Economical aircraft

I should like to weigh in and emphasize that I was speaking in general terms. Airline seating does vary widely and exceptions to generalizations can always be found.

Furthermore, I would submit that airlines like Sinapore and Emirates are hardly representative of the majority of carriers in the world. I would place them at the very high end of the quality scale. Premium seating, meals, service, etc., they set a very, very high standard in pretty much everything they do.

Having said that, if I’m running an airline that is operating 380s, 747s, and 777-300 side by side, I can’t see any way that the 777 is not the least cost operator.

WRT to the comments about “other costs,” I have looked for public, current, data on landing fees and have found that airports apparently aren’t keen to have that information readily available to the public. I’m not saying it’s not there, but I haven’t found it yet. And then again, there are all the hidden costs…..how much does Lufthansa pay per month for a gate lease in FRA verus AA in DFW versus Air France in CDG? In fact, do they even have gate leases or do they have some other scheme? The devil is in the details, and this part of the discussion starts to diverge from the initial question about which airliner is most efficient.

Personally, I’ve always been kind of intrigued by head to head competitions, and there have been several (the 744 or 748 vs A380 is really not much of a comparison, they are very different animals, just look at the wing area difference). In particular, the four great airliner competitions that jump out at me are: 707 vs DC-8, DC-9 vs 737 Legacy, L1011 vs DC-10, and A320 vs 737NG. In each of these cases there was very close head to head competition and many interesting aspects. Often they used very similar engines, in some cases virtually the same with only a dash number change. And some of the airplane models were very, very close in terms of capability, for example the DC-9-32 and the 737-200. I’ve also found it interesting that the 737 Legacy was not the leader, but a response to the DC-9, in the same way the NG was only built as a response to the A320. Many observers always think of Boeing as a leader, and in each of those cases they were second to the marketplace.

Singapore operates A380, B747-400 and B777-300ER, on exact same routes. They should know best how the costs compare.

Yes, but the other costs are what I was wondering about.
here are probably other costs invisable to all but the bean counters…things the public doesn’t think about.

Quite.
It would be interesting to know the other factors that work against very large aircraft in addition to landing fees…extra crew costs, insurance (since it carries more, I’d guess it costs more to cover), airframe financing, etc.

No doubt the 380 would be very economical on some routes…but like the 747… it would be a killer unless you’re very nearly full most of the time.

Singapore operates A380, B747-400 and B777-300ER, on exact same routes. They should know best how the costs compare.

And they have spoken. A380-800 has 20 % lower fuel burn per seat compared to B747-400.

Seeing how SQ B747-400 has 375 seats and A380-800 471, it follows that the fuel burn per trip is 0,5 % higher on A380.

But, it is important to remember that fuel burn per seat is only one measure of “efficiency.” The Block Fuel burn on the A380 is the highest because it is the biggest airplane. Also, landing fees are much higher because the airplane weight so much more (it’s empty weight is about the weight of a fully loaded and fueled A321 at max takeoff weight). If the airplane is not full, you are lugging around an awful lot of weight for all those empty seats.

Quite.
It would be interesting to know the other factors that work against very large aircraft in addition to landing fees…extra crew costs, insurance (since it carries more, I’d guess it costs more to cover), airframe financing, etc.

No doubt the 380 would be very economical on some routes…but like the 747… it would be a killer unless you’re very nearly full most of the time.

It is not. The number of passenger seats in any given aeroplane is an objective fact. It is not a matter of opinion.

Also true.

And this says some B747s have more seats than any A380s.

However, how many seats an airplane of a given model should have is a matter of subjective opinion of the airline.

….Seat number is a highly subjective matter. …

It is not. The number of passenger seats in any given aeroplane is an objective fact. It is not a matter of opinion.

I don’t have data in front of me but I believe the A380 has the lowest fuel burn per seat by a considerable margin (approx. 15-20%). This is because it has the most seats.

No, it does not. Seat number is a highly subjective matter. No A380 in service has over 489 seats (the Emirates frame). There is a 747 in service with 587 seats (Corsair).

I don’t have data in front of me but I believe the A380 has the lowest fuel burn per seat by a considerable margin (approx. 15-20%). This is because it has the most seats. Thus, Airbus often advertises it’s “cost advantage” over the smaller 747-8.

But, it is important to remember that fuel burn per seat is only one measure of “efficiency.” The Block Fuel burn on the A380 is the highest because it is the biggest airplane. Also, landing fees are much higher because the airplane weight so much more (it’s empty weight is about the weight of a fully loaded and fueled A321 at max takeoff weight). If the airplane is not full, you are lugging around an awful lot of weight for all those empty seats.

Most large International airlines have been choosing to order many planes for the “meat” of the market, ie, the middle of the seating range for the last 10-20 years. Thus the large numbers of 767’s, A330’s, and 777’s sold. These airplanes have the range to fly many of the long routes (4-5000NM), and are all twins so they are relatively efficient, but they are also much easier to fill year round than the 747 and A380. Airlines limit their possible upside profit potential by avoiding the larger planes, but also limit their risk to some extent.

Generally, what is the most efficient (in terms of lb/hr/pax or otherwise) wide bodied aircraft (in service i.e. other than the 787)? Is it the A380?

How many passengers do you need to move?
How far do you need to move those passengers?

Those are the basic criteria but there are plenty of others. (ie How high is your terrain?) If you have 150 passengers to move 2000 miles your best suited aircraft would be different than if you only had 50 passengers to move. Speed also plays a part as a faster aircraft over a 2000 mile circuit would permit more completed flight segments in a given period. The speeds of jet airliners are close enough to not really be an issue, the biggest difference comes when comparing turboprops vs. jet airliners.

Many factors affect fuel economy. Very long or very short routes tend to skew the results, as do winds, extra weight (for cargo or alternate fuel), and many other factors.

However, generally speaking, a common way to measure airliner efficiency is to calculate the amount of fuel burned per hour per seat. For example if a 757 is planned on a 4. 5 hour flight, and the trip burn is 35,000lb, and it is carrying 180 people, the number works out to be approx. 43 lb/hr/pax.

In general, a modern midsized turbofan powered aircraft such as the A320 series or 737NG will burn about 38-42 lb/hr/pax for a 2-4 hour flight. Often, there is very little difference between competing types, such as the A320 and NG. After all, they use exactly the same engines and are almost exactly the same size.

In general a twin (777) is more efficient than a tri (MD-11) or quad (A340). Thus the tapering off of A340 deliveries and increase of A330 orders as that program (330/340) has matured.

As mentioned, turboprop aircraft are very efficent, they burn considerably less than a jet/turbofan.

Airlines decide the specific aircraft types that to use on specific routes on the basis of demand forecasts. When they decide to enter a market, the estimate how many seats they can sell a day and at what yield. If they determine that the operation will be profitable then they operate the route. Airlines routinely change the “seat gauge” on particular days based on demand. Perhaps they are required to operate the flight seven days a week by regulatory authorites, in that case they will run a smaller airplane on slow days and run bigger airplanes on days with heavy demand.

Quite simply the Q400, nothing I know beats it for seat per mile costs on fuel burn.

78 seats
Burn 1100kg per hour at FL250
Winter operations fuel burn with temperature at ISA -10 is typically 950kg per hour
LRC fuel burn at FL250 is about 740kg per hour.

If you can fill the seats then for regional flying it is virtually unbeatable