I have read that with it's full 550 passengers the A380 will have the lowest operating costs ever with 3 litres per passenger per 100km. With 800 seats it will be even lower.
Now my question is does anyone know what the fuel burn per passenger per 100km will be for the full 787? Also what will the operating cost per passenger per 100km be for both?
I know people have been saying that the A380 won't be filled on many routes, but if the operating costs full is known for both, then that can be used as a starting point for a comparison on feasibility of point to point versus hub and spoke operations. It is funny that given all that Boeing has said about the economy of the 787, they don't seem to say a lot about per passenger mile costs.
"With the 787, the cost level is lower than any airplane. As soon as you fly a 787 you spend less money," he said, adding that the 787 also requires less maintenance, which means "more time flying with passengers that pay for it."
"With the 787, the cost level is lower than any airplane. As soon as you fly a 787 you spend less money," he said, adding that the 787 also requires less maintenance, which means "more time flying with passengers that pay for it."
This is what I am talking about - the term "cost level" seems to be deliberately rather vague. It also doesn't make it clear whether "any airplane" includes the A380 which isn't in service yet. Airbus has given us a fuel burn of 3 litres per 100km per passenger. Boeing must have similar figures it is promising. Why hasn't it revealed them like Airbus, unless they can't match the A380? The other running costs per passenger mile (eg. crew salaries, maintenance and servicing), are also likely to be cheaper on the A380 because of the economy of scale (as on the 747).
WHBM
Apr 28, 05, 2:54 am
As with any aircraft there are umpteen definitions of "cost", and at the end of the day it can depend on how the accountant does the arithmetic. Unfortunately journalists who want to condense a story about aircraft cost into 25 words, because that is all the attention span their target readership have, will not be able to explain this adequately.
A big part of costs is aircraft depreciation and it all depends how long this cost is spread over.
Fuel is not the only issue for cost reduction. For example there are concerns over the B787 with it's composite-laminates fuselage for how easy it will be to repair after minor damage (say where the fuselage is punctured by a ground support vehicle)and whether that will impact on insurance rates.
Costs do generally fall with economies of scale for larger aircraft, but it all depends on whether you actually fill the aircraft, and whether it is at meaningful fares. For example there are no widebodies operating from London to Edinburgh (densest route in Europe) because the market demands frequency and spread of airports, so although the cost per seat provided would be reduced, if you cannot then sell the seats at a good price there's no point.
The A380 not only delivers lower costs but also gives a 50% increase in seats in a "slot" at an airport. At key airports where you cannot get any more runway capacity (eg London Heathrow) it becomes the only way to grow your market if you are already running 747s.
Since 9/11 US air travel growth has stagnated but the rest of the world's has not. Both Boeing and Airbus tend to be influenced by their home conditions, and thus their perspectives are different. The key A380 routes will be from Europe to Asia (which you can see from the first orders), just like the 747 initially was a Transatlantic aircraft in its prime market target.
Threy
Apr 28, 05, 5:50 am
As with any aircraft there are umpteen definitions of "cost", and at the end of the day it can depend on how the accountant does the arithmetic. Unfortunately journalists who want to condense a story about aircraft cost into 25 words, because that is all the attention span their target readership have, will not be able to explain this adequately.
A big part of costs is aircraft depreciation and it all depends how long this cost is spread over.
The A380 not only delivers lower costs but also gives a 50% increase in seats in a "slot" at an airport. At key airports where you cannot get any more runway capacity (eg London Heathrow) it becomes the only way to grow your market if you are already running 747s.
WHBM is right on spot here, depreciation and how to depreciate is a major major cost factor, SQ for example used to depreciate their 742 and 743 originally over a very short period of time ( 5-6 years )
Later on ( in tougher times ) they decided to double to period of full depreciation, that alone is certainly a major cost ( saving ) factor.
Very generally one can say that a legacy carrier has two equally big cost items with fuel on one hand , labour on the other, however that is really very general, Alitalia for example has relatively low fuel costs in comparison to their European competitors, but huge labour costs, Cathay`s pilots used to earn big bucks, much more than any other airline pilot, but their FA`s earned siginificantly less than their colleagues at other airlines.
LH needs about 3.7 litres per pax per 100 km ( that is the usual statistical method in major parts of Europe, we do not do the mileage per gallon fuel US approach ) and a highly efficient brand new VW TDI or SDI car engine needs about the same doing 90 km/h an hour on dry streets, so I think Airbus`prognosis of 3 litres is great for everybody from the customer to the green party members, however the average fuel consumption certainly goes down with the duration of a flight.No way an A 380 needs 3 litres from London to Manchester...
So indeed operating an A 380 will lower the unit costs per pax significantly, ceratinly the labour cost for a 50 seat CRJ 100/200( 2+2 crew ) per person is higher than on a 75 seat CRJ 700 with 50 % more pax but the same number of crew members.
It is generally a very interesting topic and yes most of the writing media has no clue whatsoever they are writing about, but that is true for both sides of the pond...
I was stunned yesterday when everybody clapped when the A 380 touched down, I actually thought more about stopping the beast first on that runway and then start to applaud, but maybe that was only me, before realsing that they used the runway built for the Concorde, which is probably 6 kilometres long...
SEA_Tigger
Apr 28, 05, 9:58 am
The A380's biggest economic advantage is sheer volume (carry more passengers the same distance), but you also need to take into effect the related operational cost savings of operating two A380s instead of three 747-400s. You need one third less flight crew (four instead of six), probably 20-30% less flight attendants (depending on how the airline staffs), one third less ground crew (since the A380 loads cargo the same way a 744 does through two doors), 20-30% less catering and cleaning crews (the A380 has more galleys and cabin square footage), etc.
Landing fees should be a little less (since they are based on weight and an A380 is about 100 tons heavier then a 744, bur two A380s won't weigh as much as three 744s) as should gate fees (since A380s will use, where available, larger gates with multiple levels and jetways so airports will charge more then a single/dual jetway gate, but you need one less). And then the savings in maintenance and fuel and such of operating fewer planes.
Add it all together, and if you have the traffic patterns to fill a couple of them, you can see how an A380 can seriously lower your operating costs on a route versus flying flocks of smaller planes.
The 787 is more a "traditional" airplane in terms of operation. It needs two crew just like the 757/767/A330s it will be replacing. It will have roughly the same number of seats, so flight attendant costs will be the same, as well ground crew/catering/cleaning and such.
Being all-composite, the 787's weight will be significantly lower, which means it will burn less fuel then the planes it replaces (and that fuel burn will be improved with the new generation of engines used) and landing fees should be lower, as well. The lower weight also will allow the 787 to load more cargo which will help generate more revenue.
As WHBM noted, the composite structure brings some issues, but the military has been using them for decades (as has Formula One), so repair techniques exist. The A380 also uses extensive GLARE laminates in it's structure which provide many of the same benefits as am all-composite structure but also some of the repair issues, as well. But again, GLARE is a known substance, so like the 787, repair and maintenance guidelines exist.
So in the end, the A380 uses it's size to make it cheaper to run fewer of them then more smaller planes. And the 787 just makes the plane significantly cheaper to operate then a comparably-sized older plane. There are a number of routes that need the capacity of the A380, which is why I believe it will be a success and there are a whole lot of routes that don't need an A380, but could use a more efficient version of what they are flying now, which is why I believe the 787 will also be a success. Each plays to different strengths and both's strengths are compelling enough to get customers to buy them.
Heck, the two may very well prove to be complimentary down the road. If world traffic between the hubs increases as expected, you may soon have five-hundred or more A380s a day travelling between them, which means fewer slots available for "local traffic" which will need bigger planes. Since a 787-3 is going to be the most efficient way by far to fly 300 people up to 3500nm, they may very well become the primary "spoke" plane just as the A380 becomes the primary "hub" plane. And then you'd have 787-8s and 787-9s feeding the long thin routes that can generate the income to keep them profitable.
tcook052
Apr 29, 05, 11:19 pm
This article talks about Airbus' claims of A380 fuel savings:
Airbus steadfastly insists that, despite the jet's oversize frame, the expected fuel consumption is 2.9 liters per passenger for every 100 kilometers traveled. These measurements are based on flying 555 passengers with no luggage or cargo at a cruising speed of 900 kilometers.
But with air carriers selling an average of 70 percent of available seats, supporters of the A380 may have difficulty explaining how increasing the number of jets in the sky is good for the environment.
Jean-Marc Jancovici, a French scientist, calculates that if Airbus' business projections are met, "the number of air passengers will triple in the next 20 years." He thus points out that meeting passenger demand with "super-size" jets would cancel gains made to fuel efficiency.