Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
How come large aircraft like the 744, 748, and A380 aren't used on ULH routes??
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
First, for sure EK does use their A380s on multiple ULH routes, certainly DXB to both LAX and HOU. QF flies theirs SYD-DFW.
In general though, its usually more cost efficient to fly twins on ULH routes. 12+ hours of extra drag from the extra engines, along with the exta fuel burn.
In general though, its usually more cost efficient to fly twins on ULH routes. 12+ hours of extra drag from the extra engines, along with the exta fuel burn.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
I think fleet allocation has more to do with yields, at least it did when I worked for an airline. A full A380 has wonderful yields (assuming normal fares), whether ULH or not.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
WPvsMW wrote:I think fleet allocation has more to do with yields, at least it did when I worked for an airline. A full A380 has wonderful yields (assuming normal fares), whether ULH or not.
Do you think accountants ever considered the extra passengers and extra freight to offset the extra engines costs you point out?
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
UA857 wrote:How come large aircraft like the 744, 748, and A380 aren't used on ULH routes??
With the caveat of not having done the calculations, they likely have a higher MZFW to MTOW ratio which means that they would be fuel-weight limited and therefore cannot fill their tanks when carrying a "full load" of passengers and cargo.
This is probably a conscious design decision and true ULH / C-Market services are not generally high-traffic ones. The A340-500 and 777-200LR had similar MTOWs to the A340-600 and 777-300ER, but traded payload weight (MZFW) for fuel. An A340-500 could fly 1200nm farther than an A340-600, but carried 10,000kg less payload. Same with the 777-200LR, which traded 15,000kg of payload to fly 2500nm farther.
The A380-800 could fly around 6700nm at the highest weight variants with an 85,0000kg payload so she had excellent legs for a VLA. The 747-400ER could do 6250 with a 65,000kg payload and the 747-8 was good for around 5900nm with a 65,000kg payload (all figures in this response assuming most-favorable mission rules and conditions).
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
pikachu wrote:WPvsMW wrote:I think fleet allocation has more to do with yields, at least it did when I worked for an airline. A full A380 has wonderful yields (assuming normal fares), whether ULH or not.
Do you think accountants ever considered the extra passengers and extra freight to offset the extra engines costs you point out?
Of course... but yield cumulates all inputs, DOC, revenue, etc. If the DOC are too high, it depresses yields, and the frame isn't used on that route.
Hypothetical: full F, J, and W, no Y.... full tanks, ULH. Essentially trading Y load for fuel load. Very similar to the business model for premium only TATL.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
Stitch wrote:UA857 wrote:How come large aircraft like the 744, 748, and A380 aren't used on ULH routes??
With the caveat of not having done the calculations, they likely have a higher MZFW to MTOW ratio which means that they would be fuel-weight limited and therefore cannot fill their tanks when carrying a "full load" of passengers and cargo.
This is probably a conscious design decision and true ULH / C-Market services are not generally high-traffic ones. The A340-500 and 777-200LR had similar MTOWs to the A340-600 and 777-300ER, but traded payload weight (MZFW) for fuel. An A340-500 could fly 1200nm farther than an A340-600, but carried 10,000kg less payload. Same with the 777-200LR, which traded 15,000kg of payload to fly 2500nm farther.
The A380-800 could fly around 6700nm at the highest weight variants with an 85,0000kg payload so she had excellent legs for a VLA. The 747-400ER could do 6250 with a 65,000kg payload and the 747-8 was good for around 5900nm with a 65,000kg payload (all figures in this response assuming most-favorable mission rules and conditions).
Where did you get those 744ER and 748 numbers? I've heard the two have similar trip burn, and the 748 has marginally higher fuel capacity, so I'd expect it to have better range for the same payload.
OP, the 744 did fly ULH routes, or what were called ULH routes in 1989 when it debuted. The thing that changed is the working definition of ULH, which basically moves with what I call the "tankering wall" in this thread.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
LH707330 wrote:Where did you get those 744ER and 748 numbers?
Boeing's ACAPs.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
Got it, thanks. I guess the higher empty weight of the 748 at that payload makes the difference. Shame they didn't try to launch the ER earlier.
Re: Why isn't the 744, 748, and A380 not used on ULH flights?
EK's DXB-AKL service is 7670nm using an A380.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests