User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:44 am

I was under the impression that for any route a narrow body can fly, it will cost less per seat than a wide body. In particular, a 737MAX or A321NEO will have lower costs than an A330NEO or 787 for any trans Atlantic route short enough for the narrow body (assuming you have the slots to take off and land).

Question: Is this true (or even mostly true)?
 
L0VE2FLY
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:16 am

No, widebodies have a lower operating cost per seat.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:27 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
No, widebodies have a lower operating cost per seat.


Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.
 
bhxalex
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:40 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:28 am

It really depends on the exact route and types of aircraft we're comparing.

A BA 744 in high J config will have an enormous CASM on LHR-JFK. But a densified BA 772 packed to the rafters doing LGW-JFK will be the complete opposite.

Factor in leasing costs and it muddies even more. The near future of TATL NBs are brand new 737maxs or A321neos, compare their lease cost to a paid off 777/747/330/340 and it gets interesting.

BA 772s at LGW have a much higher variable cost than Norwegians 787s to operate, but it's rumoured they have a lower CASM, as the 777s have been paid off, the fixed cost saving is huge. So it's often not as black and white as just saying X Narrowbody is cheaper across the pond than X Widebody or vice versa.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:33 am

bhxalex wrote:
It really depends on the exact route and types of aircraft we're comparing.

A BA 744 in high J config will have an enormous CASM on LHR-JFK. But a densified BA 772 packed to the rafters doing LGW-JFK will be the complete opposite.

Factor in leasing costs and it muddies even more. The near future of TATL NBs are brand new 737maxs or A321neos, compare their lease cost to a paid off 777/747/330/340 and it gets interesting.

BA 772s at LGW have a much higher variable cost than Norwegians 787s to operate, but it's rumoured they have a lower CASM, as the 777s have been paid off, the fixed cost saving is huge. So it's often not as black and white as just saying X Narrowbody is cheaper across the pond than X Widebody or vice versa.


Can you provide a source? Because I *think* you're wrong, but I'm not sure.

I don't know the answer, but I know this:

A 737MAX is about 9,000 lbs of plane per person. A 777 is about 20,000. That's a lot more plane to fly and repair (and more fuel to burn).
A new 737MAX is about $200,000 per seat. A new 777/787 is about $400,000 per seat.
A 737MAX is about 300 pounds of thrust per seat. A 777 is about 700. That's a lot more fuel to burn and engine to maintain.
A 737MAX might cost 2,000 liters/hour for 150 seats. A 777 might cost 7,000 liters per hour for 350 seats.

(I totally think these are round numbers and could be off somewhat. And I could have looked up your 787 example, instead of your 777 example. But you get the idea.)

I'm not saying your wrong ... but I'd love a source. And I've searched google and cannot find one either way. Lots of data, but no source with a conclusion. All the CASM charts have either widebodies or narrowbodies, but not both. And the tables are for very different stage lengths. Which makes sense, since they fly such different stage lengths. But what if they fly the same stage length??
 
N809FR
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:10 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:43 am

For someone who seemed so unsure in your original post you are pretty demanding. Consider the earning potential. One widebody carries twice the passengers, plus has loads more floor space for premium seats which is where the bulk of the revenue comes from.

The reason we’re seeing a very small number of airlines utilizing single aisle planes across the Atlantic has little to do with what makes them the most money and much more to do with acquisition costs and fleet commonality. Routes too thin to support ~250 seats a day will be the first to go once the economy tanks again. Sure the A321LR looks promising for thinner routes, but JV hub/hub routes will always demand more seats. That’s the future, like it or not.
 
Jefford717
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:36 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:59 am

All things equal (sum of passenger for the 2 narrow body = total pax for 1 widebody), 2 narrow body cost less to operate than 1 widebody assuming the narrow body aircraft is not compromising payload for distance. Prior to year 2000, approximately over 90% for US trans continental flights (pretty close in distance to trans Atlantic flight) are flown by widebody jets but as years go by those number are slowly shrinking in favor of narrow body aircraft such as the a320s and 737s. Airline do not mine paying the extra takeoff/landing fee plus flyover fee if it do not make sense financially.

Widebody jets are also risky, they only make sense if you can fill those seats that’s why the concept of the A380 failed.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:12 am

Jefford717 wrote:
All things equal (sum of passenger for the 2 narrow body = total pax for 1 widebody), 2 narrow body cost less to operate than 1 widebody assuming the narrow body aircraft is not compromising payload for distance.


N809FR wrote:
For someone who seemed so unsure in your original post you are pretty demanding. Consider the earning potential. One widebody carries twice the passengers, plus has loads more floor space for premium seats which is where the bulk of the revenue comes from.


I think I'm 80% sure, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't mean to be demanding. Also, what you wrote and what Jeffor717 wrote contradict, so I'm asking who to believe. And no one has a source (nor can I find one).

I did all the number per seat. And you can configure both kinds of planes with first class seats.

I'd love to see a chart from some obviously trustable web site. But as I wrote, I cannot find it. Can you help?

N809FR wrote:
The reason we’re seeing a very small number of airlines utilizing single aisle planes across the Atlantic has little to do with what makes them the most money and much more to do with acquisition costs and fleet commonality. Routes too thin to support ~250 seats a day will be the first to go once the economy tanks again. Sure the A321LR looks promising for thinner routes, but JV hub/hub routes will always demand more seats. That’s the future, like it or not.


I'm hoping to be educated, but I don't understand what you wrote. First, I think almost everything an airline does is about "what makes them the most money". Second, I think Delta, American, Air France, and BA all have narrow body fleets already. Can you explain why running a narrow body TATL would reduce commonality? Third, I'm pretty sure it's cheaper per seat to buy a 737 than a 787. Why would 787s reduce acquisition costs?

It could also be that it's only recently become possible to reliably run narrow body aircraft across the atlantic against the wind. I don't think you can count on a 737-800 to go NYC->London against the wind 99% of the time (but again, if I'm wrong I'd love to see a source).
Last edited by kitplane01 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2382
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:12 am

Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.
223 319 320 321 333 346 359 388 733 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 773 77W 788 789 MD83 E145 E175 E195 RJ85 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75

Brexit - It’s time for global Britain.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:24 am

As has been mentioned - it is not simple:
1) as you get towards the outer end of the NB range, it can carry less passengers
a) MTOW constrained, the fuel tanks brimmed, less weight left over for payload
b) may be an element of even if not MTOW constrained, at max range, simply cannot carry a full load.

BA doing the A318 from London City to JFK is almost certainly a lousy CASM, but it is all business, so the revenue per pax levels it out. It wouldn't make sense to fly that route with economy passengers as the plane would be half empty (constrained by range), but economy passenger fares wouldn't pay enough.

2) On the other hand, using a WB for short distances means that it is carrying a lot of unnecessary structure (to be able carry enough fuel for the long range, but in this case is not using it).

Therefore, WB are compromised for short haul and NB are compromised at the extreme end of their range - the question is where that crossover lies.

The new engines (neo and Max) both extend the absolute range of the A320 and 737, but more importantly, extend the economically useful range of the plane and up the number of passengers they can carry pver that useful range

Then there is the second point about risk - even if you have cost equivalence over a certain distance, it is much easier to fill a little plane than a big one

A final point is the space per passenger - dividing weight (or thrust) by passengers requires an equivalence in passenger comfort - the A380 is certified for 844 passengers, but usually flies with about half that number of seats. Comparing a A321 with 240 seats and an A380 with 470 seats, the A321 will come out on top. However, if the A321 can only take 169 seats trans-Atlantic (I'm not sure if that is the right number, but I think it is close) and you have 844 seats on the A380, then the CASM is probably in the A380's favour (of course, that isn't entirely fair as the A321 passengers will have more room, but that isn't the A380's "fault", but the range/payload constraint of the A321.
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:06 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I was under the impression that for any route a narrow body can fly, it will cost less per seat than a wide body. In particular, a 737MAX or A321NEO will have lower costs than an A330NEO or 787 for any trans Atlantic route short enough for the narrow body (assuming you have the slots to take off and land).

Question: Is this true (or even mostly true)?


You have answered your own question. Yes sending an A321NEO over the pond will be cheaper than an A330NEO strictly on the cost basis. It’s like driving 1000 miles in a VW Golf, will be also cheaper than doing the same distance in a BMW 7 series. BUT! You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space. So taking the the revenue side of things into account then the profit per seat will be generally higher on a wide body with the sameish overall seat count.

Of course there are variables in both scenarios as in load%, tickets sold in first/business, cargo etc.
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4840
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:53 am

A very quick, very unscientific study to provide a little context. Using a flight sim fuel planner, we can work out the rough fuel costs for a trip, lets say EDI-EWR as an example. Sadly, none of the planners cover the 737MAX, so we'll need to use a 737-800 for now - obviously the max will be slightly lower though.

Fuel Use:
737-800: 38044 lbs - $10,645
787-8: 113,149 lbs - $31,661
777-300: 127,854 lbs - $35,776

Based on an all economy configuration, then that gives the following per seat:

737-800: 189 seats - $56.32
787-8: 381 seats - $83.10
777-300: 550 seats - $65.04

Note: 787 figure seems high.. can someone confirm this?

So yes, it does seem that even a 737-800 is cheaper in terms of fuel per passenger. However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs. You then need to bear in mind configuration - widebodies have much more floor space, allowing lie flat seats and other features which can be sold for a premium.

To counter that though, ATC charges in Europe are based on aircraft weight, which would further penalise the widebodies due to their extra weight. Not sure if this still applies transatlantic though - as far as I can see, US oceanic charges are not based on weight. So you may be charged for half the flight based on weight, i'm not sure.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:48 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.
 
VV
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:57 am

What about the revenue?
 
ITSTours
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:02 am

Include an enormous slot acquisition cost as well in the calculation.
Would you fly an A321neo between JFK-LHR?
This is different from EDI-BDL, for example.
 
User avatar
tistpaa727
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 5:23 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:42 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Also, what you wrote and what Jeffor717 wrote contradict, so I'm asking who to believe. And no one has a source (nor can I find one).

I did all the number per seat. And you can configure both kinds of planes with first class seats.

I'd love to see a chart from some obviously trustable web site. But as I wrote, I cannot find it. Can you help?



It appears you are asking for a clear cut answer; however, as this thread has shown, the answer is not black or white...it all depends on a host of variables which is why we see some airlines on some routes select a narrowbody or a widebody. If there was such a clear cut winner we would see every route within a given range go for one or the other but we don't. There are just too many factors at play.
Don't sweat the little things.
 
xdlx
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

The very best example for this theory would be the 757/767 comparison..... the 762 had similar CASM/RASM than the 752 the 763 & 764 much improved figures. The problem of narrow bodies on sectors of 6+ hours is the "common space" restrictions, ie: aisle crowding, lavs crowding and the conflict with cabin services. The narrow body is capable to "replace" the WB on a particular mission, however tough to compete with those in the WB offering.
 
leghorn
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:53 am

If every secondary airport in Europe starts getting narrowbody routes across the atlantic then those widebodies from hub cities might start finding it harder to fill seats.
A widebody may be able to offer a better first and business class experience but to these high end Customers time is money or a scarce luxury and will take an inferior but still premium seat in a narrowbody from their city of origin direct to their destination city.
This thread is about costs but widebodies are about revenue. If the revenue Customers are lost then the model will fail.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9615
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:34 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I was under the impression that for any route a narrow body can fly, it will cost less per seat than a wide body. In particular, a 737MAX or A321NEO will have lower costs than an A330NEO or 787 for any trans Atlantic route short enough for the narrow body (assuming you have the slots to take off and land).

Question: Is this true (or even mostly true)?


Take this for what it's worth. when TAP ordered the A321LR's with the intent to use them in TATL routes their CEO at the time stated that 2 A321's will cost them less to fly than 1 A330 while carrying more passengers. I suspect that the premise that 2 NBs are cheaper than 1 WB is only true where:
1) the airline is not making much revenue from cargo
2) the 2xNB config at least equals the number of pax of the single WB.

ITSTours wrote:
Include an enormous slot acquisition cost as well in the calculation.
Would you fly an A321neo between JFK-LHR?


But an enormously lower aircraft acquisition costs. so the answer is yes if you want low introduction costs.

Airbus list price in USD millions:
A339 $296.4
A321neo $129.5

The LHR slots more than pay for themselves with a single A321neo purchase vs. an A339.
 
smallmj
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:39 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:52 am

As others have pointed out, revenue from cargo and premium seats are a huge factor.

To give you an example, last summer Air Canada ran a daily A330-300 on it's 500 mile YHZ-YUL route. That is a route normally served by the A320 series or E-jets. Why did they use such a big bird on such a small route? Cargo. They had downgauged the YHZ-LHR route from a 767-300 to a 737 MAX 8, and needed another way to get all that lucrative YHZ cargo (mostly live lobster) across the Atlantic.
 
tropical
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:25 pm

As narrowbodies become ever more commonplace in Trasatlantic routes in the coming years, I wonder if passenger preference will become a factor. Many passengers (me included) much prefer the extra space and the 'long haul feeling' of a WB bird for long haul flights, even if the seat pitch is exactly the same in the NB equivalent.

I don't travel long haul that often, and stepping aboard a good old fashioned widebody when I fly long haul is part of the premium holiday feeling that makes it more special than your run-of-the-mill cheap holiday two hours away from home served by the 'common' narrowbodies.

Not every airline could afford offering different a/c models on the same route for the sake of passenger experience of course, but I hope some legacy airliners will do. I for one would be more than happy to pay, say, £600 for a LON-NY seat on a 787/ A350 than £500 on a 737/ A321, even if they were both operated by the same airline and the economy seat product and seat pitch was the same on both aircraft.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:50 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


No it's not. Cargo makes up about 3% -5% of revenue that airlines generate. If it was such a huge money maker, why do airlines not fly cargo aircraft? That comment is false.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
Arion640
Posts: 2382
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:39 pm

brilondon wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


No it's not. Cargo makes up about 3% -5% of revenue that airlines generate. If it was such a huge money maker, why do airlines not fly cargo aircraft? That comment is false.


Where do I even begin....

Why do BA run a 777 to Madrid every day from Heathrow? For fun?
223 319 320 321 333 346 359 388 733 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 773 77W 788 789 MD83 E145 E175 E195 RJ85 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75

Brexit - It’s time for global Britain.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:55 pm

airbazar wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Include an enormous slot acquisition cost as well in the calculation.
Would you fly an A321neo between JFK-LHR?


But an enormously lower aircraft acquisition costs. so the answer is yes if you want low introduction costs.

Airbus list price in USD millions:
A339 $296.4
A321neo $129.5

The LHR slots more than pay for themselves with a single A321neo purchase vs. an A339.


Nobody pays those aircraft prices upfront, most of them do monthly lease, and they get huge discounts as well.
In fact, one firm estimated the market price of A330-900neo as $108.5M...
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:09 pm

brilondon wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


No it's not. Cargo makes up about 3% -5% of revenue that airlines generate. If it was such a huge money maker, why do airlines not fly cargo aircraft? That comment is false.


Lol IAG made EUR 1.17b revenue from cargo ops last year. While it’s less than 5% overall it’s still a large amount. And don’t forget, cargo usually doesn’t need food, drinks, entertainment, blankets, headphones, cutlery, toilet paper... so basically it’s almost all profit.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9615
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:35 pm

ITSTours wrote:
airbazar wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Include an enormous slot acquisition cost as well in the calculation.
Would you fly an A321neo between JFK-LHR?


But an enormously lower aircraft acquisition costs. so the answer is yes if you want low introduction costs.

Airbus list price in USD millions:
A339 $296.4
A321neo $129.5

The LHR slots more than pay for themselves with a single A321neo purchase vs. an A339.


Nobody pays those aircraft prices upfront, most of them do monthly lease, and they get huge discounts as well.
In fact, one firm estimated the market price of A330-900neo as $108.5M...


You missed the entire point of my post by such a wide margin we may as well start a new thread.
 
User avatar
DaProf
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:13 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:20 pm

brilondon wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


No it's not. Cargo makes up about 3% -5% of revenue that airlines generate. If it was such a huge money maker, why do airlines not fly cargo aircraft? That comment is false.


Those planes are flying from A-B anyways. If you can add 3-5% to your revenue as a value added opportunity it's well worth it. Considering the average airlines profit margin fluctuates between 0-5% .. that 3-5% in revenue can easily be the difference between turning a profit and losing money. Not that all routes are equal in this regard, but having additional revenue streams does help airlines maintain their fiscal health. Also who says airlines don't fly cargo aircraft, many airlines have a dedicated cargo division with their own fleet.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:32 pm

OP, I suggest doing a comparison based on floor area, cargo volume, available payload weight, and assumptions about cargo revenue. That will likely get you closer to an answer.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:50 am

nighthawk wrote:
However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs.


senatorflyer wrote:
You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space.


Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


I wonder if you all are overstating the importance of cargo revenue for a mainline airline. Google says
Airline 2Q2018 cargo revenue
American USD261 million
Delta USD223 million
United USD314 million

Each of these has about $10B in revenue per quarter, so cargo is about 2-3% of revenue.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I love data. Thank you for data.

I checked the area for a 787-10 (356.85 sq meters) and an A321 (128 sq meters), and that's a ratio of 2.8:1

How come a 787 doesn't hold more than twice as many seats as an A321. Wikipedia (the source of true knowledge) says an A321 can hold 240 people all economy, and a 787-10 can hold 420. That's less than 2:1

Fun fact: No airline operates both the A321 and the 787-10. So you cannot compare the with real seat maps.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... 787-10x/25
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... ie-A321/68
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:04 am

kitplane01 wrote:
nighthawk wrote:
However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs.


senatorflyer wrote:
You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space.


Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


I wonder if you all are overstating the importance of cargo revenue for a mainline airline. Google says
Airline 2Q2018 cargo revenue
American USD261 million
Delta USD223 million
United USD314 million

Each of these has about $10B in revenue per quarter, so cargo is about 2-3% of revenue.


No we are not. Without the cargo ops IAG’s profit would be nearly half of what it is. Just as an example.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:05 am

DaProf wrote:
brilondon wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


No it's not. Cargo makes up about 3% -5% of revenue that airlines generate. If it was such a huge money maker, why do airlines not fly cargo aircraft? That comment is false.


Those planes are flying from A-B anyways. If you can add 3-5% to your revenue as a value added opportunity it's well worth it. Considering the average airlines profit margin fluctuates between 0-5% .. that 3-5% in revenue can easily be the difference between turning a profit and losing money. Not that all routes are equal in this regard, but having additional revenue streams does help airlines maintain their fiscal health. Also who says airlines don't fly cargo aircraft, many airlines have a dedicated cargo division with their own fleet.


That's true if running a 787 and an A321NEO cost the same per seat. If one cost 10% more ...
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:12 am

tistpaa727 wrote:

It appears you are asking for a clear cut answer; however, as this thread has shown, the answer is not black or white...it all depends on a host of variables which is why we see some airlines on some routes select a narrowbody or a widebody. If there was such a clear cut winner we would see every route within a given range go for one or the other but we don't. There are just too many factors at play.


I don't know that true.

For most routes, I bet 80% of the seats are on a narrow body or on a wide body. For example, Chicago->Miami is almost all narrow body.
LAX->Toyko is all wide body. I think there are clear winners.

Yes, I know no narrow body can fly LAX->Toyko. That's why the widebody wins. And I'm pretty sure for short flights, a narrowbody has better economics. That's why it wins Chicago->Miami.

I would be amazed if United/Delta/Lufthansa could not estimate within 10% the cost of running a particular plane on a particular route. Now that an A321NEO and a 787MAX can make in trans-Atlantic reliably, I'd love to see the cost numbers. Right now, the amount of narrow body seats crossing the Atlantic is going up. I wonder where it will end??
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:17 am

kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I love data. Thank you for data.

I checked the area for a 787-10 (356.85 sq meters) and an A321 (128 sq meters), and that's a ratio of 2.8:1

How come a 787 doesn't hold more than twice as many seats as an A321. Wikipedia (the source of true knowledge) says an A321 can hold 240 people all economy, and a 787-10 can hold 420. That's less than 2:1

Fun fact: No airline operates both the A321 and the 787-10. So you cannot compare the with real seat maps.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... 787-10x/25
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... ie-A321/68


Have you ever been on either of those two planes?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:08 am

senatorflyer wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I love data. Thank you for data.

I checked the area for a 787-10 (356.85 sq meters) and an A321 (128 sq meters), and that's a ratio of 2.8:1

How come a 787 doesn't hold more than twice as many seats as an A321. Wikipedia (the source of true knowledge) says an A321 can hold 240 people all economy, and a 787-10 can hold 420. That's less than 2:1

Fun fact: No airline operates both the A321 and the 787-10. So you cannot compare the with real seat maps.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... 787-10x/25
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... ie-A321/68


Have you ever been on either of those two planes?


I’ve been on a 787-9, and an A321. I’ve not been on a 787-10, but there are very few in operation

If you’re commenting on passenger comfort, I imagine most members of the general public simply choose the cheapest airfare without looking up things like aircraft type or seat pitch. I’ll agree business travelers are more likely to examine these things.
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4840
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:21 am

How many widebodies are used on US transcon flights nowadays? They've all been replaced by narrowbodies. Outside of London, how many UK transatlantic flights are on widebodies? Again, almost all are on narrowbodies. The 767/DC-10 used to dominate the UK transatlantic market outside of London, however recently there has been a trend of replacing these with 757s (with the slight difference of MAN which this summer goes to a 764).

I'm still on the fence as to which is more cost effective, but certainly the trend is towards more narrowbodies across the Atlantic to smaller airfields. The UK has benefited hugely from this, and as the range of these aircraft increases with the A321LR/XLR, then more secondary destinations in Europe will start to benefit too. Whether or not we will start to see A321s on transatlantic flights from Heathrow, Paris or Amsterdam - I doubt it.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2382
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:16 pm

nighthawk wrote:
How many widebodies are used on US transcon flights nowadays? They've all been replaced by narrowbodies. Outside of London, how many UK transatlantic flights are on widebodies? Again, almost all are on narrowbodies. The 767/DC-10 used to dominate the UK transatlantic market outside of London, however recently there has been a trend of replacing these with 757s (with the slight difference of MAN which this summer goes to a 764).

I'm still on the fence as to which is more cost effective, but certainly the trend is towards more narrowbodies across the Atlantic to smaller airfields. The UK has benefited hugely from this, and as the range of these aircraft increases with the A321LR/XLR, then more secondary destinations in Europe will start to benefit too. Whether or not we will start to see A321s on transatlantic flights from Heathrow, Paris or Amsterdam - I doubt it.


I’d say there are more Widebodies flying non London Transatlantic than there are narrowbodies! Purely because of Virgins MAN/GLA/BFS ops and Thomas Cook/TUI as well.
223 319 320 321 333 346 359 388 733 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 773 77W 788 789 MD83 E145 E175 E195 RJ85 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75

Brexit - It’s time for global Britain.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I did a quick comparison of the two options (A321NEOLR) flying LHR-JFK (2994nm according to my spherical earth model) with an alternate of BOS.
A321 had 150 seats and at an equal density the B787-10 would have 351 pax
The B7810 had enough MTOW left to get up to MZFW as you said so an extra ~22t of payload if required.
The A321 (in LR MTOW format) would have another ~10t to go at if it fits.
Fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower for the A321 by about 5% compared to the B787-10
I used capital costs for the A321 as $50m and $130m for the B787-10 both over 15years at 2% finance costs.
I put cabin crew at 100/hr cost each and flight crew at 250/hr cost each
Airframe maintenance as 10% of capital costs and engine maintenance as 5% of capital costs.

Overall the B787-10 came out at about 2-3% cheaper per pax (lost in the realms of noise)

What I havent takemn account of is airport handling and navigation fees, there was a standard figure I used to use in my DOC calculations but I cannot for the life of me find them.

For me I can see that on a TATL route the two aricraft are so evenly matched from a cost perspective with one looking to simply be a scaled up version of the other that the real definition comes in the form of a payload range advantage to the 787-10 for added route flexibility (note that the pax to cargo ratio appears to be about the same so no particular advantage to the 787-10 on this route) vs demand and route flexibility offered by the A321.
In essence the 787-10 can do a longer turn on other days if required but the A321 may well be able to a short turn whilst on the ground at the home end toi increase utilisation.. Whilst on the face of it they look to show a fierce competition between the two I would say that they are almost perfect bed fellows allowing a more seamless fill between the short and long haul networks of a lot of carriers.

Regards,

Fred
Image
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3518
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:56 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
nighthawk wrote:
However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs.


senatorflyer wrote:
You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space.


Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


I wonder if you all are overstating the importance of cargo revenue for a mainline airline. Google says
Airline 2Q2018 cargo revenue
American USD261 million
Delta USD223 million
United USD314 million

Each of these has about $10B in revenue per quarter, so cargo is about 2-3% of revenue.


True, but except for the marginal increase in fuel burn, it’s all profit.

GF
 
LH707330
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:06 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I love data. Thank you for data.

I checked the area for a 787-10 (356.85 sq meters) and an A321 (128 sq meters), and that's a ratio of 2.8:1

How come a 787 doesn't hold more than twice as many seats as an A321. Wikipedia (the source of true knowledge) says an A321 can hold 240 people all economy, and a 787-10 can hold 420. That's less than 2:1

Fun fact: No airline operates both the A321 and the 787-10. So you cannot compare the with real seat maps.

https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... 787-10x/25
https://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicop ... ie-A321/68

One factor is the exit limits in the 78X, it's not certified for more even if the space were there. The next factor is seating density: the 321 has a better ratio of aisle:seats, and the 78X is almost always in a premium-denser configuration.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:09 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I did a quick comparison of the two options (A321NEOLR) flying LHR-JFK (2994nm according to my spherical earth model) with an alternate of BOS.
A321 had 150 seats and at an equal density the B787-10 would have 351 pax
The B7810 had enough MTOW left to get up to MZFW as you said so an extra ~22t of payload if required.
The A321 (in LR MTOW format) would have another ~10t to go at if it fits.
Fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower for the A321 by about 5% compared to the B787-10
I used capital costs for the A321 as $50m and $130m for the B787-10 both over 15years at 2% finance costs.
I put cabin crew at 100/hr cost each and flight crew at 250/hr cost each
Airframe maintenance as 10% of capital costs and engine maintenance as 5% of capital costs.

Overall the B787-10 came out at about 2-3% cheaper per pax (lost in the realms of noise)

What I havent takemn account of is airport handling and navigation fees, there was a standard figure I used to use in my DOC calculations but I cannot for the life of me find them.

For me I can see that on a TATL route the two aricraft are so evenly matched from a cost perspective with one looking to simply be a scaled up version of the other that the real definition comes in the form of a payload range advantage to the 787-10 for added route flexibility (note that the pax to cargo ratio appears to be about the same so no particular advantage to the 787-10 on this route) vs demand and route flexibility offered by the A321.
In essence the 787-10 can do a longer turn on other days if required but the A321 may well be able to a short turn whilst on the ground at the home end toi increase utilisation.. Whilst on the face of it they look to show a fierce competition between the two I would say that they are almost perfect bed fellows allowing a more seamless fill between the short and long haul networks of a lot of carriers.

Regards,

Fred

Thanks for looking into this! Given the extreme capacity differences at similar CASM, it stands to reason that the 78X selling point is increased range flexibility. I wager if you optimized a 787-sized plane for 4k nm, you'd be able to pull a decent amount of weight out, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:33 pm

LH707330 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I did a quick comparison of the two options (A321NEOLR) flying LHR-JFK (2994nm according to my spherical earth model) with an alternate of BOS.
A321 had 150 seats and at an equal density the B787-10 would have 351 pax
The B7810 had enough MTOW left to get up to MZFW as you said so an extra ~22t of payload if required.
The A321 (in LR MTOW format) would have another ~10t to go at if it fits.
Fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower for the A321 by about 5% compared to the B787-10
I used capital costs for the A321 as $50m and $130m for the B787-10 both over 15years at 2% finance costs.
I put cabin crew at 100/hr cost each and flight crew at 250/hr cost each
Airframe maintenance as 10% of capital costs and engine maintenance as 5% of capital costs.

Overall the B787-10 came out at about 2-3% cheaper per pax (lost in the realms of noise)

What I havent takemn account of is airport handling and navigation fees, there was a standard figure I used to use in my DOC calculations but I cannot for the life of me find them.

For me I can see that on a TATL route the two aricraft are so evenly matched from a cost perspective with one looking to simply be a scaled up version of the other that the real definition comes in the form of a payload range advantage to the 787-10 for added route flexibility (note that the pax to cargo ratio appears to be about the same so no particular advantage to the 787-10 on this route) vs demand and route flexibility offered by the A321.
In essence the 787-10 can do a longer turn on other days if required but the A321 may well be able to a short turn whilst on the ground at the home end toi increase utilisation.. Whilst on the face of it they look to show a fierce competition between the two I would say that they are almost perfect bed fellows allowing a more seamless fill between the short and long haul networks of a lot of carriers.

Regards,

Fred

Thanks for looking into this! Given the extreme capacity differences at similar CASM, it stands to reason that the 78X selling point is increased range flexibility. I wager if you optimized a 787-sized plane for 4k nm, you'd be able to pull a decent amount of weight out, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

It’s not but then it never is. If you were to pull any significant weight out you would need to be looking at a reduced span wing which is then basically a new wing and centre section of the fuselage. You’d likely get a slightly heavier fuselage too. Realistically you would need 5bn for a re-wing which needs a reasonable ROI and then hopefully someone will have an engine about the size you want. Maybe it’s a solution Boeing would look at but it would be much more reasonable to do this on the smallest member of the family.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:23 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Could you provide any source?

Narrow bodies weigh less per seat.
Narrow bodies have less thrust per seat.
Narrow bodies cost less to buy per seat.

Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I did a quick comparison of the two options (A321NEOLR) flying LHR-JFK (2994nm according to my spherical earth model) with an alternate of BOS.
A321 had 150 seats and at an equal density the B787-10 would have 351 pax
The B7810 had enough MTOW left to get up to MZFW as you said so an extra ~22t of payload if required.
The A321 (in LR MTOW format) would have another ~10t to go at if it fits.
Fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower for the A321 by about 5% compared to the B787-10
I used capital costs for the A321 as $50m and $130m for the B787-10 both over 15years at 2% finance costs.
I put cabin crew at 100/hr cost each and flight crew at 250/hr cost each
Airframe maintenance as 10% of capital costs and engine maintenance as 5% of capital costs.

Overall the B787-10 came out at about 2-3% cheaper per pax (lost in the realms of noise)

What I havent takemn account of is airport handling and navigation fees, there was a standard figure I used to use in my DOC calculations but I cannot for the life of me find them.

For me I can see that on a TATL route the two aricraft are so evenly matched from a cost perspective with one looking to simply be a scaled up version of the other that the real definition comes in the form of a payload range advantage to the 787-10 for added route flexibility (note that the pax to cargo ratio appears to be about the same so no particular advantage to the 787-10 on this route) vs demand and route flexibility offered by the A321.
In essence the 787-10 can do a longer turn on other days if required but the A321 may well be able to a short turn whilst on the ground at the home end toi increase utilisation.. Whilst on the face of it they look to show a fierce competition between the two I would say that they are almost perfect bed fellows allowing a more seamless fill between the short and long haul networks of a lot of carriers.

Regards,

Fred


I love that you have numbers. And I love that you stated your assumptions. But how did you do this calculation? Is there some Internet calculator with this purpose? Do you have access to some internal tool?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:50 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Not true at all. You must have cherry picked the worse widebody and the best narrowbody to get those numbers.

With both aircraft at MTOW the widebody will travel twice as far. The widebody for a fair comparison would be taking off well below MTOW or with more payload weight. Flying the same distance the widebody will be lighter, fly higher and burn less fuel.

Lets compare a 3500nm transatlantic flight between the 787-10 and A321LR. Still air range required would be roughly 4000nm. A 787-10 can carry 57T of payload that distance versus only 16T for the A321LR. That is a massive 3.5 times more payload in the 787-10.

The 787-10's empty and MTOW is only 2.6 times heavier.

The 787-10 has less than twice the thrust.

The 787-10 also has 2.4 times the cabin area.

Airport fees, airport slot costs and pilot costs will be lower for the widebody on a passenger basis.


I did a quick comparison of the two options (A321NEOLR) flying LHR-JFK (2994nm according to my spherical earth model) with an alternate of BOS.
A321 had 150 seats and at an equal density the B787-10 would have 351 pax
The B7810 had enough MTOW left to get up to MZFW as you said so an extra ~22t of payload if required.
The A321 (in LR MTOW format) would have another ~10t to go at if it fits.
Fuel burn per passenger was slightly lower for the A321 by about 5% compared to the B787-10
I used capital costs for the A321 as $50m and $130m for the B787-10 both over 15years at 2% finance costs.
I put cabin crew at 100/hr cost each and flight crew at 250/hr cost each
Airframe maintenance as 10% of capital costs and engine maintenance as 5% of capital costs.

Overall the B787-10 came out at about 2-3% cheaper per pax (lost in the realms of noise)

What I havent takemn account of is airport handling and navigation fees, there was a standard figure I used to use in my DOC calculations but I cannot for the life of me find them.

For me I can see that on a TATL route the two aricraft are so evenly matched from a cost perspective with one looking to simply be a scaled up version of the other that the real definition comes in the form of a payload range advantage to the 787-10 for added route flexibility (note that the pax to cargo ratio appears to be about the same so no particular advantage to the 787-10 on this route) vs demand and route flexibility offered by the A321.
In essence the 787-10 can do a longer turn on other days if required but the A321 may well be able to a short turn whilst on the ground at the home end toi increase utilisation.. Whilst on the face of it they look to show a fierce competition between the two I would say that they are almost perfect bed fellows allowing a more seamless fill between the short and long haul networks of a lot of carriers.

Regards,

Fred


I love that you have numbers. And I love that you stated your assumptions. But how did you do this calculation? Is there some Internet calculator with this purpose? Do you have access to some internal tool?

It’s a model of my own making based on basic geometries of the aircraft in question allied to known or derived weights. I have a thread on it somewhere in tech-ops, if you search for threads I’ve started you’ll find it. I was asking about Mach number and buffet onset.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:15 pm

Leeham did compare 321NEOLR / 737MAX / 339 NEO / 787 (dont Remember which One it was)
I cant find the article anymore but all the Numbers were in it. (Including navigation, handling etc).
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:09 pm

 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:52 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I love data. Thank you for data.

I checked the area for a 787-10 (356.85 sq meters) and an A321 (128 sq meters), and that's a ratio of 2.8:1

How come a 787 doesn't hold more than twice as many seats as an A321. Wikipedia (the source of true knowledge) says an A321 can hold 240 people all economy, and a 787-10 can hold 420. That's less than 2:1

That simply comes down to the number of exit doors.

You can add, remove or block exit doors on most aircraft. Most A321's can not fit 240 passengers as they do not have the required number of exit doors. The cabin layout has to be built around the exit door positions so too many exit doors can be annoying if the airline isn't running maximum density.

If customer demand was high from ultra low cost carriers Boeing could add more exit doors and fit well over 500 passengers in the 787-10 with a tight full economy cabin.

However with all current 787 customers they have a premium cabin up front. These premium seats might take up 3 times the floor area and cost 3 times the price. The seat price per area would then be the same and the exit limit does not matter.

For example profit would be the same with any combination of the following:
Economy: 500 square inch of floor area per seat $200
Premium economy: 1000 square inch for $400
Business class: 2000 square inch for $800.

In most cases business class seats cost more than the seat area increase. So greater profit which helps the widebodies.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:40 am

kitplane01 wrote:
nighthawk wrote:
However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs.


senatorflyer wrote:
You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space.


Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


I wonder if you all are overstating the importance of cargo revenue for a mainline airline. Google says
Airline 2Q2018 cargo revenue
American USD261 million
Delta USD223 million
United USD314 million

Each of these has about $10B in revenue per quarter, so cargo is about 2-3% of revenue.


But cargo is likely to be relatively more important to the economics on longer hauls like trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific where road and rail transport isn’t a viable competitor and ships take days. A domestic short haul flight in the US might only have demand for a couple hundred pounds of mail or a few very time sensitive packages. No need for a lot of cargo space. LAX-HND might have 5 or 10 tons of cargo. That’s a lot of revenue potential that airlines are going to want to add to their bottom line, and cargo capabilities will absolutely be considerations on longer flights and therefore fleet decisions.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
Sokes
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:14 am

Alias1024 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
nighthawk wrote:
However, as others have said, you also need to factor in cargo - widebodies will carry a lot more cargo than a narrowbody, which will further offset the costs.


senatorflyer wrote:
You are forgetting the revenue side of things, there are a lot more premium seats in a wide body and a lot more cargo space.


Arion640 wrote:
Don’t forget widebodies carry an enormous amount of cargo also. Cargo is huge business for airlines like BA (and others of course) and those 6 daily widebodies out of JFK will be full of it.


I wonder if you all are overstating the importance of cargo revenue for a mainline airline. Google says
Airline 2Q2018 cargo revenue
American USD261 million
Delta USD223 million
United USD314 million

Each of these has about $10B in revenue per quarter, so cargo is about 2-3% of revenue.


But cargo is likely to be relatively more important to the economics on longer hauls like trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific where road and rail transport isn’t a viable competitor and ships take days. A domestic short haul flight in the US might only have demand for a couple hundred pounds of mail or a few very time sensitive packages. No need for a lot of cargo space. LAX-HND might have 5 or 10 tons of cargo. That’s a lot of revenue potential that airlines are going to want to add to their bottom line, and cargo capabilities will absolutely be considerations on longer flights and therefore fleet decisions.

https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... group.html (in German):
2018 Lufthansa sold:
284.561 million passenger kilometer
10.907 million freight tonne kilometer
For each passenger kilometer Lufthansa flew, they also flew 38 kg freight kilometer cargo.

https://www.dvz.de/rubriken/luft/detail ... msatz.html (again in German):
3.52% of freight kilometers was flown within Europe.
In nine months freight generated 1.841 million Euro turnover.

Freight makes roughly 2,5 billion Euro turnover of 28 billion Euro turnover in traffic (35 billion Euro total).
I'm not sure what is meant with traffic and total.
The vast majority of flights are within Europe which generates just 3.5% freight kilometers.
The 2,5 billion Euro/ 9% of traffic turnover generated by freight seem to be generated on rather few flights.

Does anybody have a rough number how many $/ton freight an airline gets for transatlantic/ transpacific?
Or better: Roughly how many % of revenue is freight in a transatlantic/ transpacific flight?
Still better: How much revenue does transatlantic passenger traffic and how much revenue does transatlantic freight traffic generate?

The wing of A321/ B737 was not designed for transatlantic. Even though we have this discussion.
I guess once Boeing introduces the NMA or Airbus puts a longer carbon wing on the A321, transatlantic passenger traffic will be done by narrowbodies. More frequencies or more city pairs allow for higher ticket prices.
But why would Airbus/ Boeing do this? They want to sell their widebodies.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Narrowbody vs widebody costs trans Atlantic

Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:19 am

Sokes wrote:
The wing of A321/ B737 was not designed for transatlantic. Even though we have this discussion.
I guess once Boeing introduces the NMA or Airbus puts a longer carbon wing on the A321, transatlantic passenger traffic will be done by narrowbodies.

This is definitely something most people overlook.

The same design flying at 40,000ft versus 30,000ft will burn significantly less fuel. The wing plays a huge part in long range fuel burn as it improves lift to drag ratio. This means less thrust to move the same weight through the air.

Weight per passenger has been used for most comparisons in this thread. One could build an aircraft with a tiny wing to reduce weight. This would make the design look good in terms of weight per passenger yet if it can only fly at 20,000ft it will burn much more fuel on long flights.

So in summary empty weight per passenger is the most important metric when it comes to short range efficiency but lift to drag ratio is the most important metric in terms of long range efficiency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fspro, ryanov and 24 guests

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