A380 vs 787 economics question

[YACHTIE]

Hi all,
don't know if this has already been discussed before but I just read an interesting comparison of the A380 and Boeing 787 on www.BILD.de
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/reise/A ... Popup.html
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/reise/B ... check.html

found surprising is that fuel is 3 liters per 100 km per passenger vs. 2.4 ltr in the 787.

Don't get me wrong I am NOT interested in a Boeing vs Airbus thingy, just wondering if these fiugres are correct or not .
Anybody know for sure??????????

[Avro]

Whether those figures are correct or not I don't see why people always tend to compare the A380 and B787. Those are 2 completely different planes. It's like comparing apples with peers.

It's quite obvious to me that the fuel consumbtion is higher on the A380.


Chris

[bits44]

Try this for a true comparison. against the A350 which is the plane you should be comparing against.

The A380 is in a class all by itself, you can't even compare it to a 747, because nobody knows the final delivery weight of the A380. Also remember that even though orders for the A350 were announced the decision on the final design and for that matter whether or not the plane is even going to be built have not been made, that may come in September.

http://www.aircrafteconomics.com/defaul ... SID=491620

[YACHTIE]

Of course i realize these comparisons are somewhat apples and oranges, however the MAIN driving force for Airlines to go for a new airplane believe it or not is economics and granted I am aware there will be advantages for flying the A380 on certain routes due to its higher people capacity. (It will be cheaper to fly the A380 full than an A350 or B787 twice on the same route)
Having said that though these are both new airframes coming off the assembly lines and one must wonder if the economics are not stacked against the A380 assuming my original quoted costs are reasonably correct.
Ultimately the pp cost of moving (flying) passengers is that not an overriding factor??

[n5528p]

Don't get me wrong I am NOT interested in a Boeing vs Airbus thingy, just wondering if these fiugres are correct or not .
Anybody know for sure??????????

Beside that the final numbers for both aircraft are not released yet and besides the fact, that this numbers will be different for each route (sometimes one aircraft will be better, sometimes the other) - if it'S written in this newspaper ( Bild ), than one can safely assume that the opposite is true.

Regards, Bernhard

[Avro]

if it'S written in this newspaper ( Bild ), than one can safely assume that the opposite is true.

Well said Bernhard

[bits44]

if it'S written in this newspaper ( Bild ), than one can safely assume that the opposite is true.

Well said Bernhard

Ahhhhhhhhhh so you're saying that paper is used for lining the bottom of the bird cage.

[earthman]

Well it can be used to protect the windows when spraying the livery onto your new A380 or 787.

[cherdt]

You forgot to mention that the same article said that the total operating cost of the A380 compared to the B747 is 16% Lower. So if you abolutely insist on comparing the A380 to another airplane, then compare it to the 747 and NOT the dreamliner. But keep in mind that even then you are not at all comparing 2 equal products.

And the Calculation: 1 A380 = 2 X B787 is ridiculous

[n5528p]

Ahhhhhhhhhh so you're saying that paper is used for lining the bottom of the bird cage.

Quite so - but only if you dislike your bird

Bernhard

[earthman]

And the Calculation: 1 A380 = 2 X B787 is ridiculous

It is not that ridiculous, it is about right with respect to the number of passengers.

Same number of engines, too.

One difference is that you would need twice the number of pilots. Pilots do not come cheap. I can also imagine that it would cost more to maintain two 787s than one A380. So it is not just the fuel consumption which needs to be considered.

[B744skipper]

The only way to objective compare aircraft to each other is to calculate the cost per seat mile. But that of course differs on different routes and circumstances.
But it shows which aircraft is cheaper to operate per seat, no matter how large it is (one needs to make the difference between short-haul and long-haul aircraft of course).

[n5528p]

The only way to objective compare aircraft to each other is to calculate the cost per seat mile. But that of course differs on different routes and circumstances. But it shows which aircraft is cheaper to operate per seat, no matter how large it is (one needs to make the difference between short-haul and long-haul aircraft of course).

I could not agree more - was it Singapore who bought A340 as well as B777 for a long term evaluation and sell the winner of the big order the test aircraft of the other manufacturer??

Bernhard

[Knight255]

Pilots do not come cheap. I can also imagine that it would cost more to maintain two 787s than one A380. So it is not just the fuel consumption which needs to be considered.

Right and wrong. Pilots don't come cheap (the right part of your statement), so assuming the most senior captains are going to be flying that bird, they will get paid more per hour thus adding to the price of the flight of a A380. Whereas the pilots of the 787 would be lower on the pay scale, they will get paid less per hour thus making a 787 flight cheaper for crew expenses. (Also fewer flight attendants and so on....) The whole cost-per-seat-mile argument can be very misleading. The A380's economics are based on the fact that every seat past a break-even point will be filled. What happens if you don't fill the plane past break-even???? That's a lot of fuel that's being guzzled to move a partially-filled airplane. I hope airlines know what they're doing and which routes to deploy the A380 on to be sure that every seat is filled. All in all the A380 IS efficient when it's seats are filled. The two planes are being marketed in different ways so it is very hard to make exact comparisons.

[SR89]

Pilots do not come cheap. I can also imagine that it would cost more to maintain two 787s than one A380. So it is not just the fuel consumption which needs to be considered.

The whole cost-per-seat-mile argument can be very misleading. The A380's economics are based on the fact that every seat past a break-even point will be filled. What happens if you don't fill the plane past break-even???? That's a lot of fuel that's being guzzled to move a partially-filled airplane. I hope airlines know what they're doing and which routes to deploy the A380 on to be sure that every seat is filled. All in all the A380 IS efficient when it's seats are filled. The two planes are being marketed in different ways so it is very hard to make exact comparisons.

I agree 100%. However, the 787 has the same issue. The economics of the 787 are based on the premise that all seats are filled.

On a side note, pilot's pay rate for any aircraft is non-linear. On a typical flight, the A380 will have a lower pay rate per seat than the 787. Same for landing fees, NAV charges, etc.

Fact is, with a comparable margin for a given route (that can support 74A/380), the A380/74A will generate more profit (in absolute terms) than any mid-size widebody.

[A380-800]

They simply need to operate out of LHR and they will fill the A380 or B787.
This airport is one of the most busiest and cramped I have ever been in ! 8O

rgds,

A380-800

[vivek0072]

I could not agree more - was it Singapore who bought A340 as well as B777 for a long term evaluation and sell the winner of the big order the test aircraft of the other manufacturer??

Bernhard

It was SQ, the ordered a batch of A340 , and some of them flew directly from Toulouse into the hands of Boeing they were not even taken to Singapore, and when Boeing tried to sell these planes, Airbus said that they would not support these planes with spares and other stuff unless they were bought first hand from Airbus, that was ridiculous of Airbus.

Just imagine , you buy a car and then sell it, the person who buys it cannot buy spares and service it because he bought it second hand 8O , I that case no one would go to buy that car in the first place.

[earthman]

What I meant about the pilots being expensive, when you fly a single A380 on a route instead of two 787s you only need half the number of pilots.

You probably also would need fewer FAs.

I don't know how much pilots and FAs cost per hour. I was quite amazed to learn how much pilots get paid, but I suppose they spend all of it on flying small airplanes in their free time..

[n5528p]

What I meant about the pilots being expensive, when you fly a single A380 on a route instead of two 787s you only need half the number of pilots.

You probably also would need fewer FAs.

I don't know how much pilots and FAs cost per hour. I was quite amazed to learn how much pilots get paid, but I suppose they spend all of it on flying small airplanes in their free time..

Well, not quite.

Depending on the route you would need two crews in an A380, and the number of FAs is depending on the Pax number anyway (except when you come to the minimum crew).

Still on a heavily requested route (=when you can fill the A380), the A38 will most likely be cheaper than the 787. Generally speaking, the 787 aims at other routes than the A380.

Regards, Bernhard

[lastrow]

well, depending on the route you will need also two crews on a 787 ... so what is the different point with the a380?

-lr.