58]
.
 
f4f3a
Topic Author
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:56 pm

Also I guess a factor is purchase and Maintenance price. Is the list price for a 321 with 180 seats more than half 777/330 with double seats.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2328
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:00 pm

Quoting f4f3a (Thread starter):
With carriers like wow and Norwegian starting to use narrow bodies on long sectors I was wondering how economic it is compared to using s wide body.....


If this being the case why is there the move to narrowbodies on these sectors?

Can I ask you to clarify if these are new routes or are existing routes (serviced by these airlines)?

I suspect they are new routes, which are not necessarily fat enough to support a widebody on 2 sectors/day but can support a narrowbody on 2 sectors/day.

If they are into, lets say, secondary airports, then landing fees may be significantly lower than for bigger regionals/hubs.
 
f4f3a
Topic Author
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:43 pm

Current and future narrow body ops such as American use a 757 on some routes to Europe and also Qatar operate a a320 vs ek 777 on some routes. Norwegian announcing max routes to n America etc and talk of jet blue with the neo.
Can narrow body long haul routes only work when there is no other comp from someone with a wide body ?
 
flyby519
Posts: 1438
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:59 pm

Quoting luv2cattlecall (Reply 1):
Frequency and fleet flexibility come into mind. Also, it allows you to bypass hubs in many cases.

I think this is the case and will be big in the future. Look at the past US domestic widebody use and how common it was for hub-to-hub, or high O&D markets to see widebodies but today it is very rare. This will happen in the TATL sector as aircraft efficiency gets better with the neo/Max.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9701
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:43 pm

Quoting luv2cattlecall (Reply 1):
Frequency and fleet flexibility come into mind.

None of these apply to the TATL market. People don't want to fly in the middle of the day, airlines still want the hub and spoke system so flights need to be timed for their connecting banks (yes, even the LCC's like Norwegian), European airports have curfews and some are congested, and international configured aircraft aren't convenient for domestic ops. All of these combine to make larger airplanes more attractive when you can fill them. That last sentence is key. There are many city pairs where even the smallest widebody is too large and that's where these new, more efficient narrowbody aircraft will shine.
 
LAXtoATL
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:55 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:54 pm

Do long haul narrow body economics work?

Absolutely, if the route doesn't have sufficient demand for a widebody.
In general terms, narrow bodies are more economical to operating (acquisition cost, maintenance cost, and operational costs).
If you can only fill 150 seats at optimal pricing on a particular route, then the economics of flying a narrow body vs a wide body would not only be better but vastly better.

Sector length and aircraft utilization are irrelevant. If the sector length of a particular route leads to poor asset utilization - you are going to have the same the poor utilization whether you use a narrow body or the more costs intensive widebody.

It really is all a matter of demand. Appropriately matching supply to that demand (and thus minimizing costs and maximizing revenue) - Econ101.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21447
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:03 pm

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 7):
Absolutely

Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
f4f3a
Topic Author
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:28 pm

Next question is it viable only as legacy operation or are lcc operations doable ?

Ps quoting revaltion v funny hadn't thought of that!
 
LAXtoATL
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:55 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:29 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.

True. But I'm not sure how relevant that is because there were no wide bodies when the 707 and DC-8 started TATL ops.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23840
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:35 pm

The key is to get enough revenue onboard to cover the growing cost as distance increases.

This gets difficult with smaller aircraft unless you have some amazing yields.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4473
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:14 pm

You really need markes such as the Air France/KLM "petroleum club" routes which are markets that are heavily premium demand to make a small narrowbody work over longer distance. BA A318 LCY ops is another example.

Its a mathematical issue of covering cost with revenue, which becomes harder to do with smaller aircraft, so in return you need higher yield to make up lack of cabin space for seats.
mercure f-wtcc
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:25 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.

At the time they were fairly wide.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 12):
Its a mathematical issue of covering cost with revenue, which becomes harder to do with smaller aircraft, so in return you need higher yield to make up lack of cabin space for seats.

   But it is even harder with a large plane if you cannot fill it. Smaller planes make more routes between secondary cities viable. What is missing imho is a real long range narrowbody, let's say for 12 or 14 hours, maybe even more.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6514
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:25 pm

Do narrowbody economics work on long routes?

From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.

From the revenue side... that's a more interesting question. For markets where there is high premium demand and high frequency can be provided with narrowbodies, sure. But there aren't many such markets. Most of those heavily premium markets are so big, like JFK-LHR, that high frequency on widebodies works for the carrier(s) that attract most of the premium demand. Others, like LAX-LHR, are too long for current or planned narrowbodies. The secondary markets that most long narrowbody flights serve are harder from a revenue perspective; there is not much premium demand and yield isn't great. Narrowbodies with lower operating cost like the A321neo will help make routes with revenue challenges work.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:50 pm

Quoting f4f3a (Reply 2):
Also I guess a factor is purchase and Maintenance price. Is the list price for a 321 with 180 seats more than half 777/330 with double seats.

These are aircraft with very different capabilities - not only seats but also payload and range.

The comparison in practice is somewhat skewed because usually wide-bodies have much larger premium cabins, so they are less attractive to operate in shorter routes where there is no demand or pricing power in such a product.

With similar all-coach configurations, wide-bodies are cheaper to operate per seat in most mid-haul routes - say 3 to 5 hour flights. The reason narrow-bodies tend to prevail is that airlines want to add frequency to be competitive.

On long-hauls it cannot be much different: a long-haul narrow-body would have a higher cost per seat and negligible cargo capacity. But it will still win on low demand routes.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:13 pm

It is also a matter of the airline's customers. Widebody aircraft are capable of handling containers that narrow body aircraft are not. If your airline model is based on some cargo revenue, then likely a widebody aircraft would be more efficient. On the other hand, if you don't think you can fill the cargo hold, a narrow body aircraft has less unutilized space. If you can reduce the fuselage frontal section, you are reducing drag.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:26 am

QF went from Double daily PER-SIN on A333's which were not economical to Daily B738's and now going 10 x weekly from July with the outlook of going back to double daily. And as I operate these flight quiet a bit, I can tell you that they are Full... With 3 seats spare for crew rest. The flight time either way is blocked at 5hrs40mins, in our network this is considered 'Long Haul' but operated by 'Short Haul' crew.
The company love the economics of the B738 on this route, it's gone from being one of the most under performing routes to one of the companies best.
When is my next holiday?
 
waly777
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:58 am

I would say the answer to that is airline & route specific. Widebodies typically have lower cost per seat if similar seating densities are used.

However, if demand is not high enough for the widebody then the narrowbody will have to do and can be profitable if you have a good % of high yield pax on the flight.

Though do note it becomes harder to make a flight profitable the farther right of the payload/range curve the route is, except a good chunk of your pax are high yielding premium (which a widebody tends to have much more space for)

You might observe true LCC carriers with wide & narrow bodies will typically use widebodies for medium and long haul.

[Edited 2016-04-08 23:53:49]
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18152
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:58 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.

Well done post. It will be the routes the narrowbody can fly that drive the market. WIth the marked increase in range of the 'lower cost per flight' narrowbodies, it will open new routes. I hope to see some secondary frequency (off times that have demand, but not enough for a widebody). But most will be hub to secondary city.

Too much TATL and other flying is 'bridge flying' or double hubbing. But allowing hub to secondary city, there will be at least one less connection.

I'm not making predictions on long haul narrobody flying other than it will grow. But how much?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:55 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.

I am not too sure about that.

Jetstar 788's are said to be more economical fly from Sydney - Bali than the A320 and B737 narrow bodies over that stage difference.

I was initially surprised to hear this, but when you think the 788 id flying a route that it was intended for and the narrow bodies are right on the edge of their range curve it sort of makes sense!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18152
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:11 am

Does anyone have the estimated CASM vs. Range curves of the 757, A320neo, A321LR, and small widebodies?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:04 am

On YVR-HNL and YVR-OGG routes, AC Rouge uses the 767-300ER with 280 seats, including 256 2-3-2 Y seats at 30 inch pitch and 24 2-2-2 "Premium Rouge" at 37 inch pitch and meal service etc. comparable to AC mainline J class.

WS uses the 737-800 with 168 seats (156 Y and 12 Y+ using Y seats with a few more inches of seat pitch).

In some cases AC and WS flights leave a few minutes apart on those routes. It would be interesting to know how the economics compare on those roughly 6-hour nonstops on a 280 seat 763 with a proper premium product and a 168 seat 738 with only a few Y+ seats.

Quoting f4f3a (Thread starter):
Narrow bodies I can understand on 5 he sectors where you can get 4 trips a day being economic but on 6 plus your only getting 2 plus poor crew utilisation.

You're assuming the airline is only using those aircraft on the longhaul routes. In many cases they'll be integrated into the fleet and used on a mix of long/medium/short-haul sectors to maximize utilization. For example, WestJet uses 737s on quite a few 5 and 6 hour nonstops, including YVR-Hawaii (westbound YVR-HNL block time on a WS 738 is 6:15). Just looking at the routing of one WS 738 for the past 5 days you'll see a wide variety of flights ranging from 398 miles (YYC-YXX/Abbotsford, BC) and 428 miles YVR-YYC, to 2,672 miles (YVR-OGG/Maui, Hawaii) and 2,781 miles (YVR-CUN/Cancun, Mexico)

That aircraft's routing since April 5 (C-GVWA):

YVR-PHX-YVR-YYC-YXX-YYC-YYZ-MBJ-YYZ-YYG-YYZ-PVR-YYZ-YEG-YYZ-YWG-YYZ-LAS-YYZ-HOG (Holguin, Cuba)-YYZ

Another 738 (C-GAWS) since April 4, with sectors ranging from 1 hour (YVR-YYC) to 6:40, including 5 trips to 3 of their 4 destinations in Hawaii (HNL/OGG/LIH), about 11 hrs round trip.

YVR-OGG-YVR-HNL-YVR-PSP-YVR-LIH-YVR-PSP-YVR-LIH-YVR-OGG-YVR-YYC-PHX-YYC-LAS-YYC-PSP-YYC-CUN-YYZ-YEG
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4021
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:11 am

why do you think there is poor crew utilization? If you are on smaller equipment you could easily do a 6 hour sector and then another 2 hour sector. There are efficiencies in having crews that can operate massive portions of the schedule.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:31 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):

On YVR-HNL and YVR-OGG routes, AC Rouge uses the 767-300ER with 280 seats, including 256 2-3-2 Y seats at 30 inch pitch and 24 2-2-2 "Premium Rouge" at 37 inch pitch and meal service etc. comparable to AC mainline J class.

WS uses the 737-800 with 168 seats (156 Y and 12 Y+ using Y seats with a few more inches of seat pitch).

YYZ-MCO sees an interesting mix. AC flies a 763 and a A319/A321, while WS uses the 738. Wonder what the economics of those different flights look like.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7938
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:53 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.

I thought I was going to go the whole thread without someone pointing out that the narrower cross-section of a narrowbody is inherently more aerodynamically efficient. If you put 200 pax on a narrowbody vs 200 pax on a widebody, the latter is going to be more expensive to fly, fuelwise.
 
f4f3a
Topic Author
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:39 pm

It's also a downside is speed on a 7 hr sector .78 vs 84 quite a difference. I imagine if many narrowbodies start doing nats would get in the way of the heavy traffic.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting f4f3a (Thread starter):
Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work? 

This thread topic should probably be more specific. There are multiple ways to interpret your question. For instance:

(1) Are narrowbodies as efficient, per seat, as widebodies?

(2) Even if narrowbodies are less efficient per seat, do the (broader) economics work in their favor?

(3) Even if narrowbodies are more efficient per seat, do other considerations - slot constraints or cargo, for instance - favor widebodies on some fights that NB's can operate?

Your OP suggests that you are focusing on interpretation (1):

Quoting f4f3a (Thread starter):
The only advantage I can see is that there are more narrow body gates available at airports other than that the cost per seat must be better on a wide body

...but I'm not sure this correct - in fact I doubt it. It's behind a paywall, but Bjorn/Ferpe at Leeham actually concluded that a 737 MAX-8 will have lower CASM on TATL flights than a 788. http://leehamnews.com/2014/12/08/737...be-enabler-for-some-lcc-long-haul/

Why? IMO the main factors:
-Most widebodies, such as the 788 but also the shorter-range A333, are optimized for longer hops than even A321LR. Range costs efficiency.
-A 6-abreast narrowbody is inherently more efficient on fuselage structure than a twin-aisle until that twin-aisle is 12-abreast. The vagaries of regulations and human size dictate a couple "kinks" in the efficiency curve for a cylinder enclosing X number of passengers. One of these kinks is the 6-abreast NB (another is smallest-possible double-decker).

Against these efficiency factors we have:
-widebodies have proportionately lower flight crew expense. But this is only ~5% of a medium WB's trip cost.
-WB's are more usually more efficient at "en route fees." But much of this advantage is given back by the fact of higher WB gross weight per pax and therefore higher landing fees.

Regarding interpretation (2):
-a smaller plane should show higher yields, so that even if the NB is less efficient it might be more profitable to (a) set capacity lower than with a WB or (b) offer greater frequency than with a WB.

Regarding interpretation (3):
-In Asia, we see a lot of regional/domestic flights on WB's that could physically be operated by NB's. This is probably due to (peak operating) slot constraints at the busiest hubs such as HKG, HND, SIN, MNL, etc.
-Cargo yield on regional/domestic services can quite high, so that flying an A330/787 is worth burning a little more fuel than would more NB flights carrying an equal number of seats.

In short - yes, the economics of long haul narrowbodies seem to work quite well. With the new generation of NB's, we should expect to see more route fragmentation and more displacement of widebodies from previous routes. We should also expect, however, that regional/domestic routes already using widebodies due to slot constraints will only continue to move towards capacity consolidation. For overall traffic share, I'm not confident in predicting which way these countervailing trends go - greater or lesser NB total traffic share? For overall route share, I think it's pretty clear that NB's will continue to conquer new territory from the bigger birds.

[Edited 2016-04-12 14:11:41]
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6514
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:47 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 20):
Jetstar 788's are said to be more economical fly from Sydney - Bali than the A320 and B737 narrow bodies over that stage difference.

As you point out, this is not quite the right route for those narrowbodies. They also aren't the bigger variants. I think the 788 would have a harder time beating out a A321neo or MAX 9.
 
global2
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:23 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.
Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 10):
True. But I'm not sure how relevant that is because there were no wide bodies when the 707 and DC-8 started TATL ops.

They were also considered huge planes compared with those that they ultimately replaced (DC-7, Constellation, Stratocrusier) with a big increase in pax. capacity in addition to the higher utilization rates due to shortened flying times.

But also consider that a 707 typically had five lavatories (2 in F, 3 in Y), and a lounge in First. I've seen DC-8 seat maps that also showed a lounge in coach!
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:34 pm

I think the title makes sense, it is just that we are stuck obsessing over one factor - aerodynamic efficiency.

Yes the smaller diameter fuselage is more efficient due to lower frontal area. But inherent in that argument is how that space is being used. Because almost all planes are single deck, there is a lot of unused space. That is one of the reasons why the A380 has a slight advantage (in that one area) over other widebody aircraft - it gets two passenger decks in there.

But you also have to think about other factors. For one cargo - that is an advantage of the widebody fuselage diameter. Another factor is fuel capacity. And you also have to factor in ground handling costs and aircraft utilization, because those costs are divided by lower passenger counts.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
incitatus
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:59 pm

Quoting global2 (Reply 29):
But also consider that a 707 typically had five lavatories (2 in F, 3 in Y), and a lounge in First. I've seen DC-8 seat maps that also showed a lounge in coach!

Yes but the coach roundtrip to Australia was NOT $380 at that time - not even in 1960's dollars.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:48 pm

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 30):
I think the title makes sense, it is just that we are stuck obsessing over one factor - aerodynamic efficiency.

Yes the smaller diameter fuselage is more efficient due to lower frontal area. But inherent in that argument is how that space is being used. Because almost all planes are single deck, there is a lot of unused space. That is one of the reasons why the A380 has a slight advantage (in that one area) over other widebody aircraft - it gets two passenger decks in there.

But you also have to think about other factors. For one cargo - that is an advantage of the widebody fuselage diameter. Another factor is fuel capacity. And you also have to factor in ground handling costs and aircraft utilization, because those costs are divided by lower passenger counts.

Doesn't engine efficiency also favor widebodies? As I recall, turbines generally get more efficient the bigger they are. That's part of why it's more efficient to carry 350ish people on a twin engined 777 than a quad engined A343 (which is actually similar to flying two 737s since they both use CFMs). I'll be curious once UA starts service with their new domestic 77A's to see how the CASM compares to 737s and A320s on the same routes.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:05 pm

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 30):
it is just that we are stuck obsessing over one factor - aerodynamic efficiency.

and then, there is weight.
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:45 pm

With ULH flights on widebodies, we constantly hear the argument that economic efficiency is lost because of the fuel weight -- "you burn extra fuel in order to carry enough fuel to reach the destination" is a common refrain. Do NB aircraft economics similarly suffer when pushing the limits of their (shorter) range? My instinct says that there will be some impact, but not as dramatic, although I have no data to back it up.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
Does anyone have the estimated CASM vs. Range curves of the 757, A320neo, A321LR, and small widebodies?

Seconded. Anybody?
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:50 pm

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 34):
Do NB aircraft economics similarly suffer when pushing the limits of their (shorter) range?

Not really, because the ranges are shorter and less fuel is carried as a percentage of weight.
But then strictly speaking, every plane burns some fuel to carry fuel, starting from the first mile.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18152
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:26 am

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 34):
Do NB aircraft economics similarly suffer when pushing the limits of their (shorter) range? My instinct says that there will be some impact, but not as dramatic, although I have no data to back it up.

Yes, same physics (carrying weight early in the mission to burn later), so the CASM curve goes up with range (instead of down). But I do not have curves (I, of course, destroyed/deleted any proprietary curves I had.)

Maybe time to download PianoX...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:45 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 36):
CASM curve goes up with range

But there's the issue of time spent in climb/descent vs. cruise. [I know you know this Lighsaber - just for the audience member who maybe hasn't reached my C-student's first-semester undergrad aerodynamics level]

Here's a chart for the A380's fuel burn versus distance:


...so the A380's fuel burn v distance curve bottoms out around 4500nm - still in excess of the A321LR's max range.
The "bottom" of the curve for a NB would probably be shorter as fuel weight would constitute a lesser portion of overall weight for a given range.

...and then this wouldn't be the same as the "CASM curve." There would be economies of scale for maintenance for combining more miles into fewer cycles on the engines/frame. Also economies related to MTOW for longer stage lengths. Also economies related to airframe utilization - thus capital cost - where less time is spent turning around the aircraft versus flying for longer stage lengths.

There would be diseconomies arising from "kinks" in the crew cost curve at the point where reserve crew is needed for particular stage lengths.

All in all, the A380's likely CASM minimum is probably beyond its fuel burn minimum.
...which suggests that NB's CASM minimum would occur at significantly lower ranges than for WB's - perhaps by as much as half.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 27):
Why? IMO the main factors:
-Most widebodies, such as the 788 but also the shorter-range A333, are optimized for longer hops than even A321LR. Range costs efficiency.
-A 6-abreast narrowbody is inherently more efficient on fuselage structure than a twin-aisle until that twin-aisle is 12-abreast. The vagaries of regulations and human size dictate a couple "kinks" in the efficiency curve for a cylinder enclosing X number of passengers. One of these kinks is the 6-abreast NB (another is smallest-possible double-decker).

But thehre are some factors not includet here:

- the bigger most technical system get's, the more economic [in fact this is mostly related to termodynamics and the difference between volume growth exp3 and area exp2 of e.g. a ball]
--> This is true everywhere, but especially with engines

Furthermore, in theory severals systems of a widebody get more eficient while beeing bigger or don't have to be bigger at all [a switch is a switch, a cockpit is nearly identical for both], so there are further advantages
--A one could say the mass of the auxiliarry systems per seat is lower on a widebody
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:36 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 38):
But thehre are some factors not includet here:

Indeed. And surely others as well. In both directions.

Nonetheless the Leeham analysis (linked above) re MAX-8 versus 788 seems instructive. Looking at the whole plane, they're similar tech levels - maybe even a slight edge to the 788. Yet the MAX-8 has lower CASM on a TATL trip.

-The thermodynamic advantage of bigger engines may be overstated because modern engines require cooling, whereas the thermodynamic volume/area advantage implies greater efficiency through lower passive heat loss. The bigger advantage, AFAIK, would be lower tip clearance loss on a bigger engine. Even this factor can't exceed a few percentages points IMJ, as tip clearances are already a very small portion of rotational areas.

-The "auxiliary systems per seat" factor would probably be far exceeded by fuselage weight and drag factor
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:04 am

from a quick search on google i came up with the following figures on a b737-800. don't know how much they are true, but don't seem to be way off either:

empty: 41.413
zero: 62.732
mtow: 79.016
mlw:: 66.361
max fuel: 20.437

assuming a seating of around 166 pax (M85/F75/C30/I3) and 140 bag (at 17kgs) with a max fuel onload, you would be roughly at the mtow of the frame (a bit above actually), not allowing for any other cargo. if the avg burn off would be at around 2850 kgs (don't know the average, but should be a bit more than on a short haul trip), you would get a rough 7h15min max end. if the fuel burn is around 2500kgs it would allow for about 2to of add payload on a sector with 7h15min end.

so if i didn't mess anything up in the above, it clearly shows the limits of long haul travel with narrow bodies. if you try to fly them to their limits, 2/3s of it's cargo hold will be empty due to wight issues. so if you have a lot of bags, lots of adults and piles of cargo, little premium traffic, the widebody could make sense, (usually a fully loaded B777-300 only "looses" roughly a quarter of lower deck volume to pax bags, allowing for lots of add. cargo. this is THE advantage of the frame over the A380 and the B747).

if one can fill a real business class (not the EU eco seat joke) of 20 seats and a smaller eco of about 140, and there is no cargo on the routing, then a B737-800 or a comparable frame would be the plane of choice over any current widebody! also the cargo on many planes if flown to full up the volume rather than make piles of money with it. so in many cases a narrow body will be the best solution. and the B707 /DC8 / IL62 era aircraft can be compared if you look at their weights and take modern engines into calculation -> you would end up with surprising figures. but who with a right mind would think that a bit of a pimp and a mild max to a design of the 60ies would make a plane competitive nowadays hihihi!?!?!

i personally think that an optimized A320 fuselage stretched to the length of a B757-300 and with a wing that is designed for 8h legs, this frame would make many current wide body ops obsolete. especially could it replace many of the B767. in the end it all depends on the burn off per hour it can achieve. but just imagine an all eco 260 seat A32X witch can do EU US east coast without limits and a avg fuel burn of about 3to per hour, that would be a real winner. especially since it would connect asia with europe with a single stop anywhere in the middle at nearly half the cost of a B787 (more or less...)

never the less this is a very interesting topic and i am also wondering a lot on what the future will bring on this! i personally have the feeling we will see more narrow bodies on "longer" haul ops and also more wide bodies on shorter haul ops. to me, one of the greatest planes ever to fly was the A300. just imagine boeing at the time came up with it instead of an european company that started off from zero.
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
 
c933103
Posts: 3825
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:51 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.
I thought I was going to go the whole thread without someone pointing out that the narrower cross-section of a narrowbody is inherently more aerodynamically efficient. If you put 200 pax on a narrowbody vs 200 pax on a widebody, the latter is going to be more expensive to fly, fuelwise.

Does that mean a 762 is cheaper to operate than a 753?
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18152
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:10 pm

c933103 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.
I thought I was going to go the whole thread without someone pointing out that the narrower cross-section of a narrowbody is inherently more aerodynamically efficient. If you put 200 pax on a narrowbody vs 200 pax on a widebody, the latter is going to be more expensive to fly, fuelwise.

Does that mean a 762 is cheaper to operate than a 753?

The 762 costs more per flight, but the 753 does not have the range for the flights being discussed.

While an A321LR will not be carrying cargo, it will cost less per passenger in equivalent comfort. Today, cargo revenue is low. Several of the main deck cargo carriers are facing bankruptcy in the next 24 months.

A widebody carries quite a bit of extra structure to haul the fuel and that 2nd isle.

What matters more is the sharp reduction in cost per flight. Feed to hubs will accelerate. For example, northeast cities could tap into DUB, LHR, FRA, AMS, or CDG for connections in Europe. No one on business wants to 'bridge hub.'. (Double hub). European cities will tap into BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, and CLT. Naturally the hub with high O&D traffic and expansion to enable connections will dominate in growth. Since DUB is expanding, the question is will others or does DUB and Iceland get all the growth by default?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
DFW789ER
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:20 pm

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 7):Absolutely
Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.


Oh yeah. TATL on a TWA 707 was great. The only time I want to be older is to have been able to experience a TATL on a Connie.
 
DFW789ER
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:20 pm

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:21 pm

LAXtoATL wrote:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):Interestingly enough (at least to me), the first true TATL aircraft, 707 and DC-8, were narrowbodies.

True. But I'm not sure how relevant that is because there were no wide bodies when the 707 and DC-8 started TATL ops.


It's relevant because the cabin sizes were basically the same. The only thing different back then was seat pitch was better. Regardless, a narrowbody is a narrowbody, now or 40 years ago.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8539
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:27 pm

c933103 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):From the cost side, unquestionably. On any route a big narrowbody is capable of flying it will be better on cost than a small or midsize widebody.
I thought I was going to go the whole thread without someone pointing out that the narrower cross-section of a narrowbody is inherently more aerodynamically efficient. If you put 200 pax on a narrowbody vs 200 pax on a widebody, the latter is going to be more expensive to fly, fuelwise.

Does that mean a 762 is cheaper to operate than a 753?


As long as the 757-300 has the range it is considerable less expensive per trip and seat. Also a 757-200 beats a 767-200 on trip cost and CASM.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: RE: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:21 am

Matt6461 wrote:

Here's a chart for the A380's fuel burn versus distance:



Can a similar parabolic pattern be made for other aircraft? Where did you find this chart? It's very interesting.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:34 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Can a similar parabolic pattern be made for other aircraft? Where did you find this chart? It's very interesting.


The chart came from Seeking Alpha. The analyst who posted it, Kieran Bechai, often says some astoundingly stupid things but the chart seems logical.

In general, I would expect a similar parabolic pattern to hold for all aircraft. At short ranges, the relative inefficiency of climb/descent means that fuel efficiency increases with range for a while. But as range increases past a certain point, the necessity of carrying more fuel outweighs the dominance of cruise over climb/descent.
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:30 am

shouldn't we include ETOPS?
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD
 
User avatar
UnitedIsBae
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Do Long Haul Narrow Body Economics Work?

Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:31 am

I mean its already mandatory for TATL isn't it?
Last edited by UnitedIsBae on Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going PERIOD

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