The aircraft operates on a daily Singapore-Sydney service (ATWOnline, Oct. 26), logging some 14 block hr. each day, and achieved an 80% load factor in its first month of operations. For the coming Christmas season it will be 100%, Chew said.
In addition, the 12 first class Singapore Airlines Suites are selling very well, he revealed. “I suspect that our friendly competition is an enthusiastic customer,” he laughed. In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. “In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s.”
More of the story can be found here…. http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=11132
Not bad, the A380 is even exceeding Airbus calculations, which said it would acheive between a 15-17% better fuel burn than the B744.
And lets not forget….The early build A380’s were 6tons overweight, but with a series of weight reductions, on later build models, that fuel burn should increase a little bit more.
Another little note…. Mr Seng (SIA Chairman) calling the 747-8i “yesterday’s best plane, full of warmed-up old technology in the presence of the Boeing CEO.” Now that has to hurt.
By: Whiskey Delta - 13th December 2007 at 16:56
I think the big comparison is Operating Cost, not just fuel savings.
By: Ship 741 - 13th December 2007 at 15:53
Its true that the seat mile costs are impressive, the block costs are also. They should be….its a “new” airplane. The seat mile costs will get even more impressive when stretched versions are built.
But that is not the end of the story…..what about acquisition costs and other operational costs (landing fees). The empty weight of the A380 is significantly more than the 744, and the high density airports at which it can be expected to operate are reputed to have some of the highest landing fees on the planet (sorry I don’t have data to support that, but it is commonly accepted). The combination of high cost airports and higher weight are a double whammy. Airlines rarely fill their seats more than 80% consistently, but the higher weight airframe remains.
Edit: just looked up the data, the difference in empty weight between A388 and B744 is about 204,000lb, or the maximum takeoff weight of an A321, not insignificant.
By: chornedsnorkack - 13th December 2007 at 15:35
Interesting is that SIA actually seems to keep the economy and business at current (=B747-400) levels
Economy seats: B747 has 313, A380 has 399
Business seats: B747 has 50, A380 has 60.
SIA has B777-300ER, too, For some reason, they do not seem to want to replace the 3x daily 747-400 747-400 with, say, 4x daily 777-300ER… how does fuel burn compare?
By: Schorsch - 13th December 2007 at 15:08
20 % subtracted from 471 is 376,8. In other words, A380 can fly the same routes as the 375 seat B747-400 while burning just 0,24% more fuel.
This should put to rest the question of A380 being too big for any routes where 747-400 already flies. If you cannot fill the 500 seats but you do currently fly 747 on the route, you can just fly an A380 and leave the extra seats empty or not install them to begin with – you are not suffering any extra cost.
The problem I see is that many airlines rather turn to reduced seats and much lower fuel burn, or in other words a B777-300ER. Interesting is that SIA actually seems to keep the economy and business at current (=B747-400) levels and just increases the cattle class, which they can put on the market with much more aggressive prices.
By: chornedsnorkack - 13th December 2007 at 13:38
The aircraft operates on a daily Singapore-Sydney service (ATWOnline, Oct. 26), logging some 14 block hr. each day, and achieved an 80% load factor in its first month of operations. For the coming Christmas season it will be 100%, Chew said.
Which is interesting… on the EIS flight, they failed to achieve 97% load factor.
In addition, the 12 first class Singapore Airlines Suites are selling very well, he revealed. “I suspect that our friendly competition is an enthusiastic customer,” he laughed. In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. “In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s.”
20 % subtracted from 471 is 376,8. In other words, A380 can fly the same routes as the 375 seat B747-400 while burning just 0,24% more fuel.
This should put to rest the question of A380 being too big for any routes where 747-400 already flies. If you cannot fill the 500 seats but you do currently fly 747 on the route, you can just fly an A380 and leave the extra seats empty or not install them to begin with – you are not suffering any extra cost.
Sign In
December 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm