A380 unveiling, 1/18/05, Live.

It would be normal corporate behaviour to calculate the "liters per
passenger per 100 Km" using the most optimistic factors. Such as maximum
number of seats, every seat filled, best city pair, no delays of any type,
etc. etc.
The reality will be interesting to see.
Harvey
"alexy" wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect
there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:26:39 -0500, "H Pinder"
wrote:

It would be normal corporate behaviour to calculate the "liters per
passenger per 100 Km" using the most optimistic factors. Such as maximum
number of seats, every seat filled, best city pair, no delays of any type,
etc. etc.
The reality will be interesting to see.
Harvey
"alexy" wrote in message
.. .
nobody wrote:

Interesting tidbit from Bob Bliar:

The A380 consumes only 3 litres of fuel per pax per 100km, equivalent to
a fuel efficient diesel car.

But what is the operating cost per 100 km?


Interesting stat, but the followup discussion here points out a
question on exactly what this stat is. Is it fuel burn per passenger
mile at max passenger load (i.e., the 380 carries 110 times as many
passengers as the 5-passenger car, but burns less than 110 times as
much fuel per mile) or fuel burn per passenger mile at typical
passenger loads (i.e., the 380 at a typical passenger load of, e.g.,
450 carries 300 times as many passengers as the car at a typical load
of 1.5 people, but burns less than 300 times as much fuel per mile.

But in the car that fuel is only a few cents per mile. On average it's
probably only about 3 to 5% of the operating cost of cars that are
kept 4 years or less. The first three years my TA cost near 57 cents
a mile while the gas at today's prices would be about 10 to 11 cents
per mile. Back then it was about 8 cents a mile. Even at the
inflated gas prices the cost of a car would probably still put gas in
the 5 to 10% range.


Obviously, such a statistic based on capacity is far more significant
than one based on average use. 3 liters/passenger per 100KM? I suspect

Still, the bottom like on something that size will depend not on the
ultimate, but the average. At the end of the year the bean counters
are interested in how much it cost them per passenger mile and the
cost of the fule may, or may not become significant. (it probably
will)

there are MANY 5-passenger cars that will go further than 100KM on 15
liters of fuel, but not may that will go 100KM on 4.5 liters of fuel,
if 1.5 is the average load of the car.

The 380 will probably be the least expensive long haul plane flying,
IF they can use the majority of the seats.

A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.

And my wife's old mini-mini van used to get 38 mpg. Now that it has
near 200,000 miles 262,000 km it doesn't do quite so well. It
probably takes the extra gas to pump out all that oil.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process the
passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties carried
out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now available, it is
entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc. One immigration
officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing for the non
straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there is
often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago the
United flight was half full

"Dave" wrote in message
...


A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process
the passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties
carried out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now
available, it is entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc.
One immigration officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing
for the non straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there
is often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago
the United flight was half full


In those 11 years I have lived in Hong Kong I have only experienced once a
plane being only about half full.

Nik

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:17:11 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:



A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process the
passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties carried
out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now available, it is
entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc. One immigration
officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing for the non
straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there is
often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago the
United flight was half full


This is why so many Americans are so sceptical of the market for the
380. They mostly see small aircraft, empty flights, airlines in
financial problems. Go to airports in Europe, Asia and you see 744s
lined up, and as you say get on the flights and they are packed.
Traffic on the Europe-Asia-Aus/NZ routes is booming, within Europe
there is steady growth, while it is declining on the North Atlantic.
--==++AJC++==--

AJC wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:17:11 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:


A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process the
passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties carried
out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now available, it is
entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc. One immigration
officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing for the non
straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there is
often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago the
United flight was half full



This is why so many Americans are so sceptical of the market for the
380. They mostly see small aircraft, empty flights, airlines in
financial problems. Go to airports in Europe, Asia and you see 744s
lined up, and as you say get on the flights and they are packed.
Traffic on the Europe-Asia-Aus/NZ routes is booming, within Europe
there is steady growth, while it is declining on the North Atlantic.
--==++AJC++==--


Actually I haven't seen many small aircraft and no empty flights in the
US for the past several years. The problems are a lack of revenue and
not a lack of passengers. Now finding passengers wanting to fly limited
routes so as to fly a 380 that may be a problem.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


AJC wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:17:11 -0000, "Dave"
wrote:


A friend went to Alaska recently in a 747. He commented that they
could have put that many passengers in a commuter. OTOH when my wife
came back from New Zealand last year, every seat was full. The ones
in front of her had three air sick kids which made it a memorable 13
hours.

The one flight probably didn't pay for the taxi time, but the other
probably did quite well.


No surprise Singapore airlines is the launch customer and that the other
leading customers are all major flyers from Europe to the East. These
flights all tend to be full. I have yet to do a flight where the airplane
has not been chockablock full. They will fill the A380 however many seats
they put in then on these routes.
The major issue will be how quickly the airports will be able to process
the passengers. I would not be surprised to see some immigration duties
carried out on board the aircraft and with the satellite links now
available, it is entirely feasible to link to immigration databases etc.
One immigration officer could happily handle 600 passengers even allowing
for the non straight forward ones over an 10-12 hour period.
Now if an airline offered that service then they would get my business.


This is in contrast with flights from Europe to North America where there
is often empty seats. Last September coming back to London from Chicago
the United flight was half full


This is why so many Americans are so sceptical of the market for the
380. They mostly see small aircraft, empty flights, airlines in
financial problems. Go to airports in Europe, Asia and you see 744s
lined up, and as you say get on the flights and they are packed.
Traffic on the Europe-Asia-Aus/NZ routes is booming, within Europe
there is steady growth, while it is declining on the North Atlantic.
--==++AJC++==--


Actually I haven't seen many small aircraft and no empty flights in the US
for the past several years. The problems are a lack of revenue and not a
lack of passengers. Now finding passengers wanting to fly limited routes
so as to fly a 380 that may be a problem.

a good reason 380 will not be seen much in the US but on the Europe/ Asia /
Aus NZ run they will be in big demand. You can see it in the list of initial
customers. It is a pretty narrow channel but it is fearsomely busy and the
380 will do well.

Given than many people in the US never travel outside the country, it is
possible they don't understand that. Only about 10% of Americans have
passports. In the US its smaller planes to little places, its a different
market entirely. After all by the time you get to somewhere like Rapid City
from say London the planes have got progressive smaller and smaller. If the
journey has not eroded your will to live then the destination will.

Whereas flying down the Europe Australia channel, there is only an small
amount of transferring to be done to or from the main hubs and even then you
may be in bigger planes.

Dave wrote:
Given than many people in the US never travel outside the country, it is
possible they don't understand that. Only about 10% of Americans have
passports. In the US its smaller planes to little places, its a different
market entirely.


It would be interesting to find out what percentage of US intl traffic
originates from very large cities like New York, Chicago, LAX, from the
mediaum cities like Boston, San Francisco, Houston/Dallas, and from
out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere cities like Otumwah Iowa.

My guess is that people who live in New York have no problems seing the
380 as filling a need, the people in medium cities don't see a need for
the 380, and the people out in the boon dock probably do see the need
since they are forced to connect through a large city anyways.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

Only about 10% of Americans have passports.

Try doubling that and you'll be accurate.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
Actually I haven't seen many small aircraft and no empty flights in the
US for the past several years. The problems are a lack of revenue and
not a lack of passengers. Now finding passengers wanting to fly limited
routes so as to fly a 380 that may be a problem.

You don't get it. There are markets where demand is high. High enough
that the USA airlines, instead of getting bigger planes, put multiple
flights one after the other because they philosophically refuse to fly a
big plane. Trans-atlantic flights don't need much frequency becayse the
window is not that big. In the evening, you can run on big flight and it
won't affect passenger's schedules, especially if it means you get the
prefered landing slot at LHR to allow the right connections.

Southwest's "one plane fits all", has already been broken since WN has
737s of different sizes.

Secondly, it is also its achile's heel. Right now, ON AVERAGE,
Southwest's policy works out with costs that are lower than the legacy
carriers. Not so much because the 737 is a better plane for its whole
network, but simply because Southwest is better runned, better managed,
and has better staff. (costs less, does more).

However, if you were to clone Southwest, and then make changes to that
clone so that it would sharply focus its fleet to have the most
efficient aircraft for a specific route and be able to manage that fleet
properly, the cloned Southwest would be able to have lower costs on many
routes compared to the original Southwest, and more importantly, would
be able to serve markets that the current Southwest can't serve.

So, take AA for instance on its JFK-LHR route. Because it operates a
large number of flights, its average crew/pax ratio is higher than
airlines that operate fewer flights with bigger planes. So AA's costs
have to be higher on that route.

Similarly, because AA lacks 747s, it can't really serve asia well, nor
the south pacific, and must rely on its Oneword partners.

Consider the case of Virgin. It started off with a few aircraft that
were extremely well focused on the routes it wanted to fly and it was
succesful and grew from there.

AA is too big and wants to apply one-plane-fits-all for its intl flights
to simplify its fleet. But that means that individual flighst are not
operated at best possible efficiency, especially on routes where you
have someone like Virgin that does operate at best efficiency for that route.


Yes, there are compelling arguments to reduce aircraft types in a fleet.
But when your 777s used domestically are different from those on
atlantic and different from those used in pacific, does that really give
you much in terms of fleet flexibility ? The minute you change seat
assignments due to aircraft change, you get the same headaches.

On long hauls though, there is a compelling argument in favour of using
1 plane type on a route. Why ? So that at your remote base, any pilot
currently staying there is able to take the next flight back should one
crew be incapacitated etc.


Having fewer plane types may simplify fleet management and maintenance.
But it also means that your network does not operate at its most
efficient level because you're not using the best aircraft for your
routes, you're using an aircraft that is average for your average route.

What happens when for each route you operate, there is a smaller airline
that operates a far more efficient aircraft for that route ? Then none
of your flighst are competitive, even though on paper, your fleet is
well managed.