Range needed for widebody

I still disagree.

If Roissy had been “slot limited”, SQ would not have left 3 slots empty. They could have gone from 10x 777-300ER to 7x 380 and 3x 777-300ER.

They did not. Which proves that Roissy is not slot limited. And that A380 is not limited to slot limited airports.

And what of the home port?
The flights to and from Roissy don’t just appear from thin air, land, take off and vanish again.

You are taking one route and making a comparison on an entire market on it. And even then, you’re leaving out 50% of it!

Besides, I did not say there was no market. I said I believe there is a limited market, one that might not allow for enough A380s to sell in order to break even and generate positive cash flow.

That’s not disagreement, but actualy agreement with my opinion

I still disagree.

If Roissy had been “slot limited”, SQ would not have left 3 slots empty. They could have gone from 10x 777-300ER to 7x 380 and 3x 777-300ER.

They did not. Which proves that Roissy is not slot limited. And that A380 is not limited to slot limited airports.

That’s not disagreement, but actualy agreement with my opinion

I thought the same thing.

I think that the following questions are pertinent and would figure amongst the code in an Airline’s gee-whiz economic software:

At what load factors are the various aircraft running?
Are we turning away customers?
What is the break even load factor for the route and the aircraft type*?
Does the airline downsize the airplane in the off season?
AOG time (reliability) for different types.
[Please add some more variables for choosing type]

*note that the Airline’s other overheads also influence the break even load factor.

How many Airlines posted a net profit in 2009?

SQ disagrees. They have the slots for 10 weekly flights to Roissy. On 777-300ER no less.

They left 3 of them empty, cut their costs and added 20 % seats by changing 7 slots to A380.

That’s not disagreement, but actualy agreement with my opinion

Then the 747 became what it was designed to be, a long haul work horse that was primarily bought because of it’s until recently unrivalled range.

How did 747-400 range compare against A340-200? B777-200ER?

By it’s own design, the A380 is limited to a single market, high density slot restricted markets. There are only so many of those.

SQ disagrees. They have the slots for 10 weekly flights to Roissy. On 777-300ER no less.

They left 3 of them empty, cut their costs and added 20 % seats by changing 7 slots to A380.

No post without a statement about the A380: The market of that aircraft seems increasingly questionable, however there is a market, and especially if Boeing discontinues B747-8I (which I consider a likely event in 2010), the A380 will generate positive money.
The big money is earned in the widebody sector.

Personaly I don’t think the A380 will ever break even. It’s taken nigh on 10 years to get the 250 odd orders.
The days of buying a big jet for pomp and ceremony are over for 95% of the worlds airlines. That’s what most of them did with the 747 when it was introduced. They used them on routes that never filled them, until the oil crisis. Then the 747 became what it was designed to be, a long haul work horse that was primarily bought because of it’s until recently unrivalled range.
But now the big twinjets have the same range or more, are more efficient as you have less seats to fill and they are selling in numbers that are not to be sniffed at. ETOPS has effectively opened up the way around the globe for the Twinjets, hence the demise in sales of the 747 and A340 series.

By it’s own design, the A380 is limited to a single market, high density slot restricted markets. There are only so many of those.
I think that air travel as we know it will be gone, before aircraft the size of the A380 becomes as numerous as the 747 once was/ is.
By that I mean we’ll have moved onto other fuels and the A380 will be obsolete with its kerosine burning engines. It’ll be replaced by a plane much the same size or larger running on he new fuel.
The same goes for the 747-8i. It will only sell to those who have markets where the 747 fits in perfectly, probably to airlines that already operate 747s and do not neet anything bigger. The Cargo version will be far more prosperous though.
But, make no mistake, the 747-8 and the A380 will never reach the number of sales the 747 models 100 to 400 reached.

Again, personal opinion.

One reason for popularity is the ability to re-sell an aircraft. The larger the range, the higher the residual value. Many airlines operate aircraft which have much more range than actually needed.

The B777-300ER are becoming B747 replacements.

What precisely do A330-200 replace?
B777-300ER and A330-200 are the two widebodies that are selling.

Unfortunately, both manufacturers are increasing the range of their latest products. The B787 for example as basic version has a massive range, which makes its use for a route like Western Europe to US East Coast questionable. Same with the A350, but I doubt we will ever see an A350-800 lifting off (shrinks never sell).

B787-300 has abnormally short range, but is not a shrink from 787-800. While A350-800 has hardly longer range than A350-900.

Is there a need for a real A350 shrink, with a smaller wing?

When 747-400 came out in the first place (in 1989), the closest competitor was MD-11. 602 cm wide, 61,7 m long. Smaller than B777-200, and range 12 200 km.
747-400 has better range than MD-11, bigger capacity and lower costs per seat. But if an airline has requirements which MD-11 could not meet (and therefore the airline needed 747-400), this does not mean A340-300, B777-200ER or B777-300 might not meet those requirements.

The B747 was ordered for many reasons, I guess some orders would not be placed in current competitive environment. Look at the Asian carriers, most of them were state-owned in the 1990ies. Did those carriers actually fill the B747?

Look at the North American carriers, they operated numeruous B747 Classics, but only very few -400.

No post without a statement about the A380: The market of that aircraft seems increasingly questionable, however there is a market, and especially if Boeing discontinues B747-8I (which I consider a likely event in 2010), the A380 will generate positive money.
The big money is earned in the widebody sector.

One reason for popularity is the ability to re-sell an aircraft. The larger the range, the higher the residual value. Many airlines operate aircraft which have much more range than actually needed.

The B777-300ER are becoming B747 replacements.

Unfortunately, both manufacturers are increasing the range of their latest products. The B787 for example as basic version has a massive range, which makes its use for a route like Western Europe to US East Coast questionable. Same with the A350, but I doubt we will ever see an A350-800 lifting off (shrinks never sell).

When 747-400 came out in the first place (in 1989), the closest competitor was MD-11. 602 cm wide, 61,7 m long. Smaller than B777-200, and range 12 200 km.
747-400 has better range than MD-11, bigger capacity and lower costs per seat. But if an airline has requirements which MD-11 could not meet (and therefore the airline needed 747-400), this does not mean A340-300, B777-200ER or B777-300 might not meet those requirements.

But then why is 777-300ER so popular?

IIRC quite a few have been ordered by Asian carriers that used them to replace 747’s…..fulfilling the requirement mentioned earlier by eightandseven. When one considers that 1400 747s have been ordered/built, 400 odd frames isn’t really that impressive.

The market is telling me that if you get much beyond 300-350, the orders start falling off….I think this is precisely what you have identified with the 777-300 non-ER. The A330 is perfectly sized for the current market IMHO.

But then why is 777-300ER so popular?

If 773 is still too big (620 cm wide, 73,9 m long) then what is the right size?

777-200 (620 cm wide, 63,7 m long)?
Airbus 330-300 (564 cm wide, 63,6 m long)?
Airbus 330-200 (564 cm wide, 58,8 m long)?
Boeing 787-800/300 (577 cm wide, 56,7 m long)?
Boeing 787-900 (577 cm wide, 62,8 m long)?
Airbus 350-800 (596 cm wide, 60,7 m long)?
Airbus 350-900 (596 cm wide, 67,0 m long)?
Airbus 350-1000 (596 cm wide, 74,0 m long)?
Boeing 767-400 (503 cm wide, 61,4 m long)?
Boeing 767-200 (503 cm wide, 48,5 m long)?

I would classify by seats…..and 2-300 seats seems to be about right to me. Perhaps slightly more than 300 in a high density config or a stretched airplane. The market is telling me that if you get much beyond 300-350, the orders start falling off….I think this is precisely what you have identified with the 777-300 non-ER. The A330 is perfectly sized for the current market IMHO.

I predict thousands of airplanes will be sold in the 220-325 seat range over the next 25 years….at least 2000 each of B787 and A350.

But the official range of B777-200ER from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html
is 14 200 km.

B777-200ER has 412 deliveries and just 19 orders. A330-200, with clearly smaller capacity and shorter range, has 370 deliveries and 163 orders.

What makes A330-200 so much better than either B777-200ER or any model of 767?

So what?
Different planes, different purposes.

What is the range differential between a DC-3 and the Lockheed L1011? How do the seat costs compare?
The DC-3 has sold in its thousands, so is `obviously` the better plane then? Right?

But the official range of B777-200ER from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html
is 14 200 km.

B777-200ER has 412 deliveries and just 19 orders. A330-200, with clearly smaller capacity and shorter range, has 370 deliveries and 163 orders.

What makes A330-200 so much better than either B777-200ER or any model of 767?

Hello,

Hell, the B737NG has 5177 orders, with 2083 orders remaining. Why is it so much better than either B777-200ER or any model of 767?

The problem the 777-200ER has now that those carriers that can justify the size and range have ordered it. There are going to be only top-up orders placed by these carriers. The next niche is the ultra-long-range 777-200LR, for carriers who need the range (and there is very few) and those that require more payload lift. The 777-200 has/is being replaced by the A330-300X which is a much lighter airframe, with similar capacity and range. The 767 has been killed by the A330 with increase cargo capacity and range – the very same reasons why the 777-300ER has effectively end the A340-600.

What makes A330-200 so much better than either B777-200ER or any model of 767?

What do you mean by “better”?

The 777-200ER seems about right.
BA bought those instead of more 747-400s and I beleive several airlines went for the 772ER to replace their 747s as they got old.

But the official range of B777-200ER from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html
is 14 200 km.

B777-200ER has 412 deliveries and just 19 orders. A330-200, with clearly smaller capacity and shorter range, has 370 deliveries and 163 orders.

What makes A330-200 so much better than either B777-200ER or any model of 767?

I should point clarify something I said incorrectly earlier. The B767 opened more non-traditional hub to point service than it did point to point. I am sorry that I said otherwise. A more accurate way to describe the fragmentation brought about by ETOPS and the success of the B767 (which paved the way for the 777 and 330 btw) was that traditional hubs have been bypassed increasingly. This has made the Very Large Airplane less and less desirable since the hub to hub flying is less.

Boeing believes that the 787 is going to fragment the Pacific market like the 767 did in the Atlantic. In other words, bypassing Narita for example for flights from the U.S. and going directly to smaller Japanese cities or further into Asia without stopping at the gateway hub.

I agree with you, but there is an argument for both B787 and the A380-type aircraft. I consider the A350 to be more of a competitor to the B777, and more aimed at Emirates. I cannot see the established hub-to-hub flying disappearing, and thus the A380 will be needed to reduce congestion in the skies around these areas.

If 773 is still too big (620 cm wide, 73,9 m long) then what is the right size?

777-200 (620 cm wide, 63,7 m long)?
Airbus 330-300 (564 cm wide, 63,6 m long)?
Airbus 330-200 (564 cm wide, 58,8 m long)?
Boeing 787-800/300 (577 cm wide, 56,7 m long)?
Boeing 787-900 (577 cm wide, 62,8 m long)?
Airbus 350-800 (596 cm wide, 60,7 m long)?
Airbus 350-900 (596 cm wide, 67,0 m long)?
Airbus 350-1000 (596 cm wide, 74,0 m long)?
Boeing 767-400 (503 cm wide, 61,4 m long)?
Boeing 767-200 (503 cm wide, 48,5 m long)?

The 777-200ER seems about right.
BA bought those instead of more 747-400s and I beleive several airlines went for the 772ER to replace their 747s as they got old.