K
spotted unpainted on the Flight Line (waiting for painting)
Posts: 1,130
|
Post by K on Jul 10, 2017 18:41:49 GMT 1
More The A380Plus burns 154.9 tonnes of fuel on a 6,000nm sector, compared with 97.7 tonnes for the 777-300ER and 83.4 tonnes for the 777-9. This means the fuel seat mile costs is 8.6% higher for the A380Plus than the 777-9, but 15.5% lower than for the 777-300ER. The Cash Operating Costs per seat mile is still better for the A380Plus. At the low fuel prices of today, the COC seat mile cost for the A380 is 11% lower than the 777-9 and 26% lower than the 777-300ER. At fuel prices above $4 per US Gallon, the COC evens out.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 10, 2017 18:49:16 GMT 1
Furthermore aircraft like the 787 and A350 are allowing new routes to be profitably started, which reduces some need for hub to hub traffic. (Take for example SQ starting SIN-DUS on the A350. Now that that route is started there's probably less demand on SQ's SIN-FRA/MUC flight and hence less of a need to add capacity on those flights. It only works though if you have the slots in Singapore to start flights such as SIN-DUS) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ With all that considered, also keep in mind, full service carrier like frequency, the long haul, low cost business model is somewhat questionable (especially if you have to fill 700+ seats) and the A380 isn't a great cargo aircraft. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, do I think there's a place for the A380, certainly, for some airlines and in some markets the aircraft works and makes complete sense and the number of routes where it makes sense will grow. I do agree with your argumentation. Up to that by opening "thin" not to the MEGA locations you are offering the customers better service since they have one less airplane switch. One more - unfortunately - argument against A380 in mixed planes traffic - you need about double interval between planes i.e. the advantage on slots sort of vanishes. There were situation in DXB.... This problem is not in action when you have continuous stream of the whales but you must not mix those with A32x/B737s. Even B777 needs more space to operate safely.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 11, 2017 3:59:11 GMT 1
Thanks for providing that data K! I do agree with your argumentation. Up to that by opening "thin" not to the MEGA locations you are offering the customers better service since they have one less airplane switch. One more - unfortunately - argument against A380 in mixed planes traffic - you need about double interval between planes i.e. the advantage on slots sort of vanishes. There were situation in DXB.... This problem is not in action when you have continuous stream of the whales but you must not mix those with A32x/B737s. Even B777 needs more space to operate safely. Good point. That has me thinking, I wonder if the new winglets on the A380plus will help in reducing wingtip vorticies enough to reduce separation distances.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 11, 2017 10:54:13 GMT 1
Sure we're seeing growing demand for air traffic but so far there are other ways to manage it. Airlines don't have to upgauge to the A380 to get more capacity , they can upgauge smaller aircraft which is what we've seen with airlines going from the A320 to A321 etc. If you bring more feeding traffic to your hub, whether by increased frequency or by using larger airplanes, you also increase the need for more connecting long-haul flights. You need a balance. The reason the A380 so far has taken limited advantage of airport capacity shortages (except in Dubai, of course) is the rise of efficient competition from smaller long-range aircraft. To be successful, a very large aircraft should be extremely attractive. There is indeed some economic advantage to using an A380 over a 77W, but obviously not enough for a smashing success. Airlines consider both opportunity and risk, and in this case the risk is often deemed too large. You rightly don't mention the number of engines, which by itself is not a decisive factor, as twins and quads have respective advantages and shortcomings (maintenance costs for quads, oversize and exceedingly powerful engines for twins etc.). What made the difference over the last thirty years is that we saw new twins with latest generation engines, competing with quads fitted with engines of an older generation (747, A340, A380), the only exception being the 747-8 which featured new engines on a low-performing airframe. An A380 with latest-generation engines and an optimised CFRP wing would be a formidable competitor, drastically changing the profit/risk balance. I am afraid we'll never see it fly. Furthermore aircraft like the 787 and A350 are allowing new routes to be profitably started, which reduces some need for hub to hub traffic. So far, this factor has played a marginal role. As the market grows, so have hubs, and there is no sign of hubs becoming irrelevant. Additionaly, if because of the A380 you're adding capacity above demand growth, you'll need to lower the price and therefore, many of the additional seats that the A380 gives may be filled with low yielding traffic. It might even be more profitable to restrict capacity and hence operate a smaller aircraft with really good yields than to operate a larger aircraft at poorer yields. When a capacity increase is introduced into an expanding market, then yields don't suffer much. When capacity increase exceeds the rise in demand, then all operators are affected, not just the carrier introducing that additional capacity. A more efficient A380 would be a perfect aircraft to gain market share profitably even in a context of declining prices. I see Airbus's plan of adding more seats into the A380plus as being somewhat ineffective, the size of the aircraft and the risk involved is why some airlines are a bit apprehensive about operating it. Adding more seats won't solve the problem. The A380plus targets existing operators, more than new ones. Airbus intends to convince them to replace their fleet with this proposed new variant. It makes sense to offer them a growth version, after ten years of operation. SQ must be taking a serious look and, if it was not for the current slump in the Gulf region, I am sure EK would buy it, at least for lack of alternatives. With all that considered, also keep in mind, full service carrier like frequency, the long haul, the low cost business model has historically been somewhat questionable (especially if you have to fill 700+ seats, although recently the business case does appear to be getting more viable and is gaining popularity) and the A380 isn't a great cargo aircraft. Frequency matters little on long haul. When you factor in time zones and airport operation hours, you realise that any aircraft operating a given route must start inside a short time bracket. So, if you introduce a second daily flight, it will likely start one hour later than the first one. You can as well have one larger aircraft instead, as BA pointed out. On thick middle range routes, you have several brackets, but several flights as well, so that some of them can easily be upgauged. I would expect low-cost A380 operators to use second-hand frames, when any are available. There is so much competition in the freight business that cargo is not a decisive factor nowadays. This is often seen as an A380 shortcoming, but on ULH flights the reverse is true since these flights often are MTOW-limited, not cargo-volume-limited.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 11, 2017 14:50:33 GMT 1
Sure we're seeing growing demand for air traffic but so far there are other ways to manage it. Airlines don't have to upgauge to the A380 to get more capacity , they can upgauge smaller aircraft which is what we've seen with airlines going from the A320 to A321 etc. If you bring more feeding traffic to your hub, whether by increased frequency or by using larger airplanes, you also increase the need for more connecting long-haul flights. You need a balance. Certainly, with the right airline size, network structure and traffic flows sure, it will hopefully lead to more A380 demand. That comment was probably more in response to Airboche's original question of how is there growth in the industry without that much demand for A380s. I see Airbus's plan of adding more seats into the A380plus as being somewhat ineffective, the size of the aircraft and the risk involved is why some airlines are a bit apprehensive about operating it. Adding more seats won't solve the problem. The A380plus targets existing operators, more than new ones. Airbus intends to convince them to replace their fleet with this proposed new variant. It makes sense to offer them a growth version, after ten years of operation. SQ must be taking a serious look and, if it was not for the current slump in the Gulf region, I am sure EK would buy it, at least for lack of alternatives I see it differently. My thinking is the plus caters to both but more towards new customers (oh, and to keep EK happy!). With the exception of EK and SQ, I don't think anyone will be thinking of replacing their aircraft for the next 8 years or so . Also I don't really see any incremental orders for growth from existing customers (once again, probably except EK although they'll hit their airport limit) and if there are any, I expect it to be only a few aircraft. (in fairness, given the production rate a few aircraft takes up a large part of a year's production). I do hope I'm wrong though and we see significant orders from both new and existing customers. With all that considered, also keep in mind, full service carrier like frequency, the long haul, the low cost business model has historically been somewhat questionable (especially if you have to fill 700+ seats, although recently the business case does appear to be getting more viable and is gaining popularity) and the A380 isn't a great cargo aircraft. Frequency matters little on long haul. When you factor in time zones and airport operation hours, you realise that any aircraft operating a given route must start inside a short time bracket. So, if you introduce a second daily flight, it will likely start one hour later than the first one. You can as well have one larger aircraft instead, as BA pointed out. On thick middle range routes, you have several brackets, but several flights as well, so that some of them can easily be upgauged. I would expect low-cost A380 operators to use second-hand frames, when any are available. There is so much competition in the freight business that cargo is not a decisive factor nowadays. This is often seen as an A380 shortcoming, but on ULH flights the reverse is true since these flights often are MTOW-limited, not cargo-volume-limited. I definitely agree that where there are time zone, curfew and slot or bilateral constraints the A380 is a brilliant aircraft and when you already have high frequencies on a shorter route, upgauging to an A380 makes sense. The frequency argument comes in when you have one or two flights a day on the route and the question arises whether to upgauge or add an additional frequency. Where the schedule makes sense and the you don't have limitations then airlines would generally opt for additional frequencies. (Of course though there comes a point where the cost advantage of a larger aircraft outweighs the yield advantage you may get from offering additional frequencies). Regarding cargo, yes, the market isn't great right now but it is nonetheless a valuable source of additional revenue and there are some airlines which still consider cargo to be an important part of their business such as Cathay. Sure it won't matter as much on ULH flights but there are still many shorter flights that the A380 operates on where cargo may be a factor. As you said somewhere, you need a balance and I couldn't agree more with that concept. With everything in aviation, naturally it'll always be a balance of different factors such as the ones both you, I and others mention with these being different for all airlines and operations and ultimately it'll be a combination of such factors that leads to the success of failure of the A380 (or more A380s) in an airline's fleet. Hopefully more airlines will find some of the factors I'm mentioning to be less of a concern for their operation and find the right set of conditions to make the aircraft viable.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 11, 2017 18:41:27 GMT 1
Thanks for providing that data K! I do agree with your argumentation. Up to that by opening "thin" not to the MEGA locations you are offering the customers better service since they have one less airplane switch. One more - unfortunately - argument against A380 in mixed planes traffic - you need about double interval between planes i.e. the advantage on slots sort of vanishes. There were situation in DXB.... This problem is not in action when you have continuous stream of the whales but you must not mix those with A32x/B737s. Even B777 needs more space to operate safely. Good point. That has me thinking, I wonder if the new winglets on the A380plus will help in reducing wingtip vorticies enough to reduce separation distances. Will NOT !
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Jul 12, 2017 13:39:57 GMT 1
More MTOM = even more vortex?
|
|