End of the road for 747s?

http://www.airlinecapital.com/oldnew.pdf

A intersting link

Does anyone have any other operating costs comparisons ??

Virgin engineers will tell you the same story. They all hated the bus when they first arrived as they had worked solely on Boeings for years. Now they claim they prefer the (un)plug and play style of bus maintenance that allows you to swap a rack in the avionics bay so that a fault can be taken to a workshop for repair while the aircraft gets on its way. TCX/JMC engineers were largely pro-bus as well. Many BA engineers are not so keen but then you don’t get much more of a bunch of entrenched Boeing men than there (likewise for many established american carriers)! Darned new fangled machinery…!

From mechanics I’ve talked to a 737 might be in D-check a bit longer but you won’t see her until the next one where sa the A320 will be back before you know it.

I have some stats on this. It is true that the 320 will be back in the shop sooner however the check takes FAR less time. The overall statistics show that the bus pays more visits to the workshop however the total days out of operational service (per year) are typically only 70% compared to an equivalent Boeing.

True, but eventually an airline will own that aircraft. Northwest owns their 200+ DC-9’s outright, no leases to pay or anything. Every penny they earn on a ticket is their’s. Imagine if they had opted for a more efficient aircraft 30 years ago. What would have given them a bigger return over the last 3 decades, a lower lease rate for 10 years with higher operating costs or a higher lease rate for 10 years but the benefit of a lower operating cost for the next 20+ years?

Plus a lease doesn’t release a company from the burden of competing against their rivals and that is all about efficiency. A company pays $20,000 a month (a fabricated number) no matter how much they fly so it’s in their interest to fly that airplane as much as they can for those 30 days with the most passengers and with the lowest operating cost to get the largest return from that $20,000 price tag. Having a lower operating cost allows them to either a) charge less for a ticket than then an airline with a higher operating cost or b) charge the same amount and pocket extra profit due to a greater return from that lower operating cost.

All very true.

However I doubt that most decision makers have even a 20 year planning horizon, let alone 30 years. I’ve known CFO’s who limit themselves to 5 years.

It’s all part of a big, big, horrible calculation.

Initial capital outlay, monthly cash outflow on interest (less tax saved due to relief on the interest) vs. the “technical” issues such as maint. down time, mechanic-hours per aircraft per year (future labour costs are considered here), spare parts, and clearly also the ultimate fuel bill.

With so many variables, exactly which is the more efficient aircraft is very hard to determine.

Remember, efficiency is not just a “this plane uses less fuel” issue. It’s all about which choice ultimately is the most profitable. Fuel, despite all the hype over the cost, is not that crucial – it’s only one of many factors to be considered.

How about a totally different factor: if we choose the 737NG, it will take (say) 4 years for our whole order to be delivered and in service. The A320 would take 3 years 2 months (say). What is the extra cashflow involved with that timing difference? What if, on the other hand,

I just find it depressing that so many people have such a simplistic view of the matter. There is no generic correct choice. A or B, the decision is not easy and does not just come down to gross headline statistics like the ICAO report someone is so keen on. All factors are important, since they all affect the bottom line. Fobbing issues off by saying they are “market factors” etc. is rubbish. If it affects the bottom line, it merits consideration.

Well in this document are more things who cant be true

But highly unrealistic. A 3 engined 60ies plane consuming more fuel then a A320 ?

Tis there in black and white 😉 or Blue and white… depending what your reading lol

I find it hard to believe that a 727-200 costs the same ammount of fuel per block hour as a A320.

😮

No, No…let’s “theorise” here, What are Airbus doing, saying, that persuades airlines to buy their aircraft that Boeing isn’t doing? Selling ‘n’ amount of units at a lower cost of the competitor is one thing, but what else are they doing? There must be something, some incentive perhaps?

I think their is alot more to the whole “Efficency” and “cost” than meets our eye, or we will ever get to know. Bottom line is Airbus is sayign their product is better, Boeing is saying their product is better. Both manipulate the statistics to make theirs appear far superior. It’s not down to what aircraft is better, or faster,etc – but what sales team is better…

Down to the sales team! Indeed.

The figures I linked to, save for the last link which is more just FYI, are collated from sources impartial to either Boeing or Airbus.

Might I add, for the amount of Airbus’s going around, they can’t be ‘that’ bad as you make out Sandy…

Haven’t said anything bad about Airbus here. Merely posting facts and figures. If these show Airbus aren’t as good as what is publicly made of them so be it, personaly I think its all in how you perceive the information. Remember, impartial, official facts, not mine.

Yes, the A340-600 figures quoted in the ICAO doc (dates 2000) seems to go by what Airbus had forcast for it, seeing as it wasn’t available then. Of course, we all know it fell short of the forcasts… so you can make you own minds up about that. What is of interest here (in this particular thread) are the figures that it shows for the A320 and B737NG.

i only copy the from your document. You say it is true, ok now its officel: The A-340 are the best long-haul aircrafts 😀

If this information true i am happy that the A340 are more effizent as the 777 and 747.How stuppid the airlines are who took the Dc-9 out of service because it is less expensive as newer models.

How stupid are Boeing? They make with the 777 a plane who have higer fuel costs as the old L-1011. And why 737NG? The 737-700 is the same aircraft as the 737-300
😉 😀

Its funny. Ok, but if you think it is true….

Or perhaps your interpretation is flawd.

Oh Sandy, dont start insulting people who like Airbuses again please.

I know for a fact Matthew doesen’t have any bias towards either company, and you can see by his avatar he likes the 717 and has also expressed his liking of the 757 in his avatar/signature before.

Can we keep this friendly? 🙂 Its only a discussion.

No insults what so ever mate.

The facts I linked to are true, they are also independant and I was given the links by someone who prefers MD 80’s over anything else. Can’t get more impartial than that!
Accept the truth folks 🙂 The 737 has won this round.

If this information true i am happy that the A340 are more effizent as the 777 and 747.How stuppid the airlines are who took the Dc-9 out of service because it is less expensive as newer models.

How stupid are Boeing? They make with the 777 a plane who have higer fuel costs as the old L-1011. And why 737NG? The 737-700 is the same aircraft as the 737-300
😉 😀

Its funny. Ok, but if you think it is true….

Oh Sandy, dont start insulting people who like Airbuses again please.

I know for a fact Matthew doesen’t have any bias towards either company, and you can see by his avatar he likes the 717 and has also expressed his liking of the 757 in his avatar/signature before.

Can we keep this friendly? 🙂 Its only a discussion.

The L1011 is most likely more efficient than the MD-11 as a whole.
The MD-11 was a disaster in terms of a pax airliner, bad range, fuel burn and generaly bad economice. All because Md didn’t design a new wing!.

Thats beside the matter at hand. These are official facts. I know you Airbus fans are finding it hard to swallow, but facts are facts 😎

Now who can’t take the truth.

It IS true.

and the 737-300 is the same aircraft as the 737-700?

and the old Dc-9 and L-1011 effizenter as the (new) Md-80 and Md-11?

:p

Hey, I am curious about those figures, the A320 has less scheduled down-time than a comparable B737. For instance, I believe in AW BAMG quoted 30 days downtime for a D-Check on the B737, yet only 15 days downtime for an A320? That’s an extra 15 days that the A320 is in the air making money.

I jest of course…

From mechanics I’ve talked to a 737 might be in D-check a bit longer but you won’t see her until the next one where sa the A320 will be back before you know it.